What Teams Want: Team Leadership in the Liberal Arts Setting
Karen Berglund, Tyler Kyrola, Kyla Rathjen, and Daniel Sacerio
St. Olaf College
Sociology/Anthropology
Fall Semester 2012
Acknowledgements: A special thank you to Professor Ryan Sheppard and Teacher’s Assistant Charlotte
Bolch for their consistent guidance and support.
Abstract
Recent research shows that there are two types of team leaders that have been found to be most
effective: authoritative (one clear decision making leader) and participative (one leader who engages all
team members). Additionally, research suggests that women in non-science and technology domains
often find females to be unbalanced or inefficient and relate better to male team leaders, though this
trend is changing with an increasingly young workforce. We examined further by surveying a random
sample of undergraduates from a small liberal arts college in the Midwest and tested the hypotheses: 1)
Female students are more likely than male students to view male leaders as more effective, efficient,
and less emotional than female leaders. 2) In small teams (rather than large), students are more apt to
prefer free rein and participative leadership over authoritative leadership. Our results indicate that
female students hold female leaders in lesser regard than males, and also that authoritative leadership
is preferred in large team settings and free rein leadership in small teams.
Review of Literature
Members of the Millennial generation (also known as Generation Y) are entering the workforce at rapid
rates (Green and Roberts 2012). These workers currently are and will continue to change the way the
workplace functions, in particular concerning working in teams (Gale 2012). Many corporations and
businesses struggle with finding ways to adapt to the new expectations and opinions that young workers
bring to the workplace, as well as influence these workers with the values already present (Gilbert
2011). Green and Roberts identify four generations populating the workspace at the same time: The
Matures, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and the Millennials. The former two groups generally exhibit a
modernist (or traditional) worldview, while the latter two have more postmodern (progressive or liberal)
leanings. These non-traditionalist views are even stronger in the Millennials than Generation X
individuals. This divided workforce is recognized in research by Sarah Gale (2012) and Cahill and Sedrak
(2012), as well as numerous other researchers and those in the business world. Cahill and Sedrak claim
that members of the Millennials generation (which current undergraduate students belong to) create a
workforce that does not value “traditionalist” values of gender stereotypes, racial prejudices, or typical
workplace leadership (2012).
As they hold opinions different from previous generations, Millennials entering the workforce in
increasing numbers raise questions concerning team member personality, gender, and team cohesion
(Kline and O’Grady 2009); trust and team cohesion (Shin and Song 2010); technology use and cohesion
(Spector and Jones 2004); leadership styles (Cabrera 2009); the importance of feedback within a team
(May and Gueldenzoph 2006); and conflict management in teams (Tjosvold, Hui, Ding, and Hu 2003).
Our research focuses on the desires or expectations that Millennials have for and of their team leaders.
Examining Millennials’ views on various facets of team work dovetails with the general opinion and
conception that older generations of workers have of Generation Y: Millennials are inherently team
oriented as they have grown up and been educated with team-based learning (Shulte 2012).
Furthermore, Millennials may expect different things from their team leaders than older generations,
causing team leaders to not respect young employees and consider them poor workers, and young
employees to find business or corporate culture stifling (Green and Roberts 2012). Many workplaces are
making efforts to accommodate the opinions of Millennials (Cahill and Sedrak 2012), yet questions still
remain as to what exactly these Generation Y workers desire from their job or career.
Expectations for the Workplace
Traditionalist or modernist values relating to leaders and workplace hierarchy place emphasis on
bureaucratic management, strong vertical organization (a long chain of bosses or command), directive
or authoritative leadership, not questioning the values of the corporation, and work as purely work (not
tied up in other values). Non-traditionalist or postmodern values – those which are held and valued by
Millennials – are the opposite and often reflect progressive social trends regarding a decreased faith in
authority and viewing social norms as flexible (Green and Roberts 2012). Since there are four
generations occupying the workplace at the same time, competition between these clashing worldviews
arise as younger workers hold views that do not sit well with older workers or management (Green and
Roberts 2012). Sarah Gale further stresses the importance of building teams and leading in a manner
which accommodates both traditionalist and non-traditionalist worldviews (2012).
The beliefs of current undergraduate students may reflect this postmodern or non-traditionalist
worldview, which questions the way team leaders and leadership styles, are acted out in the workplace
(Cahill and Sedrak 2012). This creates the potential for dissatisfaction among workers and employers
and suggests that there may be expectations or anxieties that Millennials have about acting in workforce
teams, including experiencing worldviews vastly differently from their own. Older generations often
have biases against Millennials and view them as incompatible with current workplace values, lazy, or
falsely entitled (Gavatorta 2012). Adding these biases on top of existing differences between
generations and their worldviews (that may or may not be prejudiced against other generations) only
creates more possible anxieties for young individuals who are about the enter the workforce (Green and
Roberts 2012). These anxieties or expectations range from team leaders being sexist, leaders only being
concerned with their own personal professional development, and the fear that young workers will not
be taken seriously by their older colleagues.
Leadership Styles
Esin Kasapoğlu finds there are six main leadership types: authoritative, task-oriented, participative,
achievement-oriented, employee-oriented, and free rein leadership (2011). Authoritative team leaders
were defined as very directive and allowing little participation from team members in decision-making
processes while maintaining expectations of performance of members. Task-oriented team leaders are
those who assign specific tasks and work duties while closely supervising the timeliness of procedures
that are assigned. Participative team leaders are those who are approachable, friendly, and participate
in work that is assigned to team members. They also consider team members’ suggestions and input
when making decisions about the team. Achievement-oriented team leaders are those who prioritize
task completion above all else and push long-term achievements as the essential part of the teams’
work. Employee-oriented team leaders are those who are primarily concerned with the human needs of
their team members and often take steps to address those needs. Lastly, free rein team leaders are
those who maintain a ‘hands-off’ style and consider personal direction as negative. Therefore, they lead
by committee and allow team members to make decisions (2011).
Kasapoğlu discovered that two types of leaders are the most effective in his study on Turkish architects:
authoritative and participative team leaders. The Turkish architects preferred a strong leader that would
guide the team while also being a supportive leader that participates in every aspect of the team. This is
reflective of the workplace values of older generations, as the architects studied were not members of
Generation Y (Green and Roberts 2012, Kasapoğlu 2011). These types of strong team leaders will lead
and delegate while participating in work and maintain a positive work environment to motivate the
success of the team. Coincidentally, Kasapoğlu discovered that free rein leaders, which run a team on
the basis of a committee, are not considered effective, as they would hypothetically lead to a chaotic
process in the opinion of the participants (2011).
Another study by Chi, Chung, and Tsai also found participative leadership the most effective leadership
style. Their research focused on sales teams in Taiwan and how positive moods can enhance motivation,
attitudes, and behavior of a successful team (2011). These positive moods are reflective of the
participative and employee-oriented team leaders (Kasapoğlu 2011). In their sample of 85 sales teams in
Taiwan, they found positive team leaders to be effective in that they explicitly enhance team
performance through motivational, attitudinal, and behavioral team processes. Furthermore, positive
team leaders were found to be more participative, effective in maintaining a leadership role, and being
approachable while not allowing their positive atmosphere to become a deterrent from effective work
(2011). These findings support Kasapoğlu’s study in that participative leaders often motivate team
members to achieve beyond their potential as a successful team as well as maintain the team hierarchy.
Traits and Team Leaders
A developing trend in leadership theory and research is the relationship between personality traits and
emergent leadership. Kickul and Neuman (2000) note the importance of viewing leadership as a
dynamic social process and examining how specific individuals become emerging leaders in a team.
Kickul and Neuman placed college students into teams and had them complete surveys regarding traits
of the emergent leader in the group. Team performance was then compared to emergent leader traits.
They found that cognitive ability, extraversion, and openness to experience distinguished the leaders
from followers in a simulated group setting. Kickul and Neuman (2000) also acknowledged that
additional research has shown that verbal skills are predictors of emergent leadership.
Hirschfeld, Jordan, Thomas, and Feild (2008) analyzed U.S. Air Force teams who periodically assessed
their teammates via questionnaires. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness
Inventory) was the main method of measurement, which is designed to give quick, reliable and valid
measures of the five domains of adult personality. The traits measured were: agreeableness,
extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. Extraversion,
conscientiousness, and emotional stability were found to be strong indicators of team-leader
personalities, whereas high levels of openness to experience only indirectly impacted observed
leadership potentials, and therefore were not indicative of team leader personalities (Hirschfeld et al.
2008).
Hirschfeld, Jordan, Thomas and Feild (2008) and Kickul and Neuman (2000) both found extraversion to
be a leadership trait. Both studies found two additional leadership traits to extraversion, though
different in each study; Kickul and Neuman found cognitive ability and openness to experience; and
Hirschfeld, Jordan, Thomas and Feild found conscientiousness and emotional stability. The different
results generated from these studies illustrate the many methods of examining and identifying specific
traits that exist in effective leaders.
Gender and Team Leaders
Bhatia and Amati (2010) analyzed the mentoring process for women enrolled in graduate school and the
lack of other female mentors in the field of engineering. This mentoring took place both in one-on-one
settings and larger team-based settings (2010). Women, an underrepresented group in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics fields (STEM) of work, find female mentors and leaders to be
much more helpful and open in the graduate setting than male leaders, thus encouraging them to
pursue positions in STEM areas and engage in STEM work teams. It is obvious that women are valuable
team members in these science fields, as Bear and Woolley state that STEM teams are much more
effective and utilize more diplomatic decision-making processes when a balanced gender representation
is present (2011). Of course, simply because gender balanced teams are highly effective does not mean
that there are not still latent and powerful sexist tones in the workplace (Bear and Woolley 2011).
Women working in fields outside of the STEM domain, however, often relate better to male team
leaders than female leaders, finding females to be unbalanced or inefficient in comparison to male
leaders (Schieman 2008). Workers and team members of both genders felt comfortable working under a
male leader, but women felt high amounts of relational stress when working with a female superior,
meaning they felt personally judged by or held back by female leaders (2008). This female team leader
stigma may lead to decreased faith in the team’s overall success due to the prejudice that female
leaders embody negative leadership traits. However, an increasingly young workforce is slowly erasing
this gap in perception among workers acting in teams (Cabrera, Sauer, and Thomas-Hunt 2009). This
stereotyping of male or female leaders has varying levels of effectiveness, but do remain if the field of
work in question is heavily dominated by one gender or the other (2009).
Conclusion
To conclude, our literature draws comparisons from several cultures that bring diverse perspectives to
the topic of leadership. Since team leadership is such an important component of college academic
work, this literature review will be useful when expanding our study, as we will be able to use it as a
framework for our research. As the majority of our literature focuses on team leaders in the workplace,
we will have to reorient the literature to focus our questionnaire for the undergraduate setting. We see
this literature as a strong preparation as we begin to examine what traits and practices are desired in a
leader by college students, as well as any future expectations or preferences they may hold. With these
observations in mind, we plans on examining the following areas of interest:
Hypothesis 1: Female students are more likely than male students to view male leaders as more effective,
more efficient, and less emotional than female leaders.
Hypothesis 2: In small teams (rather than large) students are more apt to prefer free rein, participative
leadership over authoritative leadership.
Exploration Question 1: What traits to college students desire in team leaders?
Exploration Question 2: What anxieties and expectations do college students have regarding experiences
with team leaders in the workplace (post-college)?
METHODS
Measures
We studied college students’ gender preference of team leaders, students’ preferred leadership styles in
small and large teams, students’ preferred traits in a team leader, and students’ expectations of team
leadership after college graduation. We surveyed a random sample of students at a small, liberal arts
college in the Midwest United States during the fall of 2012. This was executed through an anonymous,
online quantitative survey questionnaire with various types of questions such as indexes, multiplechoice, and free-response. Our survey was part of a larger survey created by several other research
team exploring the topic of teamwork. Our research tested three hypotheses and was part of a broader
survey measuring numerous aspects of classroom and workplace teams, including personal views and
preparations for teamwork in future careers.
Variables
Hypothesis 1: Female students are more likely than male students to view male leaders as more effective,
efficient, and less emotional than female leaders.
For this hypothesis, the independent variable is gender and its level of measurement is nominal. We
determined gender from the demographic section of our survey where we asked respondents which
gender they classified themselves under. The response options were “male,” “female,” and “other.” The
dependent variable is a 9-item index created to determine if female students are more likely than male
students to view male leaders as more effective, efficient, and less emotional than female leaders. The
level of measurement for this hypothesis is interval/ratio. The opening question of the index states: “In
your experience with classroom teams, is each quality or behavior more typical of male team leaders or
female team leaders?” From there, nine statements that expanded on various adjectives describing
team leaders were listed, such as: “Letting me know when I have done something poorly is…,” “Acting
encouragingly towards members concerning their work on the project is…,” and “Rewarding members
for a job well done is…” The response categories consisted of a range of five of Likert scale options:
“Much more typical of male team leaders,” “Somewhat more typical of male team leaders,” “Equally
typical of male and female team leaders,” “Somewhat more typical of female team leaders,” and “Much
more typical of female team leaders.”
Hypothesis 2: In small teams (rather than large) students are more apt to prefer free rein and
participative leadership over authoritative leadership.
For this hypothesis, the independent variable is team size, and its level of measurement is nominal. The
dependent variable is leadership styles, and the level of measurement is nominal. The three leadership
styles we hypothesized about are defined as follows: free rein leadership as leaders who maintain a
‘hands off’ approach to team leadership and do not heavily engage in personal leadership, participative
leadership as leaders who are friendly and approachable while still being bureaucratic and task oriented,
and authoritative leadership as strongly bureaucratic and allowing no participation in team decisions
from team members (Kasapoğlu 2011). We surveyed this topic using two questions: “When you are part
of a small team with few members, which leadership style do you prefer?” and “When you are part of a
large team with many members, which leadership style do you prefer?“ The response categories were a
list of simplified definitions of each leadership style and the respondent was directed to choose their top
two choices. As an indicator of authoritative leadership, we used the description: “A single leader who
takes control of the team and is in charge of delegating tasks.” Additionally, as an indicator of
participative leadership, we used the description: “A single leader who engages team members and
shares responsibility with all team members.” Lastly, as an indicator of free rein leadership, we used the
description: “No defined leader, with decisions made equally by all team members.”
Additionally, we explored several other supplementary aspects of leadership. Our first exploratory topic
dealt with traits students at our college desire in a team leader. The opening question for this topic was
“Please rate your desire for the following traits in a team leader…” The traits were: “Indecisive,”
“Enthusiastic,” “Perfectionist,” “Communicative,” “Stubborn,” “Conscientious,” “Reliable,” and “MicroManaging.” We asked survey participants to respond to a series of Likert scale statements with the
following response options: “Very Undesirable,” “Somewhat Undesirable,” “Neutral,” “Somewhat
Desirable,” and “Very Desirable.”
The second exploratory topic dealt with college students’ anxieties and expectations regarding
experiences with team leaders in the workplace after graduation. The opening survey question for this
topic was: “For this question, think about team leaders you might have in the future, in your post-St.
Olaf workplaces. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements. After I
graduate and enter the workplace, I believe I will encounter…” The various encounters were listed as,
“Team leaders who are more passionate about their work than team leaders in the undergraduate
setting,” “Team leaders who are more concerned with their individual professional development (i.e.
promotion or salary) than the team’s success,” “Team leaders who are sexist,” and “Team leaders who
underestimate my abilities.” To measure this, we asked all participants to respond by choosing one from
a series of Likert scale options. We used the following response categories for each statement: “Strongly
Agree,” “Agree,” “No Opinion,” “Disagree,” and “Strongly Disagree.”
Sample and Sampling
For our research, our target population was the approximately 3,000-member student body at St. Olaf
College, a Lutheran-affiliated private liberal arts college in the Upper Midwest. The student population
at this college is predominantly white and composed mainly of students between age 18 and 22. From
the target population, we excluded students studying abroad, non-full-time students, students who
participated in our focus groups, students currently enrolled in our research methods course, students
under the age of 18, and our classroom teaching assistant.
Because of the rule of thumb for sample size recommendations, where a sample size of 30% is used for
populations of 1,000 and 10% for populations of approximately 10,000 (Neuman 2012), we sought a
sample size between these two of around 25%. To obtain data, we sent an invitation to an electronic
version of our survey to a simple random sample of 707 people. We chose a simple random sampling
method because of its speed and reliability in gathering a representative sample (Neuman 2012). A
simple random sample is an unbiased sampling method in which each individual is chosen randomly
from the larger population and has the same probability of being chosen at any stage of the process
(Neuman 2012). The sample was generated randomly via computer from the sampling frame. Susan
Canon, the Director of Institutional Research at the St. Olaf College Review Board, drew our sample and
sent them an invitation to our survey via email.
Participation in the survey was voluntary, and we provided incentives for the students asked to
participate, in order to increase our response rate. After completing the survey, student participants had
the option to enter their name in a drawing for gift certificates to the school bookstore. Ten names were
randomly selected, and each individual received a gift card worth $20. In an attempt to increase the
response rate, through our response period, we sent a reminder e-mail encouraging participation in our
survey.
St. Olaf students received invitations via their email accounts in mid-November, asking them to take our
survey online. Prospective respondents had about a week to complete the survey. Out of the 707
invited, 205 people responded, giving us a response rate of 29%. Based on those who responded, 26%
(51) were male and 73% (141) were female. We had responses from students in all classes, with 32%
freshman (63), 32% sophomores (64), 16% juniors (31), and 20% seniors (39).
Validity
When writing our survey questions, we recognized the danger of lacking measurement validity, and the
failure of operational definitions to reflect conceptual definitions (Neuman 2012). Without assurance
that our survey questions actually reflected conceptual definitions, our results could be drastically
limited. To account for this, we worked to increase various types of validity in our study. The two main
types we were concerned with were face and content validity. Face validity is the extent to which survey
questions appear to measure what they are intended to measure, and content validity is whether or not
theentirety of a concept is reflected in a question (Neuman 2012). We increased face and content
validity by reworking and rewording our survey to fully reflect what we meant in our conceptual
definitions of our measures. Many of our questions had to be edited and some had to be thrown out
and started over throughout this process, but by testing our questions for validity we have ensured that
our survey accurately measured our conceptual definitions (Neuman 2012).
Reliability
We strove to increase the reliability, or consistency, of our measurements as well (Neuman 2012). To
ensure that all respondents would understand our questions in the same way, we reviewed previous
literature and research relating to topics such as teams, leadership types, and desired leadership traits.
We also conducted a focus group and evaluated how participants discussed these items to get a better
feel for how they may be conceptualized by the St. Olaf student body. Our focus group consisted of
seven female St. Olaf students who were invited to join us in a discussion about their opinions,
experiences, and perceptions of leadership, male and female leaders, and what type of leadership they
preferred in small and large teams. We developed our questions for this focus group by discussion
within our research team, dialogue with our research professor Ryan Sheppard, and engaging our
literature review. Furthermore, by informally pilot testing our survey with our classmates, we were able
to see where our questions failed to be consistent in terms of definition and make alterations. Our final
draft of survey questions features mutually exclusive and exhaustive responses which assured us that
we would not be missing any data simply because we failed to include it in our operational definition.
Ethics
While our survey was anonymous and thus did not inherently pose large risks to participants in terms of
social harm from responses (Neuman 2012), we did address some ethical issues to ensure that our study
would not put any research participants at risk. These ethical concerns include anonymity, data
security, questions of consent, and avoiding at risk populations. The first ethical concern for our study
was that of ensuring confidentiality or anonymity to our participants (in this case, anonymity); while our
questions did not necessarily probe any obvious sensitive or taboo areas, our participants were kept
entirely anonymous to us as researchers so that any responses they provide cannot be traced back to
them. This was done through the nature of the survey; once a participant accessed the survey, there
was no way to connect one participant’s responses to an actual identity. The anonymous nature of our
survey was made clear to participants in the cover letter attached to the survey.
In addition, the raw data of our survey was kept from the public; only the research students and
Professor Ryan Sheppard had any access to raw data. Even though our survey does not handle typically
sensitive topics, we focused on wording questions in a way that made any areas of discomfort (such as
sexism or future anxieties) less dangerous or uncomfortable for participants as volatile questions can
put participants in uncomfortable or compromising situations (Patton 2011). An implied consent method
was used to easily allow those contacted to participate to either do so or opt against so as to allow us to
use all responses from those who completed the survey. Furthermore, any participants under 18 years
old were not allowed to participate in the study and we did not question other vulnerable populations
specifically as they were not included in our sample pool.
We completed and submitted an Institutional Review Board (IRB) application for human subject
research as per our institution’s IRB requirements and standards (St. Olaf College Code of Ethics 2010) to
ensure all research projects conducted with human participants at our institution do not harm any
participants in accordance with ethics codes. Our research was classified as Type 1 research as it was
limited to inquiry within our college and did not include vulnerable subjects, a chance of great risk to
participants, or any means of identifying research participants. For these reasons, our research
application was subject to basic instructor review, completed by Professor Ryan Sheppard.
RESULTS
Hypothesis 1: Female students are more likely than males students to consider male team leaders more
effective, efficient, and less emotional than female team leaders.
The independent variable for this hypothesis is the gender of respondent (male or female) and the
dependent variable is their score on a Leadership Gender Preference (LGP) index. 141 females (73.4%)
and 51 males (24.5%) provided answers to our survey questions. The LGP index first was comprised of
nine items yet was cut down to six after removing certain items which failed to fully address our
hypothesis or were too vague to yield usable results (such as “encouraging team success”). This six-item
LGP index was used for the majority of our data analysis. The six-item index included items such as
“being overly emotional is…” and “being INeffecient is…” (emphasis in original question). Participants
chose between five options on a Likert-scale to express if they felt these qualities were more typical of
female or male team leaders (much more typical of female leaders, somewhat more typical of female
leaders, equally typical of female and male leaders, somewhat more typical of male leaders, much more
typical of males leaders). This allowed us to examine the mean scores within the indices between male
and female respondents and gain an understanding of the opinions these groups have about male or
female leaders.
Six-Item LGP index scores ranged from 6 to 35 (six items with five choices each), with lower scores
meaning the participant felt female leaders were inefficient, ineffective, and highly emotional and males
the opposite, and higher scores meaning the participant felt that male leaders were inefficient,
ineffective and highly emotional, and females the opposite. We scored each item in the index and
summed the scores. The mean score on this index for all participants was 16.93 and the standard
deviation was 2.082. Females had a mean of 16.61 and males a mean of 17.5. For the rejected nine-item
LGP index, possible scores ranged from 9 to 45 and had a mean of 25.79 and standard deviation of 2.52.
Table1. Independent Samples T-Test of Nine-Item Leadership Gender Preference Index
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Equal
variances
assumed
Sig. (2- Mean
tailed) Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Lower
Upper
.238
-.626
.527
-1.670
.419
-1.256 61.171 .214
-.626
.498
-1.622
.371
F
Sig.
t
.285
.595
-1.187 110
Equal
variances
not
assumed
df
Table 2. Independent Samples T-Test of Six-Item Leadership Gender Preference Index
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
F
Equal variances 2.475
assumed
Sig.
t
df
.118
-2.161 112
Sig. (2- Mean
tailed) Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Lower
Upper
.033
.412
-1.706
-.074
-.890
Table 2. Independent Samples T-Test of Six-Item Leadership Gender Preference Index
Levene’s Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
F
Equal variances 2.475
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
df
Sig. (2- Mean
tailed) Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Lower
Upper
Sig.
t
.118
-2.161 112
.033
-.890
.412
-1.706
-.074
-2.459 76.011
.016
-.890
.362
-1.611
-.169
Hypothesis 1 is partially supported by our data. An independent samples t-test for the nine-item index
comparing mean scores of opinions about characteristics of female and male leaders found no
significant difference between male and female respondent opinions (t(-1.187)=110, p>.05), as the
mean score for males (m=26.19, sd=2.272) was not significantly different from females (m=25.57,
sd=2.574). However, after running an independent samples t-test of our six-item index, we found
significance in the responses of male and females (t(-2.161)=112, p<.05) as the mean for males
((m=17.5, sd=1.1566) was significantly different from females (m=16.61, sd=2.113).
We attempted to control for class year by running a Kruskall-Wallis H Test; we felt younger classes with
higher response rates may hold stereotypes more strongly than older classes who have taken numerous
college courses and may pull the group mean down. However, the Kruskall-Wallis H Test revealed no
significant differentiation between class years (Figure 3 and 4).
Table 3. Significance of Kruskall-Wallis H Test Control Test
LGP Index (6-Items)
Chi-square
.557
df
3
Asymp. Sig.
.906
Table 4. Kruskall-Wallis H Test Control for Class Year
View Male Leaders as Better than
Female Leaders ( 6 Items)
Class Year
N
Mean Rank
First Year
26
58.23
Sophomore
41
61.04
Junior
22
64.77
Senior
31
58.66
Total
120
Hypothesis 2: In small teams (rather than large) students are more apt to prefer free rein, participative
leadership over authoritative leadership.
The independent variable for this hypothesis is team size (small or large) and the dependent variable is
leadership style preference. One-hundred-and-forty-one females (73.4%) and 51 males (24.5%)
responded. To test this hypothesis we first tested respondent frequencies and created a table (Table 5).
This table demonstrates preferences of leadership style by team size of the respondents. Each
leadership style was tested by individually comparing small and large team sizes, which explains why the
results add up to more than 100%.
Table 5. Preferred Leadership Style in Small and Large Teams
Preferred in Small
Preferred in Large
Teams
Teams
Authoritative Leadership
19.0%
62.1%
Participative Leadership
74.4%
65.5%
Achievement-Oriented Leadership
6.3%
21.8%
Task-Oriented Leadership
13.8%
19.0%
Employee-Oriented Leadership
13.2%
19.0%
Free rein Leadership
63.2%
8.0%
The analysis of the second hypothesis began with focusing on the top three preferred leadership styles,
which were Authoritative, Participative, and Free Rein leadership styles. As shown in Table 5, 19.0% of
respondents preferred Authoritative leadership in small teams, whereas 62.1% preferred it in large
teams. Secondly, 74.4% of respondents preferred Participative leadership in small teams, and 65.5% of
respondents preferred it in large teams. Lastly, 63.2% of respondents preferred Free Rein leadership in
small teams, and only 8.0% of respondents preferred it in large teams.
We then decided to run a chi-square test of independence to see if there was a statistically significant
relationship between the top three leadership styles and preference based on team size. Once the Chisquare-tests had been completed, statistical significance was seen in Authoritative (Table 6) and Free
Rein leadership (Table 7), but not in Participative leadership. Authoritative leadership results showed,
X2=6.476, p=.009. Free rein leadership results showed, X2=8.858, p=.003. Both Authoritative and Free
rein had p values that were p<.01, meaning that there is a statistically significant relationship. In
contrast, the results for participative leadership showed X2=0.092, p=.761, meaning that there was no
statistically significant relationship of students choosing participative leadership based on team size.
Consequently, we were able to claim partial support for our first hypothesis.
Table 6. Chi-Square Test of Authoritative Leadership Preference
Value
Pearson Chi-Square 6.746
Degrees Of
Freedom
Asymptotic
Significance
1
.009
Table 7. Chi-Square Test of Free rein Leadership Preference
Value
Pearson Chi-Square 8.858
Degrees Of
Freedom
Asymptotic
Significance
1
.003
After finding that there was a significant relationship between students choosing Authoritative and Free
Rein leadership based on team size, we decided to explore the strength of the relationships. A Cramer’s
V measure of association would be sufficient to identify if there was a strong relationship in the results.
After performing the test for Authoritative leadership style, we found a value of .197 (Table 8). In this
context, a relationship of .197 would be considered a weak to moderate. The results for Free Rein
leadership style demonstrated a value of .226 (Table 9), which also displays a weak to moderate
relationship. This demonstrates that there is partial support for hypothesis 2.
Table 8. Cramer’s V Test
for Authoritative Leadership
Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value
Approx. Sig.
Phi
.197
.009
Cramer’s V
.197
.009
174
Table 9. Cramer’s V Test
for Free Rein Leadership
Value
Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Phi
.226
.003
Cramer’s V
.226
.003
174
Exploratory Question 1
Our univariate analysis explored the traits that students desire in team leaders. We also examined what
college students expect from team leaders when they enter the workplace after college graduation.
When asked to rate their desire for the following traits in team leaders students largely desired
enthusiastic (93.7%), communicative (98.2%), conscientious (88.6%), and reliable (92.6%). Students
largely found indecisive (89.8%) and stubborn (81.8%) undesirable traits in team leaders. Students were
more neutral for the traits perfectionism (34.9%) and micro-managing (31.4%) (Figure 1 and 2).
Figure 1: Student Preference for Perfectionist Trait in Team Leaders (left)
Figure 2: Student Preference for Micro-Managing Trait in Team Leaders (right)
Exploratory Question 2
Our univariate analysis also explored students’ expectations and anxieties concerning team leaders in
the workplace after college graduation. When asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with the
following statements, students indicated concern about encountering team leaders who underestimate
their abilities (68.4% agreed somewhat to strongly), who are sexist (66.3% agreed somewhat to
strongly), and who put their individual professional development over the team’s success (79.2% agreed
somewhat to strongly) (Figures 1-3). Additionally, data show that students expect team leaders who are
more passionate about their work than team leaders in the undergraduate setting (71% agreed
somewhat to strongly).
Figure 3: Student Agreement with Concern about Team Leaders Who Put Personal Success Over Team
Success (left)
Figure 4: Student Agreement with Concern about Sexist Team Leaders (right)
Figure 5: Student Agreement with Concern about Being Underestimated by Team Leaders (bottom)
DISCUSSION
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 is partially supported by our data, indicating that college females are more likely than their
male counterparts to have an adversarial view of female leaders in comparison to male leaders. These
findings coincide with portions of our reviewed literature; our results reflect Schieman’s findings that
women feel more stress and ill-will towards female leaders than male leaders, while men experience no
such increase in stress (2008). Our focus group participants indicated that female leaders were
considered inefficient and more unstable than male leaders by female team members, supported by
Cabrera, Sauer, and Thomas-Hunt (2009). We attempted to unveil if these findings were specific to class
year, yet a Kruskall-Wallis H Test indicates that these opinions are held statically throughout a college
career.
Our findings cannot be used to reject the null hypothesis entirely. A limited index was used to find
significance in our data, meaning we cannot assure we are including all aspects of our conceptual
definition in our hypothesis. Furthermore, some of the index items may have been polarizing to some
participants (i.e. overly emotional) or participants may have felt the need to answer with sociallyexpected results, despite anonymity. The disparity between the number of female and male
respondents means we cannot say for certain how the results would have changed if there were more
men or less women responding to these questions. We also speculate that males may have been more
pressured than females to answer positively about female leaders. Working from the information
gathered in our literature review and focus group, our findings do partially support our first hypothesis.
We feel employers, professors, career centers, and students themselves can use our results when it
comes to both working under a leader and being a leader. The recognition of long-standing stereotypes
in regards to female leaders indicates that female leaders will most likely face more scrutiny than male
counterparts in the workforce or academic setting, making it important for employers and educators to
make efforts in limiting or eliminating the causes of these stereotypes. Furthermore, our results make it
prudent for those appointing leaders or whom have been appointed as a leader to be aware of the
gender norms that surround the position and work to subvert them.
Hypothesis 2
While the results for hypothesis 2 have only partial support, employers and college careers centers
should find these results incredibly important for their efficiency and success in team cohesion.
Employers would find these results particularly important as students in our research have
demonstrated a clear preference in leadership style for certain team sizes. For larger teams students
have clearly demonstrated that they would prefer authoritative leadership and for smaller teams,
students demonstrated overwhelming support for free rein leadership. This insight will allow employers
to create teams that will potentially allow for a more enjoyable team experience that will lead to
improved quality of work and efficiency. This insight also is supported by our literature in that free rein
is supported in a Western setting (Kasapoğlu 2011).
Furthermore, college career centers can use our findings as a way of assisting students in finding jobs
that will allow them to find companies that prefer certain leadership styles within the work groups, such
as free rein and authoritative. Lastly, while participative leadership was not a statistically significant
finding based on team size, it was clearly the most sought after style when students seek leadership, as
was also seen in our literature review (Chi, Chung, and Tsai 2011). This would be important for
employers and college career centers to also emphasize the importance of participative leadership.
Exploratory Questions
The results from our univariate analysis of expectations and anxieties about team leaders in the
workplace illustrates that students have several anxieties about teams in the workplace after
graduation. Our data show that students have anxiety about team leaders being sexist, team leaders
who only are concerned with their personal professional development, and team leaders who will
underestimate their abilities. Students also expect that team leaders in the workplace post-graduation
will be more passionate about their work than they are in the undergraduate setting.
As much literature discusses, these anxieties could be attributed to the conflicting values and biases that
derive from generational differences (Green and Roberts 2012). For example, non-traditionalist values
are most often held by Millenials, and traditionalist values are most often held by the “Matures” and the
“Baby Boomers” (Green & Roberts 2012). Current St. Olaf students are part of the Millienial generation,
whereas team leaders in the workplace potentially will be older and are part of the Baby Boomers or
Mature generations. Multiple scholars recognize this divided, post-graduation workforce as a source of
the dissatisfaction and anxieties expressed by young people in workplace teams (Green & Roberts
2012). Based on our data, the anxieties expressed by St. Olaf students reflect these findings from Green
and Roberts.
For employers and students entering the workplace after graduation, the results from our univariate
analysis provide insight into what students desire in team leaders and what anxieties they have about
team leaders in the workplace. Our data indicate that a majority of students desire enthusiasm,
communication, conscientiousness, and reliability. Students largely do not desire stubbornness and
indecisiveness in team leaders. Our data also revealed no strong indication for a desire or lack of desire
for the traits perfectionist and micro-managing. This supports Kickul and Neuman’s discussion of how
verbal communication skills are predictors of emergent leadership, among other traits (2000).
Additionally, our findings support Hirschfeld, Jordan, Thomas, and Feild who discuss how
conscientiousness is an indicator of team leader personality (2008). It is important to note that from our
research, many of the traits students’ desire in team leaders are also many of the traits that are
predictive of emergent leaders.
CONCLUSION
Our research examined two hypotheses: if female students are more likely than male students to view
male leaders as more effective, more efficient, and less emotional than female leaders; and if in small
teams (rather than large) students are more apt to prefer free rein or participative leadership over
authoritative leadership. Our research also looked at two exploratory questions, which were the traits
that college students desire in team leaders, and student’s anxieties and expectations regarding team
leaders in the workplace post-graduation from college.
Our results for our first hypothesis were partially supported in that college females are more likely than
their male counterparts to have a negative view of female leaders in comparison to male leaders. These
results demonstrate that females believe that males are more capable of leading a group effectively and
efficiently. Our findings show that females maintain stereotypical views of females, specifically that,
females are unstable and controlled by emotions. These results would suggest that females in college
not only still hold stereotypes of other females, but also would rather be led by their male counterparts.
The results for our second hypothesis, that free rein and participative leadership is preferred over
authoritative leadership in small teams (rather than large), was also partially supported. The results
show that participative leadership was preferred by all students regardless of team size, but free rein
and authoritative were preferred in small and large teams (respectively). Because there was clear
support for free rein and authoritative leadership by team size it would be important to structure teams
in the future in light of these results.
For our first exploratory question, the results illustrate that students have several anxieties about teams
in the workplace after graduation. Students clearly demonstrated anxiety over team leaders being
sexist, team leaders who only are concerned with their personal professional development, and team
leaders who will underestimate their abilities. For our second exploratory question, the results also
illustrate student’s desires in team leaders and what anxieties they expect from team leaders in the
workplace. Our data indicate that a majority of students desire enthusiasm, communication,
conscientiousness, and reliability and students largely do not desire stubbornness and indecisiveness in
team leaders. However, students did not clearly express their desire or distaste for micromanagement
and perfectionism.
Considering the results of our research, we recommend that employers and college career centers
closely consider our findings. For employers, it is essential to realize that there are still stereotypes that
exist about female leaders, even among females. It would be important for human resource
departments to focus on trying to end these stereotypes as more women enter leadership positions. For
college career centers it would also be important to look at these results, as they should try to have
conferences or discussions that can look at ending these stereotypes. Employers will specifically be
interested in the results of our second hypothesis, as they will be able to create better teamwork
environments based on leadership styles and team size, making teams that work more efficiently and
effectively.
College career centers would also find our results of our first exploratory question important, as they
would be able to work with students to end students’ anxieties before they enter the workplace.
Furthermore, it will be useful for employers to know the anxieties of students as they enter the
workplace, as they can work to end these anxieties before the students enter the workplace. For our
second exploratory question, employers would also find it useful as they create teams, as students that
will be entering the workplace have clear preferences on leadership traits.
Our sample population, students from a small liberal arts college in the Midwest, limits our ability to
take our results beyond students of this college or other similar colleges. Furthermore another
weakness is that female respondents dominated our sample. Additionally, our survey length may have
discouraged people from taking the survey because of the time it would take to complete. Lastly, as we
had a limited amount of time to fulfill our research, our results could not be analyzed to their fullest
extent.
For future research, topics of team leadership could be examined in a much more diverse setting and a
much less gendered survey sample. We believe that if this research was conducted in larger universities
and if the sample was more equal between genders, the results from our research may be much
different. In addition, this study could be tested in a workplace setting, which could show further the
effectiveness of this study as the results may render more meaningful findings.
REFERENCES
Bear, Julia B and Anita W. Woolley. 2011. “The Role of Gender in Team Collaboration and
Performance.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36(2):146-153.
Bhatia, Shobha and Jill P. Amati. 2010. “If These Women Can Do It, I Can Do It Too: Building Women
Engineering Leaders through Graduate Peer Mentoring”. Leadership and Management in
Engineering 10(4):174-184.
Cabrera, Susan F., Stephen J. Sauer and Melissa C. Thomas-Hunt. 2009. “The Evolving Manager
Stereotype: The Effects of Industry Gender Typing on Performance Expectations for Leaders and Their
Teams.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 33:419-428.
Cahill, Terrance F., and Mona Sedrak. 2012. “Leading a Multigenerational Workforce: Strategies for
Attracting and Retaining Millennials.” Frontiers of Health Services Management 29(1):3-15.
Chi, Nai-wen, Yen-Yi Chung and Wei-Chi Tsai. 2011. “How Do Happy Leaders Enhance Team Success?
The Mediating Roles of Transformational Leadership, Group Affective Tone, and Team Processes.”
Journal of Applied Social Psychology41:1421-1454.
Gale, Sarah F. 2012. “Bridging the Great Divide.” PM Network. 26(4):28-35.
Gavatorta, Steve. 2012. “It’s A Millennial Thing.” T+D 66(3):58-65.
Gilbert, Jay. 2011. “The Millennials: A New Generation Of Employees, A New Set Of Engagement
Policies.” Ivey Business Journal 75 (5):26-28.
Green, Daryl D. and Gary E. Roberts. 2012. “Impact of Postmodernism on Public Sector Leadership
Practices: Federal Government Capital Development Implications.” Public Personnel
Management 41(1):79-96.
Hirschfeld, Robert R., Mark H. Jordan, Christopher H. Thomas and Hubert S. Feild. 2008. “Observed
Leadership Potential of Personnel in a Team Setting: Big Five Traits and Proximal Factors as
Predictors.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment 16(4):385-402.
Kasapoğlu, Esin, 2011. “Leadership Behaviors in Project Design Offices.” Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management 137(5):356-363.
Kickul, Jill and George Neuman. 2000. “Emergent Leadership Behaviors: The Function of Personality and
Cognitive Ability in Determining Teamwork Performance and KSAs.” Journal of Business &
Psychology 15(1):27-51.
Kline, Theresa J.B and James K. O’Grady. 2009. “Team Member Personality, Team Processes and
Outcomes: Relationship Within a Graduate Student Project Team Sample.” North American Journal of
Psychology 11(2):369-82.
May, Gary L. and Lisa E. Gueldenzoph. 2006. “The Effect Of Social Style On Peer Evaluation Ratings In
Project Teams.”Journal Of Business Communication 43(1):4-20.
Schieman, Scott and Taralyn McMullen. 2008. “Relational Demography in the Workplace and Health: An
Analysis of Gender and the Subordinate-Superordinate Role-Set.” Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 49:286-300.
Schulte, Margaret F. 2012. “The Millennials: Challenges, Opportunities, and Promise.” Frontiers of Health
Services Management 29(1):1-2.
Shin, Yuhyung and Kyojik Song. 2010. “Role of Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication
Time in the Cohesion and Performance of Mixed-Mode Groups.” Asian Journal of Social
Psychology 14:126-139.
Spector, Michelle D. and Gwen E. Jones. 2004. “Trust in the Workplace: Factors Affecting Trust
Formation between Team Members.” Journal of Social Psychology 144(3):311-321.
St. Olaf College 2010. “Who Needs to Review My Project?” Northfield, MN: St. Olaf College. Retrieved
December 3, 2012. http://www.stolaf.edu/academics/irb/Policy/WhoReviews.pdf
Tjosvold, Dean, Chun Hui, Daniel Z. Ding, and Junchen Hu. 2003. “Conflict Values and Team
Relationships: Conflict’s Contribution to Team Effectiveness and Citizenship in China”. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 24:69-88.