See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334495020

Male vs Female Leaders: Analysis of Transformational, Transactional &

Laissez-faire Women Leadership Styles

Article · July 2017

CITATIONS READS

32 15,916

2 authors:

Suranga Silva Kanchana Mendis

University of Colombo University of Colombo
48 PUBLICATIONS 73 CITATIONS 7 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kanchana Mendis on 16 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.9, No.9, 2017

Male vs Female Leaders: Analysis of Transformational,

Transactional & Laissez-faire Women Leadership Styles
D.A.C.Suranga Silva
Senior Lecturer, University of Colombo

B.A.K.M. Mendis
Visiting Lecturer, Department of Economics, University of Colombo

Abstract
The study aimed to find empirical evidence on whether female leadership styles differ or similar to male’s
leadership styles. The research compared women and men on transformational, transactional and laissez-faire
leadership styles. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire formulated based on Bass and Avolio’s (1997) Full
Range Leadership Development Theory, was used to determine leadership styles. The Overall findings from this
study suggest that female leaders have more transformational qualities, which they may favour because it
provides them with a means of overcoming obstructions to their leadership and naturally demonstrate their
ability to meet the requirements of their gender role and that conforming to their gender role can impede their
ability to meet the requirements of their role.
Keywords: Female Leadership, Transformational leadership, Transactional Leadership, Laissez-faire Leadership

Introduction
Over the years the presence of women in corporate managerial positions has been increasing. But the pace of
growth is very slow. Whilst today, there are more women in executive positions than ever before, very few
females have climbed to the top of the corporate ladder. The male gender still dominates the highest-level
positions in the business world.
A study conducted in 2002 by Stetler found that the presence of females in corporate leadership
positions in the United States is approximately 40% but with only 0.5% of those in top managerial positions. The
percentage of female managers ranged from 25% in Germany to 43% in Australia and the percentages for top
managerial graders in Germany and Australia are considerably higher at 5% and 15% respectively. In India the
percentage is approximately 4%.
In Sri Lanka the statistics are significantly weaker with only 0.09% of working females reaching the
higher levels of the corporate echelon, in spite of 32.8% of the labour market being female (Department of
Census and Statistics Sri Lanka). This is all the more disturbing considering that Sri Lankan females are among
the most literate in Asia (Global Literacy Report), and the country consistently tops the sub-continental rankings
in terms of female literacy as well as being the only country in the South Asian region to produce more female
than male graduates from its local universities (University Grant Commission Sri Lanka). However when it
comes to labour force participation, the male labour force participation rate of the country is currently double the
corresponding rate for females. In the international context too, of 163 countries for which data is available, Sri
Lanka has the twentieth largest gap in the labour force participation between the sexes (Women in Labour
Markets: Measuring progress and identifying challenges, 2010).
Given the above statistics the presence of female leaders in the top most positions in the business world,
a question arises as to what obstructs females from reaching senior leadership positions in the corporate world.
Do females possess inferior leadership qualities? Does social pressure from the outside world hinder them from
climbing the corporate ladder? Whatever the answer to the question may be, effective leadership is recognized as
one of the key elements that keep employees motivated and committed to organisations. Therefore progressive
organisations consider understanding and promoting effective leadership an important factor in coping and
dealing successfully with environmental pressures.
One school of theory suggests that men and women managers have different leadership characters and
qualities. Men are accorded with aggressiveness and competitiveness, while women are the opposite. Due to
these attributes, men and women managers manage organisations differently. These researches indicate that men
tended to command and control (Rosener, 1990), are competitive, and like to be seen as decision makers, often
reluctant to discuss issues with their colleagues and staff (Flanders, 1994), were directive and authoritative (Rigg
and Sparrow, 1994) and demonstrated task orientation (Park, 1996).
On the other hand women managers leaned towards transformational patterns using interpersonal skills
(Rosener, 1990), actively instigating discussions with those involved in order to reach a consensus decision and
avoiding confrontation by the use of encouragement and compromise (Flanders, 1994), concern for and
understanding of people (Johnson, 1995), seeking to develop them and adopting a participative approach (Rigg
and Sparrow 1994).

19
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.9, No.9, 2017

These researchers have pointed out that men and women managers are characterized with different qualities in
the management literature as to whether men and women managers really used different managerial styles.
At the same time other schools of researchers (Ferrario, 1994; Wajcman, 1996; Vilkinas and Cartan,
1997; Vilkinas, 1998) concluded there are no differences in men and women managers’ managerial styles. Their
works have clouded the veracity of the prior conclusion of gender differences in managerial style.
To answer the question as to whether women’s typical leadership styles differ from or are the same as
men’s, and whether any such differences were an asset or a barrier to women who seek to rise in hierarchies of
corporate power and influence, this research is conducted in ten public quoted companies in Sri Lanka. Men and
women leaders were compared on transformational and transactional leadership styles.

Literature Review
Modern leadership theories highlight that effective leaders inspire their followers and nurture their ability to
contribute to the organisation. This approach initially emerged in Burns’s 1978 definition of a type of leadership
that he labeled transformational.
According to Burns, transformational leadership involves establishing oneself as a role model by
gaining the trust and confidence of followers; the leader ensures that followers are consciously aware of the
importance of sharing organizational goals and values. They also ensure that followers know how to achieve
these goals by mentoring and empowering them. Burns (1978) further states that transformational leaders
motivate their followers to go beyond their own self-interests and extend effort on behalf of the organization by
appealing to the higher order needs of followers.
Yukl (1989) defined transformational leadership as a process of influencing major changes in attitudes
and assumptions of organizational members and building commitment for the organizational mission and
objectives. Transformational leaders are said to appeal to higher ideals and moral values of followers, heighten
their expectations and spur them to greater effort and performance on behalf of the organization (Bass, 1990a;
1995; Bass &Avolio, 1990b). Bass and Avolio (1990b) suggest that transformational leaders inspire followers
with a vision of what can be accomplished through extra personal effort, thus motivating followers to achieve
more than they thought they would achieve. The relationship between a transformational leader and followers is
characterized by pride and respect (Bass &Avolio, 1990a). The employees often develop a high level of trust and
confidence in such a leader. The employees are proud to identify themselves with the leader and develop a strong
sense of loyalty to them. Bass and colleagues (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1995; 1999; Bass, 1985a; 1997) have
identified five factors which represent behavioral components of transformational leadership: 1) idealized
influence (attributes); 2) idealized influence (behavior); 3) inspirational motivation; 4) intellectual stimulation
and 5) individualized consideration. Idealized influence attributes occur when followers identify with and
emulate those leaders who are trusted and seen as having an attainable mission and vision. Idealized influence
behavior refers to leader behavior which results in followers identifying with leaders and wanting to emulate
them. Leaders demonstrating idealized influence or charisma instill pride in their subordinates and command
respect (Bass, 1990a; Bass &Avolio, 1990a). Idealized influence is coupled with an emotional attachment of the
followers to identify with the leader. Inspirational motivation implies that leaders behave in ways that motivate
and inspire those around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ tasks.
Bass and Avolio(1990b) described transactional leaders as those leaders who appeal to subordinates’
self-interest by establishing exchange relationship with them. This type of leadership involves managing in the
more conventional sense of clarifying subordinate responsibilities, rewarding them for meeting objectives and
correcting them for failing to meet objectives. In other terms the leadership can be described in two
characteristics: the use of contingent rewards and management by exception. They described contingent reward
as the reward that the leader will bestow on the subordinate once the latter has achieved goals that were agreed to.
Contingent reward is therefore the exchange of rewards for meeting agreed-on objectives. By making and
fulfilling promises of recognition, pay increases and advancement for employees who perform well, the
transactional leader is able to get things done. Bass (1985a) therefore argues that by providing contingent
rewards, a transactional leader might inspire a reasonable degree of involvement, loyalty, commitment and
performance from subordinates. Transactional leaders may also rely on active management by exception which
occurs when the leader monitors followers to ensure mistakes are not made, but otherwise, allows the status quo
to exist without being addressed (Bass &Avolio, 1995).
In passive management by exception, the leader intervenes only when things go wrong. In general, one
can conclude that transactional leadership is an exchange relationship that involves the reward of effort,
productivity and loyalty. The leader helps the follower to identify what needs to be done to accomplish the
desired results. The leader, however, only takes the follower’s basic needs into account. Therefore, as Bass
(1985a) contends, transactional leadership uses satisfaction of lower order needs as the primary basis for
motivation. The focus in transactional leadership is on role clarification. The leader helps the follower in
understanding exactly what needs to be done in order to meet the organization’s objectives and goals. A

20
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.9, No.9, 2017

successful result of transactional leadership would be an expected outcome.

Both transformational and transactional leaders are described as leaders who actively intervene and try
to prevent problems, although they use different approaches. Therefore it can be said that although it is
empirically separable these two types of leadership resulted in effectively the same outcomes.
When researching these two active forms of leadership, one finds that they are often contrasted with a
third style of leadership, which is called laissez-faire leadership. Bass describes the laissez-faire leader as an
extreme passive leader who is reluctant to influence subordinates’ considerable freedom, to the point of
abdicating his/her responsibilities. In a sense, this extremely passive type of leadership indicates the absence of
leadership. Laissez-faire style of leadership is also referred to as management-by-exception (Bass &Avolio,
1990a). Management-by-exception characterizes how leaders monitor subordinates’ negative behavior and exert
corrective action only when subordinates fail to meet objectives. Leaders who manage by exception intervene
only when procedures and standards for accomplishing tasks are not met. It can therefore be concluded that by
‘laissez-faire’, it is meant that the leader is not sufficiently motivated or adequately skilled to perform
supervisory duties.
The established gender differences between men and women can influence, to some extent, the
leadership styles practiced by each, because of the dynamics of role incongruity as well as the influence of
gender roles on behavior by means of the spillover and internalization of gender-specific norms. Thus women
may prefer a transformational style because it provides them with a means of overcoming the predicament of
role strangeness, where conforming to their role as leader can impede their ability to meet the requirements of
their perceived gender role, while on the other hand conforming to their gender role can impede their ability to
meet the requirements of their leader role.
Empirical evidence support that the transformational leadership contributes to the objective
achievement of organisations, therefore any sex difference in the tendency to manifest this style might produce a
sex difference in leaders’ effectiveness. A Meta – analysis of 39 studies carried out previously showed positive
correlations between leaders’ effectiveness and all components of transformational leadership. The contingent
reward component of transactional leadership was also positively related to effective leadership (Lowe, Kroeck
& Sivasubramanian 1996, DeGroot, Kiker& Cross 2000, Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, Engen 2003). A study
conducted by the Centre for Leadership Studies in 2000 using MLQ measure produced similar findings. This
study further revealed a negative relationship between leaders’ effectiveness and two of the remaining leadership
styles, passive management by exception, which is one of the components of transactional leadership, and
laissez-faire leadership.
As Yoder (2001) claimed, transformational leadership may allow women to avoid the overly masculine
impression they might emanate by exercising hierarchical control and engaging in narrowly argentic leadership
behavior. At least if the organizational context does not feature powerful hierarchical roles and a tradition of
command-and-control leadership, a transformational style, accompanied by the contingent reward behaviors of
the transactional style, may be an effective approach to leadership that encompasses some behaviors that are
consistent with the female gender role’s demand for caring, supportive, and considerate behaviors. The
individualized consideration behaviors of transformational leadership; which are marked by developing and
mentoring followers and attending to their individual needs. Other aspects of transformational leadership do not
bring into line with the gender role of either sex (e.g., demonstrating attributes that instill respect and pride by
association with a leader). Few, if any, transformational behaviors have characteristically masculine implications.
Consistent with these assumptions, studies have shown that subordinates perceive greater overall correspondence
between leaders’ feminine personality attributes and their transformational style than their transactional style (M.
Z. Hackman, Furniss, Hills, & Paterson, 1992; Ross & Offermann, 1997).
Moreover some aspects of transformational leadership with the female gender role would allow these
behaviors to be fostered in women by the spillover of its norms onto organizational behavior and many women’s
personal acceptance of these norms as standards for their own behavior. Transformational leadership style may
be congenial to women, not only because at least some of its components are relatively communal, but also
because these particular communal behaviors may help female leaders deal with the special problems of lesser
authority and legitimacy that they face to a greater extent than their male counterparts.
Additionally considerable body of research has shown that women can be disliked and regarded as
untrustworthy in leadership roles, especially when they exert authority over men, display high levels of
competence, or use a dominant style of communication (Carli, 2001; Eagly & Karau, 2002).
These negative reactions can be minimized when female leaders are careful to also display warmth and
lack of self-interest by, for example, expressing agreement; smiling, supporting others, and explicitly stating an
interest in helping others reach their goals (Carli, 2001). From this perspective, certain aspects of
transformational leadership may be crucial to effective female leadership— specifically, the transformational
behaviors of focusing on mentoring followers and attending to their needs (individualized consideration) and
emphasizing the mission of the larger organization rather than one’s own goals (idealized influence, inspirational

21
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.9, No.9, 2017

motivation). Contingent reward behaviors, involving noticing and praising subordinates’ good performance, may
also foster positive, supportive work relationships.
Although certain leader behaviors may ease the strangeness between the female gender and leadership
roles, women may still have to meet a higher standard than men to attain these roles. As stated by Biernat &
Kobrynowicz, 1997; Foschi, 2000, consistent with experimental and field research on the application of double
standards in judging performances. It is likely that higher standards are imposed on women to attain leadership
roles and perhaps to retain them as well. As transformational styles are particularly skillful in most
organizational settings, a tendency for women to have a more transformational style than men could reflect the
selection of women who have met the higher standard that is imposed on women. Female leaders may also
display more of the effective contingent reward transactional behaviors and fewer of the ineffective transactional
behaviors (i.e., passive management by exception) and laissez-faire behaviors. Moreover to be consistent with
the hypothesis of a double standard, women who manifested these ineffective styles and thus performed
inadequately may be deselected from leadership more quickly than their male counterparts (Foschi, 1992, 2000).

Hypothesis
Empirical evidence suggests that there is a strong relationship between leadership styles and overall performance
of subordinates and that a transformational leadership style contributed positively to the overall performance of
subordinates. What empirical evidence does not make clear is whether female leadership style differs from, or is
similar to, male leadership style.
Hence the hypotheses below were formed to evaluate whether women’s typical leadership styles differ
from or are the same as men’s typical leadership styles and whether the any differences could be an asset or a
barrier to women who seek to rise in hierarchies of power and influence
Hypothesis 01:
Female leaders exhibit more transformational leadership qualities than male leaders.
Hypothesis 02:
Female leaders exhibit more transactional leadership qualities than male leaders.
Hypothesis 03:
Female leaders exhibit more laissez – fare leadership qualities than male leaders.

Methodology
Response Rate
The research sample was 10 public quoted Sri Lankan companies in the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG)
arena. Out of a population of approximately 3000 employees, a sample of 500 was selected using EXCEL
random generator. Of these 150successfully filled in and returned the questionnaires, resulting in a response rate
of 30%.
Demographic Data
Demographic data was collected on various aspects, and a summary of the results are presented in Tables 01, 02,
03 and04. The statistics revealed that 60% of the participants were males and that 53% of all respondents have so
far spent at least 11 years with the organization, while 62% have post-secondary qualifications. Moreover the
statistics shows that only 10% of the participants are aged 50 or above.
Table 01 Demographic data: Gender
Frequency Percentage
Male 90 60%
Female 60 40%

Table 02 Demographic data: Education Level

Education Frequency Percentage Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percentage
Masters 8 5% 8 5%
Bachelors 18 12% 26 17%
Professional Qualifications 25 17% 51 34%
Diplomas 42 28% 93 62%
A/L 57 38% 150 100%
All of the respondents were Advanced Level qualified, while 93respondents had post A-Level
qualifications, while18participants had a bachelor’s degree. 10 respondents were qualified at Master’s level.

22
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.9, No.9, 2017

Table 03 Demographic data: Age

Age Frequency Percentage Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percentage
20 to 29 57 39% 57 39%
30 to 39 48 32% 105 71%
40 to 49 30 20% 135 91%
50 to 59 15 10% 150 100%
39% of the survey participants were below 30 years of age, while another 32% fell into the next highest
age group (30 -39). 20% of the employees were in the 40 -49 category. The least number of respondents (10%)
belonged to the 50 – 59 age categories.

Table 04 Demographic data: Working Experience

Working Experience Frequency Percentage Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percentage
21 and above 15 10% 15 10%
16 to 20 36 24% 51 34%
11 to 15 28 19% 79 53%
6 to 10 38 26% 117 79%
1 to 5 33 22% 150 100%
Table 04 illustrates the years of working experience the respondents had with the respective
organisation. According to the gathered data most of the respondents have 6 to 10 years’ experience with their
current employer. Second highest group of respondents belongs to 16 to 20 years’ of working experience
category. 33 people have 1 to 5 years of working experience within the organisation. Therefore most of the
participants have been with the respective organisation for more than 05 years.

Methodology
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was used to gather information from the respondents. The
MLQ was formulated from the full range leadership development theory questionnaire which was introduced
by .The questionnaire contained 45 statements, each corresponding to one of the nine components of either
transformational, transactional or laissez - faire leadership styles.
The transformational leadership style is divided into idealized charismatic behaviours and attributes
factors including idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behaviour), inspirational motivation,
individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. Transactional leadership style is divided in to two
factors contingent rewards and management by exception, management by exception is also divided into
management-by-exception active (MBEA) and management –by-exception passive (MBEP). Thus MLQ 5X
(revised) contained 9 factors. The Five point Likert Scale was used by the participants to mark the most suitable
answer, the scaled was ranging from 0 – 4 ( 0 – not at all, 1 – once a while, 2 – sometimes, 3- fairly often, 4-
frequently if not always). Gender of the leaders was gathered by asking the participants to insert the gender of
the leader.
Table 05
Definitions of Transformational, Transactional and Laissez – Faire Leadership Styles in the MLQ – 5X
MLQ – 5X scales with Description of leadership style
subscales
Transformational
Idealized Influence (attribute) Demonstrates qualities that motivate respect and pride from association with
him or her.
Idealized influence (behaviour) Communicates values, purpose and importance of organisation’s mission.
Inspirational Motivation Exhibits optimism and excitement about goals and future states.
Intellectual Stimulation Examines new perspectives for solving problems and completing tasks
Individualized Consideration Focuses on development and mentoring of followers and attends to their
individual needs.
Transactional
Contingent Reward Provides rewards for satisfactory performance by followers
Management by Exception Attends to followers’ mistakes and failures to meet standards
(active)
Management by Exception Waits until problems become severe before attending to them and
(passive) intervening
Laissez – Faire Exhibits frequent absences and lack of involvement during critical junctures.

23
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.9, No.9, 2017

Data Analysis
Data collected through the Questionnaire was analyzed through Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS 15.
Descriptive Statistics - Mean & Standard Deviation Scores
Table 06 - Transformational Leadership
Overall Female Male
N M SD N M SD N M SD
Idealized Influence (Attributed) 150 2.85 0.89 60 2.87 0.87 90 2.83 0.88
Idealized Influence (Behavior) 150 2.9 0.92 60 2.91 0.93 90 2.88 0.91
Inspirational Motivation 150 2.82 0.93 60 2.83 0.97 90 2.81 0.96
Individualized Consideration 150 2.86 0.85 60 2.93 0.80 90 2.8 0.86
Intellectual Stimulation 150 2.87 0.97 60 2.88 0.96 90 2.85 0.96

Table 07 - Transactional Leadership

Overall Female Male
N M SD N M SD N M SD
Contingent Rewards 150 2.88 0.97 60 2.89 0.95 90 2.87 0.99
Management-by-Exception-Active 150 2.80 0.90 60 2.75 0.89 90 2.97 0.91
Management-by-Exception-Passive 150 2.86 0.90 60 2.70 0.89 90 2.90 0.91

Table 08 - Laissez- Faire Leadership

Overall Female Male
N M SD N M SD N M SD
Laissez- Faire 150 0.96 0.93 60 .08 0.86 90 1.12 0.97
Table 06, 07 & 08 contains descriptive data for the five transformational leadership subscales, three
transactional subscales, and laissez – faire subscale. All leadership variables hold a sample size of 200.
Hypothesis 01 of the research is Female leaders exhibit more transformational qualities than male leaders.
Leaders of both genders have obtained mean values closer to 3 in all the subcategories of transformational
leadership. However it can be observed that female leaders have obtained higher mean values for all the
categories of transformational leadership subscales.
The highest mean value has been obtained for the sub-category individualized consideration with 2.93
and the highest gap between means is also visible in this category. The second highest category of mean figures
has been obtained in the subscale of Idealized Influence (behaviour) with a mean score of 2.91, while male
leaders have obtained mean figure of 2.88 for this particular category.
Accordingly it can be argued that female leaders have more transformational leadership qualities than
male leaders. Thus the researcher accepts Hypothesis 01 and concludes that female leaders have more
transformational leadership qualities than male leaders.
Hypothesis 02 - Female leaders exhibit more transactional leadership qualities than male leaders.
The feedback regarding transactional leadership indicates that both genders have been rated close to a mean of 3.
Further analysis indicates that while female leaders led the subscale of Contingent Rewards with a mean score of
2.89, the sub categories Management by Exception – Active and Management by Exception – Passive were led
by the males with mean values 2.87 and 2.81.
Accordingly it can be argued that male leaders have more transactional leadership qualities than female
leaders. Thus the researcher rejects hypothesis 02 and concludes that female leaders have less transactional
leadership qualities than male leaders.
Hypothesis 03 - Female leaders exhibit more Laissez – Faire leadership qualities than male leaders.
The overall mean value for Laissez – Faire leadership is 0.96 and the male leaders have obtained a higher mean
of 1.12 while female leaders have obtained an average of .08 for the category.
Hence it can be argued that male leaders have more laissez - faire leadership qualities than female
leaders. Thus the researcher rejects hypothesis 03 and concludes that female leaders have less laissez – faire
leadership qualities than male leaders.
The scores for the transformational leadership subscales for both genders are slightly less than what
Bass and Avolio (1997) consider ideal levels for effective leadership. For the most effective leadership they
suggest mean scores of greater or equal to 3.0 for individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, idealized
influence (behavior), idealized influence (attributed) and inspirational motivation. Bass and Avollo (1997) also
suggested a mean score of 2 for contingent reward, which is lower than the current study’s mean scores for both
genders. The suggested range for management by exception (active) was 1.0 to 2.0 and the mean scores obtained
for the current study were 2.87 for females and 2.85 for male which are slightly outside the range. Suggested
score for management – by- exception (passive) is 1.0 the scores obtained in the study is .912.7 for females

24
European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.9, No.9, 2017

and .89 2.9 for males both are below significantly above the suggested score. Lastly the suggested score for
laissez-faire is 0.0; however mean scores obtained in the current study was higher with 0.780.08 for female
leaders and .891.12 for male leaders.

Conclusion
The research findings reveal that female leaders display more transformational leadership qualities than male
leaders, who demonstrate higher transactional and laissez – faire leadership qualities.
It can be argued that transformational, transactional and laissez – faire styles of women and men may
differ to some extent because of the dynamics of role incongruity as well as gender roles’ natural influence on
behaviour by means of the spill over and internalization of gender – specific norms.
Therefore the female leaders may favour a transformational style because it provides them with a means
of overcoming obstructions to their roles as leaders and naturally demonstrate their ability to meet the
requirements of their gender role and that conforming to their gender role can impede their ability to meet the
requirements of their role as a leader.
Female leaders have obtained higher mean values for all the subscales of transformational leadership,
particularly for idealized influence and individualized consideration. The idealized influence (behaviour) stands
for the leaders’ ability to communicate values, purpose and importance organisation’s mission and
individualized consideration represent leadership qualities of focusing on development and mentoring of
followers and attending to followers’ mistakes and failures to meet standards. It can be argued that these
qualities are natural to female leaders as the female gender role personifies communicating, caring, supportive
and considerate behaviours. Other aspects of transformational leadership do not seem to be aligned with the
gender role of either sex.
When it comes to transactional leadership subscales, it can be noticed that female leaders have topped
only the contingent rewards category which stands for rewarding subordinates for satisfactory performance.
Male leaders had obtained higher mean values for the two subscales management by exception – active
and management by exception – passive (2.97 and 2.90 respectively). Leadership in these two subscales are
characterized by attending to followers’ mistakes and failures to meet standards and waiting until a problem
become severe before attending to and intervening. Given that Male leaders were given a higher mean score for
both these categories, perhaps it can be argued that these two qualities are more male communal.
Transformational leadership as well as the contingent reward aspect of transactional leadership may
provide a particularly appropriate context for highlighting women’s competency in leadership. Their competence
in these qualities of leadership, which are explicitly supportive of subordinates and therefore of organisations as
a whole, are incontrovertible proof of the value that women leaders add to the dynamics of organisational
development and growth.

References
Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D., & Einstein, W. (1988). Transformational Leadership in a Management Game
Simulation. Group Organization Management, 59-80.
Bass, B. M., (1985a). Leadership: good, better, best, Organizational Dynamics, 3(3):26-40.
Bass, B. M., (1985b). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M., (1990a). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial
Applications (3rd). New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M., (1990b). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision,
Organizational Dynamics, 18:19-31.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, leniency, and
general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership
construct. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49:509-527
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1990a). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto: CA Consulting Psychologist Press.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational
Leadership. California: Sage.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1995). MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio B. J. (1997). Full Range of Leadership Development: Manual for the Multi-factor
Leadership Questionnaire. California: Mind Garden. 90
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., and Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the Assessment of Transformational
Leadership at the World-Class Level. Journal of Management, 13:7-19.
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum
standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 544–557

25
 European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online)
Vol.9, No.9, 2017

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York : Harper & Row.

Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–741.
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender effects on influence and emergent leadership. In G. N. Powell (Ed.),
Handbook of gender & work (pp. 203–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clare Rigg, John Sparrow, (1994) "Gender, Diversity and Working Styles", Women In Management Review,
Vol. 9 Iss: 1, pp.9 - 16
DeGroot, T., Kiker, S. D., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to
charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356–371.
Erkutlu, H. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on organisational and leadership effectiveness -
The Turkish Case. Journal of Management Development, 708-726.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social
Issues, 57, 781–797.
Foschi, M. (1992). Gender and double standards for competence. In C. L.
Flanders, Margaret L.(1994) Breakthrough: The Career Woman's Guide to Shattering the Glass Ceiling. Paul
Chapman Publishing, 144 Liverpool Road, London N1 1LA, England, United Kingdom
M. Z. Hackman, Furniss, Hills, & Paterson, 1992; Ross & Offermann, 1997
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A metaanalytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–
425.
Miller, Dale T.; Taylor, Brian; Buck, Michelle L, Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained? Gender gaps:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 61(1), Jul 1991, 5-12.
Rosener JB. Ways women lead, Harv Bus Rev. 1990 Nov-Dec;68(6):119-25.
Stelter, Nicole Z. (Spring 2002) Gender differences in leadership: current social issues and future organizational
implications. In Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, p88(12).
Yukl, G. A. (2005). Leadership in Organizations (6thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828.

26

View publication stats