What's Your Reaction?

My last entry defined the questions we asked regarding the relationships among various measures of motivational orientation (as a proxy for leadership style), intelligence, coping, and the dependent variable, the perception of leadership effectiveness. This entry will report the findings.

Recall the subjects of this study were an already highly intelligent group of M.B.A. candidates at the Booth School of Business at The University of Chicago who were selected for participation in an elite leadership development program. These students were selected on the basis of their perceived leadership capacity. Measures of personality and intelligence were taken at the start of the nine-month program; measures of leadership effectiveness were taken at the end of the nine-month program.

Comparing the men's and women's average ratings on leadership showed that female leaders were perceived as being slightly more effective on average than their male counterparts but the difference was not statistically significant. Female leaders were evaluated only marginally more favorably than male leaders when examining the ratings of leadership as perceived separately by the gender of the raters.

Women obtained a slightly higher score than men on the measure of intelligence (APM) but the difference was not significant. There was no relationship between this measure of intelligence and leadership.

Gender differences in motivational orientation were significant. Men scored significantly higher on the agentic variable than did women; women scored significantly higher on the communal variable than did men. Men tended to describe themselves as having more stereotypically masculine attributes than women; women tended to describe themselves as having more stereotypically feminine attributes than men.

To examine the relations among gender, motivational orientation, and leadership, we looked at the correlations between leadership and motivation for the entire sample and separately, by gender. The correlations between leadership and motivation for the entire sample were not significant. When examined by gender, however, a differential pattern of correlations emerged. There was a negative and significant correlation between leadership and the agentic variable for women (r = -.49, p < 05). Put simply, women who demonstrated an agentic style of leadership tended to be perceived unfavorably as leaders. The correlation between leadership and the communal variable was not significant for women. Neither the agentic nor the communal style was correlated with leadership for men.

The key variables for explaining the evaluation of leadership were the measures of active coping obtained on the sentence completion test, a semi-projective technique for assessing coping style. The Final Score on this test has a range of 1 to 5. The Final Score was significantly correlated with leadership, both for the entire sample (r = .48, p < .01) and for men and women separately (women, r = .55, p < .05; men, r = .38, p < .05). A high Final Score is an indication of the individual's overall ability to respond adaptively to stress and to grow. The individuals identified as the most effective leaders also were the most active copers as measured by this semi-projective test.

A differential pattern of correlations among gender, leadership, and certain measures of coping on this test was also noted. Category 1 of this test is a measure of the readiness to articulate clearly sources of frustration. It was positively and significantly correlated with leadership effectiveness for women but not men (r = .72, p < .01.). A measure of defensiveness was negatively and significantly correlated with leadership effectiveness for women but not men (r = -.61, p = <.01). Category 4, a measure of self-confidence and self-esteem, was significantly correlated with leadership for women but not men (r = .53, p <.05). A measure of the readiness to articulate events and things outside the self was marginally correlated with leadership for women but not men (r = .45, p < .1.).

As noted at the beginning of this series of entries, active coping, as reflected in the Final Score, was correlated with leadership effectiveness for both men and women. There were differences in the specific components of coping and leadership effectiveness for men and women. For men, only the Final Score was related to leadership effectiveness. For women, the ability to identify and face difficulties in a confident manner was related to leadership effectiveness. Women exhibited a greater ability than men to be open to the perception of frustrations and difficulties and to articulate clearly both positive and negative motivations rather than deny or defensively avoid coping with demanding or conflict-arousing circumstances.

Women openly described how they saw the challenges of leadership and had more insight into and acceptance of what motivated them to behave in response to challenges and stress. They found this to be a resource that helped them not "turn a blind eye to" or avoid dealing with, or be self-defensive, when it came to facing difficult situations or, particularly, ones in which they would have to confront resistance or outright opposition to their decisions and initiatives. They were willing to examine what made them believe that they had the correct intuitions about the direction the group should take, understand why others might disagree, and still move forward.

Consistent with the findings of most organizational studies, the differences in the evaluation of male and female leaders were negligible. Women tended to be judged as being slightly more effective leaders overall by males and females alike. In a naturalistic setting which controlled for social class and level of education, female leadership was considered at least as effective overall as male leadership.

Despite controls for social class, education, and intelligence, and despite similarities on leadership effectiveness, the men and women showed significant differences in their motivations that resembled gender role regularities. It would have been reasonable to expect that in 1993, gender-typed differences would be less pronounced among M.B.A. candidates even at The University of Chicago. Presumably, male and female M.B.A. candidates are selected into business school on the basis of their aptitude to meet the performance requirements of the curriculum. Variability within the population is restricted by that selection force, limiting any correlations that might be observed between measures of personality and leadership.

The subjects of this study represented an even more homogeneous population because they were selected to be participants in the leadership development program based on their perceived leader-like characteristics. In addition, business school is one step in a march toward accepting the values and standards of a historically male-dominated corporate culture. Male and female participants alike might have been expected to meet a baseline level of traditionally masculine motives and values. Add to the selection and socialization factors the fact that the participants were graded for their contribution to the program, men and women alike were probably more concerned about their performance than with fulfilling gender role types. These assumptions about selection and socialization suggest that the men and women in this study should have differed little in their motivations.

Despite these forces for minimizing personality differences, traditional gender differences in motivation were still prevalent. Why might this be so? It is possible that men and women have distinctive, biologically wired-in patterns of maturation. Organizational selection and socialization may not eliminate ingrained gender differences in personality or behavioral tendencies. Biological differences and gender-differentiated life experiences may cause male and female managers to be different even if they occupy the same role. Research on children's play groups indicates that even at an early age (beginning around age four), boys and girls show markedly different styles in social interactions. This research provides evidence supporting an agentic-communal distinction such as the one proposed by Bakan, but at a preadult phase of development. Differences appear early in childhood and persist into adulthood. Men and women may enter business school with different skill sets. To the extent that these differences reflect gender differences that are not eradicated by selection or socialization for management, it is not surprising that men and women would exhibit different patterns of motivation even if they are selected for the same role.

Whatever their source, these gender differences appear to play a crucial mediating role in shaping the evaluation of male and female leaders. As discussed above, exhibiting a communal orientation (i.e., leading in a feminine manner) did not create a disadvantage for men relative to women. These findings are consistent with the assumptions feminine styles ameliorate role conflict for female leaders but do not affect male leaders' success. It appears that, all other factors being equal, men may have more latitude than women to lead in a variety of masculine and feminine styles without consequence for how they are evaluated. The similarity of men and women on leadership, intelligence, social class, and education makes the gender difference in motivation and the differential evaluation of male and female leaders who exhibited agentic orientations particularly compelling.

An additional factor that might have influenced the negative evaluation of agentic women is the unstructured nature of the setting. In contrast to the majority of leadership studies, performed in organizations, our study occurred in a setting that lacked the constraints of organizational roles.

This asymmetry in reactions to women's and men's motivational orientations resembles the findings of other social scientists on conformity and status attainment in small groups. Ridgeway (1982) for example found that friendly, cooperative, interpersonally-oriented behavior enhanced women's status and their influence over other group members but had little or no impact on men's status and influence. According to Ridgeway, typically feminine behavior served to demonstrate women's group-oriented motivation and lack of self-oriented motivation in a leadership situation. Proof of acceptable motivation was evidently a prerequisite for effective leadership by women. Men, by contrast, were not suspected of having self-aggrandizing motives and were not required to prove their group-oriented motivation because group members perceived them as having an inherent right to lead. From one perspective, the ability of feminine leadership styles to ameliorate female leaders' potential role conflict may stem from the specific meaning these styles convey. This meaning could be that a leader is concerned about the success of the group, not about enhancing personal power and status.

In other words, gender role stereotypes legitimate self-centeredness and concern with power and status in male leaders but such women who display such an orientation violate what society expects of women. Small wonder then that women in management must be stronger copers and have more self confidence than their male counterparts. Such strengths are necessary to be able to devise effective strategies for leading others and for overcoming prejudices against female leadership.

Task Orientation Associated With Effective Leadership for Women

One noteworthy finding were gender differences in coping style and leadership. For one, evaluations of leadership were positively and significantly correlated with the ability to identify sources of difficulty (on the sentence completion test) for women but not for men. Also, the correlation between leadership effectiveness and the tendency to be invested in impersonal objects and activities was marginally significant for women but not for men.

It is reasonable to infer that the standards applied by both men and women for evaluating the leadership style and potential of women were not used in evaluating male leadership style and potential. The most effective female leaders were focused on technical problems and difficulties in the external world. Male leaders' effectiveness was not influenced by their openness to perceiving external difficulties. This finding is consistent with previous research reporting that female leaders' behaviors are viewed as being more task-oriented than men's equivalent behaviors.

Whereas the finding that women showed more communal qualities may reflect gender role stereotypes in general, the finding that effective female leaders were especially concerned with technical tasks may reflect a more complex theory about women having to perform extremely well to succeed as managers. Past studies have provided support of this idea. Effective female leaders are expected to exhibit higher levels of both the interpersonally-oriented and the task-oriented aspects of leadership. That is, female leaders are expected to demonstrate both greater consideration of others and greater initiation of structure.

The constraints on women's leadership style raise an important issue: Are women evaluated less favorably than men when performing leadership or managerial behaviors even though women's and men's behaviors are objectively equivalent? If individuals are biased to evaluate female leaders' efforts less favorably than the equivalent efforts of male leaders, women who aspire to leadership roles would encounter serious barriers to entering and advancing in these roles. To the extent that my findings can be generalized to organizational settings, they suggest that females in managerial roles may be subject to more stringent evaluations. Particularly in organizations in which autocratic styles are common, women in management may encounter significant bias given the evidence of this study and others.

Women with active coping stand a better chance of succeeding in leadership roles. Women who show more active coping tend to be selected more often for leadership roles. Women who wish to advance as managers should avoid behaviors and situations that elicit negative ratings. Avoidance of autocratic, directive styles, which elicit negative evaluation of female leaders, requires that women in leadership roles adopt more democratic, participative styles than men in similar roles. To the extent that women either avoid male-dominated leadership roles or favor an autocratic and directive style, the phenomena demonstrated in this study would serve to preserve the traditional division of labor and discourage women from seeking or attaining positions of leadership. My findings indicate that women capable of overcoming the limitations on leadership style must be more self-confident, task focused and open to the perception of frustration and difficulty than their male counterparts.

Toward a General Model of Leadership

I have proposed that active coping is a necessary but insufficient determinant of effective leadership; other characteristics, such as motivational orientation, are also required. The utility of a specific skill set or leadership style will depend on the situation but the underlying stability and openness to adapting to change associated with active coping is always necessary.

My findings support this model. The strength of the findings could not be explained by different levels of intelligence. This observation is important because high correlations between managerial performance and intelligence have been reported across all levels of managerial functioning.

Using a task group (M.B.A. candidates at The University of Chicago) working over a nine months on a task that determined important consequences (corporate sponsorship for the program at the Booth School of Business and the students' grades), my research demonstrated that active coping is associated with the emergence and evaluation of an individual as a leader regardless of gender. I also found a differential pattern of relationships among gender, motivation, and the evaluation of leadership.

Differences in the evaluation of male and female leaders could have been due to genuine differences in their behavior as well as to gender expectations in the perceivers. Furthermore, whether leaders are more effective as a result of their differing motivations or styles, and the ways in which gender interacts with these factors, are questions that can be addressed only by taking measures of group outcomes into account along with measures of perceived leadership effectiveness.

To be an effective leader or manager, it is important to be able to strike an appropriate balance between assertiveness and cooperation. Ideally, both male and female leaders will choose their actions sensibly and flexibly depending on the situations they confront. Expressive, relationship-oriented behaviors contribute to high morale and cohesiveness in small task groups. My findings suggest that men and women alike expect women to serve these empathetic socially-facilitating functions in the workplace. Autonomy, decisiveness, and ambition also are requisites of effective leadership. Yet it appears that women should apply these qualities with judicious restraint if they are to succeed as leaders. Given the expectation imposed on female leaders, it is not surprising that women have to be stronger copers than men to establish legitimacy and credibility as leaders within a small group.