Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

How theories of leadership can improve our understanding of gender bias in

leadership.

Introduction

Gender bias in leadership, Does it really exist?

There are many women who occupy various leadership positions around the world,
although, it is evident that there is inequality in sexes occupying those roles (Metcalfe
and Altman, 2001), currently, only 2 percent of board members for Fortune 500
companies are held by women (mbcglobal, 2008), this phenomenon as led to various
debates in the past on the causes, which as led to assumptions that men and women
behave differently, treated differently and are valued differently, implying that those
within each category are identical and One category valued as superior to the other,
which affects the assignment of organizational responsibilities and most decisions
concerning, career progress, resources, salaries, power, authority, appropriate work
behaviour (Northouse, 2007, p15-27). This essay draws on theories of leadership that
may help explain the reasons for this phenomenon.

Trait theory

Through in-dept reading, I determined Trait as a distinguishing feature or quality,

which can be observed and measured. It is important to know the benchmarks in
measuring leadership traits so as to understand the perceptions of followers. The
“Great man” theory by Thomas Carlyle (1841) was the first systematic attempts to
benchmark Trait theory, where by Carlyle focused on the innate qualities possessed by
great social political, and military leaders (e.g., Mohandas Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln,
and Napoleon) (Northouse, 2007, p15), due to either their personal charisma,
intelligence and wisdom or Machiavellianism, used power in a way that had a
decisive historical impact (Carlyle. 1841).

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 1

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

Carlyle (1841) establishes a generalist masculine benchmark for both genders,

reflecting his belief that “Great men” or heroes; highly influential individuals shape
history through both their personal attributes and divine inspiration (Hirsch, E.D.
2002). The word “Divine” reflects the perception that it was ordained by a higher
authority, which reflects the argument that religions are bias; as they suggest that man
was created in Gods image, woman played a supporting role, and Eve led Adam
astray, as a research concluded that gender bias in religion has been neither accidental
nor superficial (Feminist Philosophy of Religion. 2005).

The “Great man” theory suggests that leaders where born with their traits; inherited
traits, and people who are effective leaders have the right (or sufficient) combination
of these traits (Stogdill, 1974). As stated below;

Figure 1
Traits Skills
Adaptable to situations Clever (intelligent)
Alert to social environment Conceptually skilled
Ambitious and achievement-orientated Creative
Assertive Diplomatic and tactful
Cooperative Fluent in speaking
Decisive Knowledgeable about group task
Dependable Organised (administrative ability)
Dominant (desire to influence others) Persuasive
Energetic (high activity level) Socially skilled
Persistent
Self-confident
Tolerant of stress
Willing to assume responsibility

Source: adapted from Stogdill (1974)

McCall and Lombardo (1983) identified four primary traits of successful leadership;

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 2

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

Emotional stability and composure: Calm, confident and predictable, mainly when
under stress. Contrarily, women are stereotypically perceived as less intelligent,
emotional and therefore irrational and physically they do not have the same presence
or strength and power of men roles (Metcalfe and Altman, 2001). Trait theory also
linked physical characteristics such as weight, height, physique and energy to
effective leadership.

The term “Great Man” was used because, at the time, leadership was thought of
primarily as a male quality, especially in terms of military leadership (Van Wagner,
2009), The emphasis on physical stature and body strength mimics the requirements
for law enforcement and military occupations, which indicates why the majority of
leaders are men (Metcalfe and Altman, 2001).

The “Great man” theory insinuates leaders where born with this traits; “leadership
characteristics" due to their psychological makeup (Cromwell and Kolb. 2004), but
this was challenged by Stogdill (1948), he acknowledged that situation is what
determines leadership, that a leader in one situation might not be a leader in another
(Northouse, 2007, p15). If this is true then what situation is best suited for women to
be a leader? This question is hard to answer, but recently, due to increasing number of
women in leadership positions, journalists have been able to establish that there are
gender differences in leadership styles and women are more effective in contemporary
societies (Northouse, 2007, p266). A contemporary society is an adage of the 20th
century, “contemporary” meaning new, ideologies and situations. To understand these
changes we need to look deep into history to see what changes might have occurred.

Firstly, Prejudice; meaning a largely fixed attitude, belief, or emotion held by an

individual about another individual or group (Northouse, 2007, p304), this implies
that how you are treated in a society is determined before your birth. Historically, the
strong dominates the week, less developed civilizations are enslaved by the advanced
civilizations, and society’s class individuals based on their wealth, race, influence, sex
and power, which is explains the proverb “not all fingers are equal”. If this is true then
women are the first victims of this phenomenon, as a result, various initiatives have
been put in-place (laws and organization), for example; laws- Equality Act 2006 (UK)

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 3

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

Equality Bill (UK), CEDAW (United Nations, 1979), Gender Equity Education Act
(Taiwan), Uniform civil code (India), and Organizations- Government Equalities
Office (UK), Afghan Ministry of Women Affairs (Afghanistan), Christians for
Biblical Equality, European Institute for Gender Equality.

Secondly, Goldstein S. (2001) established sex roles in conflict and peace, “sex” refers
to what is biological, and “gender” to what is cultural. He established that
biologically, men’s genes program them for violence; testosterone makes men more
aggressive than women; men are bigger and stronger than women; men’s brains are
adapted for long–distance mobility and for aggression; and women are biologically
adapted for care giving roles. As a result, followers perceive men as necessary leaders
in times of war (Boyce and Herd, 2003). Marxist theories claimed that when humans
lived in matriarchal societies (women held political power) there was relative peace
existing, and that the universal probability for war in human society suggests that the
gendering of war may matter even in relatively peaceful times and places, because
even a society that is not at war may someday go to war (Goldstein S. 2001), but
currently there are 12 women world leaders (Current Female World Leaders, 2009),
which is a sign of societal change.

Finally, the “Patriarchal order”, during the 18th century when “Great man” theory was
established women had no to little rights or recognition globally. Until the mid-
nineteenth century, people assumed that a “Patriarchal order” was a natural order that
existed, where by men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as
a whole, acting as representatives of the family (Pdhre. 2005). Women are generally
given a lower status in the public sphere and are seen to occupy the domestic sphere
by virtue of their reproductive capacities (Metcalfe and Altman, 2001). These are
ideologies and concepts that are changing globally, giving rise to contemporary
societies.

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 4

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

Style/ behavioural theory

Style approach to leadership emphasizes the behaviour of the leader, which is a

perceiver’s perspective (Northouse, 2007, p69-71). Kolb (1997) Research
demonstrated that there more similarities than differences in the leadership behaviours
of women and men, and that they are equally effective, but the same leadership
behaviours are often evaluated more positively when attributed to a male than to a
female, consequently, women are less likely to be seen as emerging leaders (Kolb, J.
A.1997, p.504). some researchers argued that it was due to an inadequate number of
women with the necessary education and managerial experiences present to promote
upper level management (Backert R. S. G. 2004), Others believed that perceivers
idea of leadership is masculine, where by both genders favour a more masculine
approach to leadership, like a study showed that women that are high on the
organizational charts are often rated much higher on the masculinity scale than are
women in the lower ranks of the organization. (Kolb, J. A. p. 374). Feminine
approaches to leadership tend to be more person, rather than task-oriented (Backert R.
S. G. 2004) Task-oriented; meaning a more directive approach where the leader spells
out the responsibilities of an individual or group which is viewed as a masculine trait
(Howes and Stevenson, 1993), In contrast, women approach to leadership is
communal, and even when this is effective, they play a supporting role by not
acknowledging their contribution (Backert R. S. G. 2004), consequently, increasing
the lack of recognition of leadership emergence among women.

Eagly & Karau (2002) established that prejudice can arise from the relations that
people perceive between the characteristics of members of a social group and the
requirements of the social roles that group members occupy or aspire to occupy. The
social groups are classed as communal (women) and agentic (men), Women
displaying behaviours that violate their prescribed gender role are disliked by others
and viewed as less influential (Backert R. S. G. 2004).

Perceptions of leaders describe both the descriptive and injunctive norms associated
with men and women (Eagly & Karau, 2002) in that the mainstream of these beliefs
about the sexes, relates to the supposed communal attributes of women, and the
agentic ones for men, and By only performing communal behaviours, women are less

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 5

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

likely to be perceived as a leader. Yet, displaying agentic behaviours, the outcome is

negative for women and positive for men, in which woman’s influence and likeability
is eroded (Backert R. S. G. 2004). Communal attributes relate to being interpersonally
sensitive, nurturing, kind, helpful and concerned about the welfare of others. Agentic
attributes have to do with being aggressive, forceful, self-confident, and in control
(Eagly & Karau, 2002).

Contingency theory

Contingency theory is similar to situational theory because there is an assumption of

no one right way of leadership, given that the theory takes into consideration the
leader's ability to lead based upon various situational factors, including the leader's
preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of followers and also various other
situational factors. The main difference between the two theories is that situational
theory tends to focus more on the behaviours that the leader should adopt, given
situational factors, whereas contingency theory takes a broader view that includes
contingent factors about leader capability and other variables within the situation
(Northouse, 2007, p113-118).

Fiedler (1964) identified the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) scoring for leaders by
asking them what they think of a person that they have worked with, then to score the
person on a range of scales between positive factors (cooperative, friendly, cheerful,
etc.) and negative factors (unfriendly, gloomy, uncooperative, etc.). A high LPC leader
normally scores the other person as positive and a low LPC leader scores them as
negative (Northouse, 2007, p113-118).

Fiedler's (1967) contingency model specifies that performance is dependent on the

leader's motivational method and the extent to which the leader controls the situation.
The principal effect on group performance is the leader's LPC Score, but this can be
interceded by contingent variables of group atmosphere (i.e. leader and members),
task structure and position power (Hellriegal et al., 1995, cited in Metcalfe and

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 6

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
 Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

Altman).Three factors are then identified about the leader, member and the task, are
as follows:
• Leader-Member Relations: Degree to which the leader has the support and loyalties of
followers and relations with them are friendly and cooperative.
• Task structure: Degree, to which tasks are standardised, documented and controlled.
• Leader's Position-power: Degree to which the leader has authority to assess follower
performance and give reward or punishment.
(Northouse, 2007, p114-116),

This LPC theory suggests that the best approach depends on a combination of the
three. Normally, a high LPC approach is best when leader-member relations are poor,
and low LPC style is best when the task is unstructured and the leader is weak. The
major criticism of this theory is that it does not consider the variety of leadership traits
found to be related to leadership effectiveness, like self-monitoring; the leader‘s and
the follower‘s values, attitudes, and preferences; the cohesiveness, norms, or size of
the group; or task, organizational design and culture, or environmental factors that can
affect the leadership process. “(Hughes, ET. Al. p. 409), and most importantly is
Nothing in the study pointed to gender as being an ingredient for effective leadership,
when clearly it is, for example, the concept of 'sexual static' which cover a range of
misunderstandings in the workplace which cause discomfort for men and frustration
for women, pertaining to role confusion; garbled communication and culture clashes
to articulate the differences in men and women's work experiences. Role confusion
refers to the conflict between what is the expected role of an individual culturally and
their role in a workplace. Communication refers to the differences in male and female
communication patterns. Women communicate in a way that exchanges feelings and
creates personal relationships. Men communicate to establish their status and show
independence. Culture clash conveys the difference between male and female cultural
values (Metcalfe and Altman, 2001).

The idea of position of power being a factor, which was not related to gender might
reflect the masculinity, in the sense that men are characterized by trait as physically
having strength and aggressiveness (Van Wagner, 2009), also historically, men where

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 7

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

dominant in the society, as `...in power, with power, and of power' (Kimmel, 1994 in
Telford, 1996, citied in Metcalfe and Altman, 2001).

Conclusion

This has been a rewarding, revealing and fascinating research for me. I understand
much more clearly now how perceivers view is a major factor affecting leadership,
perceivers view is created by the society, which is affected by various cultural factors
including history, which generates an accepted unconscious idea of effective
leadership. The perceivers are mainly the followers, who conceive what type of
leaders they desire and the successes of these leaders are based on follower’s
acceptance of the leaders. Based on this phenomenon, unfortunately it has not being
to a woman’s advantage, because genetically and historically they have been a victim
of exclusion and discrimination, to the point that a view of what characteristics
effective leaders have, is the opposite of a woman’s characteristics.

Current Leadership theories are outdated and need to be reviewed and followed
through with necessary laws, because innate cultures are going to reject such changes,
considering that this problem differs in country to country and culture to culture.
Some cultures still regard women as inferior and unwanted before birth. Which I
strongly believe the world would be better off without, for the benefit of our sisters
and mothers and generations to come.

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 8

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

References

• Backert R. S. G. (2004) A Nonlinear Approach to Gender Bias in Leadership

Emergence Perceptions, Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University In partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Masters of Science In Industrial-Organizational
Psychology, Blacksburg, VA 24060, May 27, 2004.

• Boyce and Herd (2003); Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Vol. 49, 2003 “The
Relationship between Gender Role Stereotypes and Requisite Military
Leadership Characteristics” [online]
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002020434 Accessed
(18\02\09)

• Current Female World Leader Count (2009), [online]

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_rest_female-leaders.php Accessed
(18\02\09)

• Carlyle (1841). On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic History. Boston,

MA: Houghton Mifflin. [online] http://www.questia.com/read/1444983#|.
Accessed (18\02\09)

• Cromwell and Kolb (2004), “An examination of work-environment support

factors affecting transfer of supervisory skills training to the work place”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 449-71.

• Eagly, A., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & van Engen, M. (2003).

Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-
analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 29(4), 569-591.

• Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256.

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 9

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

• Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice

Toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598

• Feminist Philosophy of Religion (Mar 14, 2005) [online]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-religion/ Accessed (18\02\09)

• Fiedler, F.E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L.

Berkowitz (end), Advances in experimental social psychology, NY:

• Fiedler, F. E (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-

Hill

• Goldstein S. (2001) War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and
Vice Versa (Cambridge University Press, September 2001) [online]
http://www.warandgender.com/wgch1.htm Accessed (18\02\09)

• Hirsch, E.D. (2002) The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition),
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 2002.

• Hogue M. and Lord R. G (2007) A multilevel, complexity theory approach to

understanding gender bias in leadership, The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007)
370-390

• Hughes, Gannett, & Murphy. 1993: Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of

Experience. Richard D. Irwin, INC, p. 409

• Heilman, M., Block, C., Martell, R., & Simon, M. (1989). Has anything
changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.

• Howes and Stevenson, 1993. Women and the Use of Military Force. Lynne
Rienner Publishers, Inc.

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 10

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

• Kolb, J. A. Are We Still Stereotyping Leadership? SMALL GROUP

RESEARCH, Vol.28 No. 3, August 1997

• McCall, M.W. Jr. and Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how
successful executives get derailed. Greensboro, NC: Centre for Creative
Leadership

• Metcalfe, B. & Altman, Y. (2001) Leadership. In E. M. Wilson, (ed.)

Organizational Behaviour Reassessed: The Impact of Gender. London: Sage,
pp.104-128.

• Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1992). Breaking the Glass
Ceiling (Updated ed.). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley

• mbcglobal (September 5, 2008) Survey shows gender bias in

leadership[online]http://www.mbcglobal.org/2008/09/survey-shows-gender-
bias-in-leadership.html Accessed (18\02\09)

• Northouse (2007), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4thed, Peter. G.

Northouse, sage publications, 2007. US.

• Pdhre (2005) Invitation for comments to develop the content and agenda of a
Conference at the WSF: "Transforming the Patriarchal Order to human rights
System" [online] http://www.pdhre.org/patriarchy.html. Accessed (18\02\09)

• Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of

the literature, journal of physiology, 25, 35-71

• Stogdill, R. M. (1974) hand book of leadership: a survey of theory and

research, New York: free press

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 11

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)
Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

• Van Wagner (2009), About.com “Leadership Theories”

[online]http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/p/leadtheories.htm
Accessed (18\02\09)

For Prof Paresh Wankhade 12

International Masters in Business Administration (2008)