This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
FRED OCHIENG WALUMBWA University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations E.mail: email@example.com LUCY A. OJODE Indiana University Kokomo Division of Business & Economics
Abstract We adopt the Full Range Leadership (FRL) model to explore male and female students' perception of instructor leadership behaviors. The model uses the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) instrument to measure the transactional and transformational leadership styles as perceived by followers. A sample of 429 students from a large Midwest university (57% female and 43% male) and 21 faculty members participated in the study. The data were collected in a period of two semesters based on faculty willingness to participate in the study. The results indicate certain gender differences in instructor leadership rating by students. Although the study’s context is instructional setting, the results provide indications that may be contrary to the adoption of universal organizational practices to optimize on the efficiency of human capital.
GENDER STEREOTYPE AND INSTRUCTORS’ LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR: TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Research (e.g., Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Jacobs & McClelland, 1994) identify that a leader's gender moderates subordinates’ perception of leadership style and effectiveness. However, we have limited understanding of the impact of subordinates' gender on their perception of leadership behavior. The leadership-gender research remains focused on the leader despite the evidence that subordinates' responses to the leadership styles of managers may depend on the gender of both the manager and the subordinate (Futrell, 1984). Similarly, the extensive research on subordinate attributes moderating effects is silent on demographics such as gender (e.g., House & Mitchell, 1974; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Fetter, 1993). This gap in leadership research is particularly pronounced at the instructional levels where investigation has been confined to stereotypical male executive retrospective reports of leadership molding experiences in high schools and colleges (Bass, 1998). In this paper we address this gap by exploring the relationship between student stereotypes and perceived instructor leadership behavior. We adopt Bernstein, Roy, Srull, & Wicken’s (1988) definition of stereotype as an impression or schema of an entire group of people. Most stereotypes focus on observable attributes such as age, education, race, and gender. For example, the notion that older individuals are more positive self-descriptors than younger people (Chiroboga & Thurner, 1975), or the belief that people with limited formal education and those that are highly educated find difficulty working together (Barnard, 1938). In this study we seek to evaluate gender stereotypical effects on student rating of instructors with a focus on instructors’ leadership style. Assuming that leadership models may be applied in instructor-student relationships, we adopt the Full Range Leadership (FRL) model to examine the impact of male and female student’s perception of instructor leadership style. Although Bass et al (1996) examined FRL model and gender consideration, they focused on non-academic setting and investigated the effect of the leaders' gender. In a similar study, Comer, Jolson, Dubinsky, and Yammarino (1995) compared male and female subordinates' responses to a manager's leadership style. For a triad of a female sales manager and two subordinate salespersons (one male), Comer et al (1995) designed a questionnaire instrument for the subordinates to assess the managers' leadership style, the salespersons' satisfaction with supervision and the salespersons' selling performance. They found salesmen to be most responsive to leaders displaying individualized consideration and transactional leadership styles (contingent rewards or management-by-exception). The saleswomen on the other hand preferred charismatic leaders and those that adopted intellectually stimulating methods. Our study mirrors Bass et al (1996) on the aspect of gender and Comer et al (1995) with regard to ‘subordinates,’ but our focus on instructional setting distinguishes our approach from these studies. As the provision of worker training services spreads outside the traditional training institutions (Business Week, October 18, 1999:76), it becomes necessary to have a better understanding of the instructional clientele and their expectations in order for these institutions to maintain the provision of value added. It is therefore important that we understand students
we are unaware of any study that investigates gender differences in students’ perception of instructor leadership behavior. Burns. 1993. and individualized consideration. 1985. This leadership style focuses on follower motivation through (extrinsic) rewards or discipline. Zakay. 1994). A large number of studies have adopted the FRL framework to model gender differences in a variety of settings (Bass. Breinin. active management-by-exception (MBE-A). 1990. Bass & Avolio. Burke. capabilities. 1985). neither is any normative claim made for the superiority of a given behavior. 1997). 1990). Shamir. and satisfaction with the leader. 1988. and motives in order to raise performance beyond self-interest for the good of the organization (Bass. intellectual stimulation. the FRL research reveals that transactional leadership style is equally important and sometimes constitutes a necessary counterpart to transformational leadership style (Druscat. Howell & Avolio. 1985. However. Transformational leadership style comprises charisma. 1994). A secondary motivation for this study is to evaluate the robustness of the FRL model. Several studies have addressed the relationship of subordinate satisfaction and leader effectiveness to transformational and transactional leadership styles. 1995.. Consequently.g. & Allen. Bycio. control. and passive management-by-exception (MBE-P). Tichy & Devenna. 1986). 1978. 1998. Leaders may actively monitor deviations from standards to identify mistakes and errors—MBE-A. They stimulate followers to change their beliefs. Yammarino & Bass. Bass. Outcomes from transformational and transactional leadership behaviors include the degree to which the leader might elicit extra effort from his/her followers. Agentic qualities involve assertiveness. Our study seeks to address one of these needs by employing the FRL model to explore gender differences in students’ perception of instructor leadership behavior. 1995. Hackett. Hater & Bass. leader effectiveness. and drive or 3 . The Full Range Leadership Theoretical Framework The Full Range Leadership model proposes that certain characteristic outcome variables result from transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. leaders who adopt this style of leadership clarify kinds of rewards and punishment that followers expect for various behaviors (Bass. We omitted the third component of the FRL model—the laissez-faire leadership because its single leadership dimension makes it inappropriate for the instructional setting. inspirational motivation. Rather. There is no evidence from these studies however that indicates that transformational and transactional leadership styles are mutually exclusive. The transactional leadership style may even be preferable in some cases such as in stable organizations or during times of economic stability (Bass & Avolio1990).needs in relation to one of the distinguishing features of the traditional training institutions—the instructor. 1998). values. 1993. 1998) with consistent empirical evidence for the theory (Bass & Avolio. These studies demonstrate that transformational leadership is associated more with followers’ satisfaction and willingness to exert extra effort to achieve organizational goals (e. Leaders who demonstrate transformational leadership behaviors provoke emotional response in followers (Druscat. & Popper. 1987). Transactional leadership consists of contingent reward. Gender and Social Behavior Behavioral gender differences may be viewed in terms of Agentic and Communal qualities (Eagly. or they may wait (passively) for subordinates to err before initiating corrective action—MBE-P (Bass.
Similarly. Throughout the investigation we recognize that other mediating factors could influence students’ perception of the instructor leadership style. and perceive communally-inclined behaviors and styles. affectionate. dominance. Female leaders on the other hand advocated participation. This observation is consistent with female leaders higher scores on all components of transformation leadership style that Bass et al (1996) also observed. women rated higher on supportive and considerate behavior in consistency with transformational leadership style. Rosener (1990) distinguished male and female leaders according to agentic and communal qualities. Communal qualities on the other hand represent concern with the welfare of other people. power sharing. female’s disproportionate domestic assignments may have institutionalized them to exhibit communal tendencies (Williams & Best.purposefulness and are characterized by aggressiveness. On the other hand. Ninety-two percent of the available comparisons went in the direction of more democratic behavior for women than men" (p. students may rate instructors who award good grades as exhibiting characteristics consistent with transformational leadership behaviors because they like them. and perceive agentically-inclined leadership behaviors and styles while females identify with. 4 . helpfulness. self-reliance. Instructor Leadership Style and Student’s Gender Transformational Leadership Style and Gender We use the link between leadership style and gender to explore the relationship between students and their perception of instructor leadership styles. Since agentic qualities appeared to be more critical for survival outside the home in paid employment where men traditionally outnumbered women (U. self-sufficiency. 1974. However. emotional expressiveness. emphasize. For example. 1983). and decisiveness. Davidson and Ferrario (1992) found evidence from a sample of UK leaders indicating that men rated higher on structuring in consistency with transactional leadership style. In an investigation of leadership behaviors from four continents for instance. 1982). Rosener. 1991). Empirical evidence indicates that male and female leaders exhibit aspects of behavioral qualities that are consistent with the agentic-communal characterization. caring. Cultural environmental imposition and biological role mental context provide a framework for experience internalization that could lead males to identify with. 1982). In their self-reports male leaders tended to describe their job performances as a series of 'transactions' in which subordinates were rewarded or penalized according to their performance or lack thereof. Empirical evidence indicates that males in general exhibit agentic characterized while females tend to exhibit communal characteristics (Bem. ambition. and sympathy among others. These qualities include ability to devote self to others. Similarly. 1990. independence. Eagly and Johnson (1990) also observed a "tendency for women to adopt a more democratic or participative style and for men to adopt a more autocratic or directive style. Department of Labor. we believe it is less likely that students will pick the related items consistently since they are unaware of the item groupings. 255).S. emphasize. males may have been culturally institutionalized to exhibit agentic tendecies (Williams & Best. Ruble. empathy. and self-worth enhancement.
and less task oriented in certain situations (Eagly & Johnson. As a result of this conditioning. In a study of male and female leaders' subordinates responses. and willingness to take risks. these students will be more likely to perceive and rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership attributes. female students in contrast to their male counterparts may be 'crisis prone' and may tend to 'feel needy of intervention' (Comer & Jolson. Such needs may draw female students to view instructors as leader figures thus increasing the likelihood of accrediting instructors with charisma. 1992. Such instructors could broaden the scope and magnify the strength of students' wants. affection. Further.While both transactional and transformational instructors would attempt to sense students felt needs. Inspirational leaders also tend to eschew gradual step-by-step approaches and prefer "quantum leaps. H1a: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as charismatic. McGlauchlin. H1: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as displaying transformational leadership style. The result is a transfer of energies and motivational climate that encourages students to surpass their own expectations and personal objectives to realize instructional goals. feedback given to female students leads them to think of themselves as incompetent. desires. 1985). in comparison to men are more likely to be democratic. Capable transformational instructor would have the ability to convert the student's latent desires into current needs. 1990. Inspirational Motivation. respect. Females may therefore be expected to perceive factors associated with charisma such as feelings of esteem. We therefore propose that since female students are more likely to exhibit characteristics that are consistent with transformational leadership behavior. female students may ascribe concerns that result from lack of ability or faulty techniques to imagination and emotions. Rosener. transformational instructors may be more likely to probe deeper to identify and arouse student’s current and long-term considerations including the dormant or higher order needs. Legeros. interpersonally oriented. Inspirational leaders arouse follower enthusiasm by appealing to "faith" rather than "reason" and to "emotions" rather than "intelligence" (Yukl. According to Licht and Dweck (1984) for example. ambition. feelings that may promote self doubt (Heinen. Charisma. 1981). & Freeman. 1991)." The higher emotional sensitivity of females as a result of their greater skills at encoding and decoding emotional messages may render females more susceptible to approaches that rely on emotions. women may be conditioned to suppress negativity. For instance. 1990). Rosener. Consistent with Rosener (1990). Bass et al (1996) suggest that women are more likely to temper criticism with positive feedback and are more likely to be described as charismatic. these results render support to the anecdotal evidence that women leaders are more likely to be charismatic (Bass. and needs. Thus women. and trust than their male counterparts. admiration. Female students may therefore be expected to be more likely than their male counterparts to perceive and rate instructors with charisma. due to communal behavioral qualities. 1990)—behaviors consistent with transformational leadership style. aspirations. whereas male students tend to conclude that any failure is the result of lack of 5 . Such a supportive or communal and nurturing dimension of leadership behavior that is concerned with people and the development of their capabilities and maintenance of relationships conform to stereotypical female behavior (Davidson & Ferrario. dynamism. 1975).
Individualized Consideration. Females were found to be much more likely than males to attribute failure. Intellectual Stimulation. 1985). Intellectually stimulating leaders challenge their followers to reject conformity and guide them into novel approaches.effort or some other situational factors. 1986). females who are highly motivated to achieve (such as college students) do not always establish traditional goals for themselves and they do not always persist on predictable molds when confronted with failure (Dweck. In contrast to inspirational motivation. & Koopman. As a behavioral attribute. 6 . We therefore hypothesize that female students’ higher emotional sensitivity may predispose them to ascribe instructor attendance and feedback to inspirational motivation. especially in school-related tasks to lack of ability. H1d: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as individually considerate. Such right-brained approaches may require more instructor guidance to fit into the traditional institutional structures that may mean that female students have more opportunity to attribute instructor actions to intellectual stimulation. For instance. The 'transactions' or relationship between the leader and follower are enhanced by a sequence of bargains (Den Hartog. Van Muijen. 1998). Leaders who use individualized consideration tend to personalize interaction with followers in order to remain responsive to each follower's individual needs (Bass 1985). 1975). 1986). Research also indicates that unlike their male counterparts. Therefore." Eagly and Johnson (1990) found male students to be more likely to employ rational linear thinking while their female counterparts tended to rely on intuition and to employ non-traditional approaches to solving problems. Lee and Alvares (1977) found that female subordinates were more likely than their male counterparts to describe their leaders as exhibiting individually considerate behaviors. Intellectual stimulation within instructional setting thus entails the encouragement of students to work "smarter" rather than "harder" (Sujan. individualized consideration is consistent with the culturally ascribed female communal characteristics (Rosener 1990). H1b: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as providing inspirational motivation. Consequently. H1c: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as providing intellectual stimulation. Transactional Leadership Style and Gender Transactional leadership behavior emphasizes task structuring and its accomplishment and focuses on the exchange that takes place between a leader and followers (Bass. 1997) and involves the use of incentives to influence effort as well as clarification of the work needed to obtain rewards (Bass. even in the face of objective evidence that they performed better academically than their male counterparts (Dweck & Gillard. The instructor guides students in structuring their thoughts to work "smarter. we hypothesize that female students are more likely than their male counterparts to evaluate their instructors as engaging in individualized considerate behaviors. intellectual stimulation enhances performance through the mind rather than emotions. females may be expected to perceive and acknowledge such behaviors more than the males.
. 1995). while penalizing poor performance by withholding reward. Management-by-exception (MBE) provides for little or no contact between followers and their leaders. the emphasis on correction that focuses on negative variance or error may be counteractive. H2: Female students are less likely to rate their instructors as displaying transactional leadership style. scanty literature indicates that women may be more concerned than men with "punishment" that is perceived as arbitrary or unmerited (Shul. Few gender differences have been noticed in the way people respond to penalty or "punishment" that is "contingent" on performance (Comer et al. 1995). Goals for students can include the contribution of the course to grades and overall GPA that determines student competitiveness. Although MBE may provide opportunity for student initiative and pro-action. praise. Leaders take action only when things go wrong (active) or when standards are unmet (passive). 1990). & Bass. Contingent Reward. female students may be less likely to view instructors as incorporating all their ‘inputs’ in considering the reward. Spanger. H2a: Female students are less likely to rate instructors as employing contingent reward.' The instructor can reward successful performance with good grade. it is unlikely that female students will perceive instructors as users of contingent reward. Because of their communal behavioral inclination and non-linear approaches to tasks.. Active MBE represents a style where leaders take an active role by continuously monitoring followers performance to avoid any possible error that might emerge while passive MBE characterizes leaders who intervene and take action only after the occurrence of a problem (Yammarino. Research indicates that male leaders are more likely to practice MBE (Bass. The contingent reward or reinforcement dimension of transactional leadership is based on the assumption that reward is the overriding principle for effective performance. Remington. 1990. due to their agentic stereotypical inclination. Female students are therefore predicted to be less likely to identify with transactional qualities and may be less likely to rate instructors as displaying transactional leadership behaviors. However.. Given the above argument. The transactional leadership style is based on a rational model that is compatible with the expectancy theory that underlies traditional thinking (Comer et al. Management-By-Exception.. Follower needs are identified and then linked to both what the leader wants to achieve and the rewards associated with the effort of the follower. etc. Female subordinates on the other hand prefer 7 . commendation. For instance.Previous research identifies association between components of transactional leadership. 1990). Rosener. & Berl. 1992). Instructional setting is ideal for investigating whether student perception of instructor's use of contingent reinforcement varies by gender. job prospects. This may further mean that female students are less likely to perceive a stronger linkage between their efforts and their achievements (expectancy). 1985) and that males are generally more responsive to leaders displaying individualized consideration and those that use contingent reward or management-by-exception (Comer et al. and 'quality. gender and resultant outcomes (Eagly & Johnson. males tend to respond to the task structure and identify more with the transactional components of leadership situation (Davidson & Ferrario. Most instructors specify the benefits that students receive if a predetermined short-term performance is reached. 1995). 1993). Such rational approaches are more consistent with agentic rather than communal characteristics.
female students are less likely to perceive instructors as managing-byexception. Students' Responses to Instructor Leadership Styles A secondary purpose of this study was to investigate male and female student responses to instructor leadership style. 1998). H3: Female students are more likely to rate instructors as effective. The MLQ focuses on individual behaviors as observed by the followers and assesses the leadership behaviors that motivate followers to achieve expected performance. Shamir et al (1993). & Arthur. 1995) to test the above hypotheses. Hypothesis 3 following is based on the suggested link between transformational leadership behavior and followers rating of leader effectiveness. Methods Measures of Leadership The study uses a modified version of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio. According to the FRL model. H2b: Female students are less likely to rate instructors as managing-by-exception. Kroeck.’ Consequently. It contains 36 items that distinguish seven dimensions of transactional. if not always). The MLQ items are based on a 5-point scale (0=Not at all to 4=Frequently. the instrument has shown consistent internal reliability (Bass & Avolio. It also includes nine items measuring learner willingness to put extra effort. satisfaction. House. 1995. Based on the earlier argument and prediction that females are more likely to identify with behaviors that are consistent with transformational leadership style. willingness to put extra effort. eliciting extra effort and satisfaction. reviewed more than 20 studies that found transformational leadership to be positively associated with followers’ performances and perceptions. 1997).. we predict that female students will be more likely to rate instructors higher on these three outcome variables.. transformational. leader effectiveness. ability to elicit extra effort and satisfaction with the leader. A pair of rating forms was administered per class: the selfrating form for instructors and rater form for students.. Lowe et al (1996) reviewed another 35 empirical studies of transformational leadership and found transformational leadership positively correlated with followers’ rated and objectively measured performance. Shamir. then female students may tend to view instructor intervention as ‘normal. and satisfaction with instructor. for example. specifically students' perception of the instructors ability to elicit extra effort. 1996. Although we collected the instructor self8 . and perception of leader effectiveness (Shamir et al. and satisfaction with the leader. & Sivasubramaniam. Lowe. Further. the effectiveness of the leader. transformational leadership style is positively associated with follower motivation. Used widely in various settings to study transactional and transformational leadership styles. If female students in contrast to their male counterparts are more needy of instructor attention and intervention as argued earlier. 1993). 1995). and laissez-faire leadership (not considered in the current study) styles. empirical evidence associates transformational leadership style with follower level of satisfaction and performance (Bycio et al.contingent reward and those capable of intellectually stimulating them (Comer et al.
The final sample consisted of 57% female and 43% male and averaged 25.68) years in age and 4.84 (SD=2. Despite this potential shortcoming (Goodwin. We also combined MBE-A and MBE-P into MBE to meet the study criteria of α =. 70. the instrument is reasonably reliable at tapping student’s perception of their instructors’ leadership behaviors. Due to missing information. We also modified the FRL framework and existing instrumentation to fit the instructional setting (Walumbwa & Kuchinke.70 criterion is probably contributed by the negative correlation between the contingent reward scale and the MBE components. The remaining sample of 90 percent (N=429) usable questionnaires did not appear to be statistically different from those that were omitted. The graduates (61% female) averaged 29.rating information. reliabilities. Sample and Procedure We collected data from 478 students from a large Midwest research oriented university. Since the demographic variables of age and level of educational achievement affect leadership behavior ratings. and correlation matrices for the seven leadership scales. Because of the nature of the study. we selected relatively small classes to allow for student-instructor interaction. the instructor sub-sample size was too small to be used in the current study.69) years of full time working experience.24 (SD=7. The student sample included undergraduates and graduates. all the measures on internal consistency assessed using Cronbach’s alpha ranges from α =.70 (Nunally. Consequently. we controlled for these variables in our analysis. 70 to α = 91 meeting the generally accepted criteria of α = . about 10 percent of the questionnaires were unusable. The descriptive statistics reveal ranges of mean scores and standard deviations that are consistent with those reported in previous studies (e.74) years of part-time working experience. 226 were undergraduates (47% female) and averaged 21. The faculty (29% female) averaged 47. Wofford. Bass & Avolio. Similarly. 1998). & Whittington. 1999).28 (SD=8. Results The focus of this study was the comparison of female and male students' perception of instructors' style of leadership.73) years. 1967). level of academic achievement was divided into undergraduates and graduates.g. Tables 1 and 2 following provide summary statistics.26) years in age and full-time working experience of 5. we collected data from six colleges. This loss could have arisen from the fact that the instrument specifically requires respondents to leave items blank if they do not know the answer.57 (SD=7. ----------------------------------Insert 1 & 2 Table Here ------------------------------------ Table 3 following provides the results of the regression analysis.55) years in age with 19. The inability of the combined transactional leadership measure to meet the α = .61 (SD=2. Save for the combined transactional leadership dimension.33 (SD=7. 1997). The non-random sample selection was based on the faculty willingness to participate in the study. In hypotheses 1 and 1a to 1d we predicted that 9 .12) years in age ranging from 18 to 53 years old. Of the total participants..02 (SD=7.
for charisma (p<. Table 4a shows that undergraduate’s gender (controlling for age) discriminates students’ perception of instructor’s use of contingent reward system but in the opposite direction to our prediction.01). These results indicate that female students in general were more likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors and that gender appears to discriminate students’ perception of instructors’ transformational leadership behavior. male students are more likely to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership style and as employing a system of management by exception. for charisma (p<. As Table 4b indicates. These results indicate that regardless of gender. Female students tended to rate instructors with transformational leadership behaviors than their male counterparts. However.05). and 4b Here -----------------------------------------To evaluate the robustness of the models.05). Female undergraduates were more likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behavior. these hypotheses were supported for the combined transformational leadership style (p<.05).10). We predicted that female students compared to their male counterparts are less likely to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership behavior and as employing contingent reward and MBE systems. unlike their female counterparts.05). female graduate students compared to their male counterparts were more likely to rate instructors as exhibiting individualized consideration (p<. gender did not appear to discriminate the graduate students’ rating of instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behavior. As Table 3 indicates.female students would be more likely to rate their instructors as displaying transformational leadership behavior and its corollaries. Tables 4a and 4b following provide the results of these analyses. students generally view instructors as employing a system of contingent reward. That is. Save for the individualized consideration scale. As Table 3 indicates. Hypotheses 2 through 2b address the moderating effect of students’ gender on their perception of instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership behavior. The graduate students were a little different from their undergraduate counterparts.10) and that female students are less likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as managing-by-exception (p<. and for individualized consideration (p<.10). 4a. we ran separate regression analyses for undergraduates and graduates while controlling for age. the undergraduate sample results (Table 4a) support the hypothesis that female students were more likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behavior. the results support the hypotheses that female students compared to their male counterparts are less likely to rate their instructors as displaying transactional leadership style (p<. Table 4a indicates that the hypotheses were supported for the combined transformational leadership style (p<. for intellectual stimulation (p<. female undergraduates are more likely (not less likely) than their male 10 .001). ----------------------------------------Insert Tables 3.10). The hypothesis that female students are less likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as employing contingent reward was rejected. Save for the inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation items for which the gender coefficients are not statistically significant. and for individualized consideration (p<.
Rosener.01). Table 4a also indicates that younger undergraduates tended to rate instructors as effective and as satisfactory.01). 1998. 4a. Table 4b also indicates that older graduate students tended to rate instructors positively in all the outcome variables. Table 3 indicates that younger students (under 25) tended to rate instructors as exhibiting charisma (p<. Older undergraduates on the other hand tended to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership style (p<. Discussion In this study we sought to investigate whether gender discriminates students perception of instructors’ leadership behaviors.001). Druscat. The ‘anomaly’ disappears when we use the graduate sub-sample. We found evidence that is largely supportive of this hypothesis in consistency with previous studies (Bass. 1990) that support the notion that females are likely to identify with attributes conforming to transformational leadership. male graduates are more likely to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership style and as employing a system of management by exception. This ‘anomaly’ is probably accounted for by the negative correlation between the contingent reward and MBE items. Table 4b shows results that support the hypotheses that female graduates compared to their male counterparts are less likely to rate their instructors as displaying transactional leadership style (p<. Table 4b indicates that older graduate students tended to rate instructors as exhibiting charisma (p<.05). However. 11 . In the first hypothesis. As Tables 3. Younger graduate students on the other hand tended to rate instructors as employing a system of management by-exception (p<.01).10). as employing a system of individualized consideration (p<. and as satisfactory (p<. The final hypothesis addressed the relationship between gender and students' perception of the instructors’ ability to elicit extra effort. They rated instructors as eliciting extra effort (p<.10).10) and as employing a system of management by-exception (p<. Eagly & Johnson. 1990.10).counterparts to rate instructors as employing a system of contingent reward. These results indicate that regardless of gender.05). Further. we predicted that more females than males would rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors. Tables 3. a perception that was not shared by the female graduates. and as employing contingent reward system (p<. and 4b also provide interesting results on the moderating effect of student age on their perception.10) and that female graduates are less likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as managing-byexception (p<.01). female undergraduates were more likely than their male counterparts to perceive instructors as eliciting extra effort. graduate students generally view instructors as employing a system of contingent reward but unlike their female counterparts. Similarly. 1994. 4a. as Table 4a indicates.05). as effective (p<.01).01).10). we did not find statistically significant results for the hypothesis that female students are more likely to rate instructors as effective.10) and as employing contingent reward system (p<. and as employing a system of management byexception (p<. The hypothesis that female students are less likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as employing contingent reward is rejected for the graduate students. instructor effectiveness. and 4b indicate. employing individualized consideration (p<. and satisfaction. Table 4a indicates that younger undergraduates tended to rate instructors as exhibiting intellectually stimulating characteristic (p<. exhibiting transactional leadership style (p<. eliciting extra effort and satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that male students as opposed to female students would rate instructors high on transactional leadership attributes. the matrix registered positive correlation between the contingent reward item and all the transformational leadership behavior items. 1990) that identifies males with behaviors consistent with transactional leadership qualities.. On the other hand. effectiveness. the supportive evidence is consistent with the robustness of the transformations leadership behavior dimension of the FRL model. the results did not hold for contingent reward but contradicted our hypothesis in the undergraduate sub-sample thereby supporting Comer’s et al. Limitations and Implications for Future Research While the study shows promise for gender-leadership style-instructional setting research. Lack of statistically significant association between the outcome variables and gender may however be the result of emphasis on gender equality in academic settings that may confound the relationship between these variables. This hypothesis was not supported. because there were only 21 faculty (15 males and 6 females). This result may not be surprising given the structured nature of academic setting such as the requirement that students take certain classes regardless of whether they like the course or not. and satisfaction until they receive their final grades. It may be difficult to capture the true relationships in such situations where the end justifies the means. Students may reserve their decision about the perception of a particular instructor’s ability to elicit extra effort. it may be difficult to define noncontingent reward in a classroom setting. effective. Future research may consider the effects of matching follower-leader gender that could affect subordinate perceptions and outcome variables (Comer et al. and as satisfying. For instance. 12 . (1995) argument that female subordinates tend to prefer demonstration of contingent reward (Table 4a). Such restrictions in instructional setting confound the relationship in as far as students may register for certain classes merely to graduate or to meet registration conditions. Is the classification of contingent reward under transactional leadership dimension appropriate (Goodwin et al. Our finding on the gender-contingent reward rating thus revisits an important question regarding the classification of contingent reward under transactional leadership behavior. The structured nature of academic programs may make it difficult for students to decompose their experience at the school into components that relate to their interaction with individual course instructors. This hypothesis was also largely supported and the evidence is consistent with previous research (Eagly & Johnson. The correlation matrix shows a similar pattern of negative correlation between the contingent reward and MBE leadership scale. Rosener. Also. female students would rate instructors’ as eliciting extra effort. However. A larger and more diverse student body in terms of ethnicity and other attributes could constitute a rich and better testing sample. 1998) or is there a need to revise the entire MLQ instrument for future studies? Hypothesis 3 stated that by virtue of their likelihood to rate instructors with transformational leadership behavior. 1995).Although previous studies were contextualized in traditional work-oriented organizations while the current study’s context is instructional. caution is necessary in interpreting the results due to constraints such as sample homogeneity. 1990. leader subjects were insufficient for assessing the impact of the match between female/male students with female/male instructors..
Palo Alto. MA: Harvard University Press. (1985). The findings further reinforce Druscat’s (1994) call for more research that explore gender differences in leadership styles and in transformational and transactional leadership styles in particular from subordinate perspective to clarify and possibly replicate the current findings. Bass. The functions of the executive. Transformational leadership behavior evokes building a strong and productive instructor-student relationship by animating collaboration between the instructor and assisting in the production of a widely set norms. (1990). B. (1995). In general. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1995). I. B. values. 130-139. B. D. 13 . Bass. Bass. I. J. MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical report. CA: Mind Garden. Cambridge. (1998). Barnard.Another constraint of the present study is that since leadership qualities require longer and closer relationship to discern the use of FRL model in academic setting may be limited by the nature of student-instructor relationship within a semester. Menzies. the results of this study serve as a beginning for the exploration of issues adjoining the gender-leadership behavior interface in academic setting. Bass. 18(Winter). However. the results indicating that female consistently rated instructors higher on transformational leadership behaviors is consistent with the notion that gender differences may modify follower perception of leadership behavior. since transformational leadership introduces a number of complex variables that in some cases appear to defy measurement. C. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist. Jantzi. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. presenting quantitative and qualitative assessment of these dynamics particularly in an academic setting portends a great challenge to researchers (Gold & Quatroche. (1997). Organizational Dynamics. M. 1996). New York: Free Press. Despite these limitations the study provides some intriguing results that hitherto were not identified in the literature. M. Leadership and performance and beyond expectations. M. 1994). REFERENCES Avolio. Publishers.. 19-31. M. & Jung. B. and beliefs consistent with continuous improvement for students (Leithwood. M. Military. and educational impact. Bass.. In conclusion. This is particularly important at a time when organizations are increasingly defining themselves in terms of know-how and as intellectual capital becomes the distinguishing value-creating mechanism for competitive organizations (Leonard-Barton. Transformational leadership: Industry. 52(2). (1938). Perhaps the model could be more applicable among graduates and their academic advisors where instructor-student interaction entails a much longer time in which to discern the dynamics at play. & Leithwood. B. B.
and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Bass. M. B. & Yammarino. J. J. Pasmore (Eds. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (1986). Avolio. Srivasta (Ed. (1991). (1990). B. XI(Winter).W. 51-77). Ayman (Eds. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. E. M. Leadership. & Atwater L. K. Journal of Applied Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. & Roy. Woodman & W. S. L.. In S. Jolson. Transformational leadership: A response to critiques.4) (pp... D. F. R. Perception of gender stereotypic behavior: An exploratory study of women in selling.. Research in organizational change and development (Vol. M. L. M. B. (1978). & Jolson. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. P. L. & Avolio. & Allen. M. Further assessment of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. W. & Avolio.. 5(1). Palo Alto: Mind Garden. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 43-59. Target Management Development Review... Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. Bem. & Avolio. & Wickens. Chemers & R. (1995). Burns. Bass. 5-34..).). 42(2). & Ferrario. & Avolio. Burke. (1996). M. (1995). In M. and organizational development. Greenwich: JAI Press..). 13-17. Full range leadership: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. 14 . A. Leadership as empowering others. B.. (1974). W. Srull. B. San Diego: Academic Press. M. team. B. Davidson. Dubinsky. M. Bass. Comer. J. T.. Psychology. B.. A. (1988). B. J.. J. M. The measurement of psychological androgyny. M. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. rater. D. A. Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. In R. J. C. S. (1992). D. (1993). B. J.A. Redwood City: Mind Garden. B. (1997). 49(2). J. Transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Executive power (pp. A. Hackett. 17-32.. Bernstein. 15(4). Comer. 231-272). A comparative study of gender and management style. Bycio. J. When the sales manager is a woman: An exploration into the relationship between salespeople's gender and their responses to leadership styles. 155-162. B. B. J. 112-114. Bass. (1995).Bass. 45(1). 49-80). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form. The implications for transactional leadership for individual. M.
Gold. M. U. (1988). & Koopman. Heinen. New Directions for student services.. J. & Peters. 99-119. D. A. 3(4). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. J. J. Eagly. Journal of Contemporary Business. J. R. (1994). Path-goal theory of leadership. (1986). A. & Mitchell. Psychological Bulletin. C. Dweck. S. T. (1974). 1040-1048.66(Summer) 31-43. (1998). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. (1997). (1994). Differences in job motivation and satisfaction among female and male managers. V. Van Muijen. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Whittington. Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Supervisors’ evaluations and surbodinates’ perception of transformational and transactional leadership. H. & Freeman. & Quatroche. Paper presented to the 1998 Academy of Management Meeting. McGlauchlin. C. 32(6). Wofford. Leadership Quarterly. 233-57. 101-118. P. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. V. N.. J. J. & Bass.. Motivational forces affecting learning. (1975). 282-86.. J. 1077-1084. (1982). (1987). & Johnson. 5(1). 7(1). 73(4). Journal of Occupational psychology. 19-34. D. L. J. 15 . Gillard.. Futrell. Hater. B.T. CA. Human Relations. Legeros. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 19-23. T.. Forgionne. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Developing the woman manager. H. 41(10).Den Hartog. A. C. R. American Psychologist. House. Personnel Journal. Dweck. J. C. Eagly. Druscat. 35(2).. Expectancy statements as determinants of reactions to failure: Sex differences in persistence and expectancy change. (1984). S.. E. 108(2). Goodwin. C. V.. G. (1990). C. 695702. 81-97. San Diego. (1975). IV(May). Student government: A testing ground for transformational leadership principles. Salespeople's perceptions of sex differences in sales managers. S. M. D. A... J. 54(5). J. B. Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. An empirically based extension of the transformational leadership construct.
D. K. P.. (1993). R. Academy of Management Journal. House. (1967). locus of control. J.. 4(1). Remington. Rosener. Shul. D. B. & Alvares. 78(6). Psychometric Theory. Licht. 4(4).. M. 628636. R. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. Ruble. (1996).. 4(4).. (1993). Leadership Quarterly. S. 385-425. 1-16. & Sivasubramaniam. Journal of Applied Psychology. Leadership Quarterly. Shamir. (1998). 68(November-December). J. 16 . 62(4). 20(4). Nunnally. (1994). Harvard Business Review. transformational leadership and the amelioration of teacher burnout. Organization Science. Stress. Anxiety. & McClelland. N. C. B. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Surbodinates’ attitudes. Moving up the corporate ladder: A longitudinal study of leadership motive pattern and managerial success in women and men. Determinants of academic achievement: The interactions of children’s achievement orientations with skill area. transactional leadership. 119-125.. G. L. Wellspring of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation.. E. (1977). L. B. & Arthur. Lowe. & Avolio. (1990). & Popper. MacKenzie. Shamir. and Coping: An International Journal. Jantzi. 32-41. D. M. 387-594. Leithwood. P. 577-594.. and superior’ appraisals of leader performance.. Breinin. Transformational leadership. The motivational effect of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. R.. K. E. B.M. 199-215. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research... S. Podsakoff. and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. (1995). 397-402. (1996). Kroeck. & Fetter. 891-902. unit characteristics. Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. & Dweck. Substitutes for leadership and the management of professionals. School restructuring. Assessing gender differences in relationships between supervisory behaviors and job-related outcomes in the industrial salesforce. Developmental Psychology. J.. (1984). 7(3). L. 9(3). & Berl.. 9(3). Effects of sex description and evaluations of supervisory behavior in a simulated industrial setting. G. C. 405-10. Ways women lead.Howell. D. B. S. 46(1). & Leithwood. B. (1993).. C. M. T. Menzies. K. B. J. M. Sex Roles. J. New York: McGraw-Hill. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (1990). B. Zakay. 1-44. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1983). X(Summer).J. Leonard-Barton... T. M. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis review of the MLQ literature. K. Jacobs. L. R. Lee.
HRD faculty as leaders: The application of the Full Range Leadership theory to graduate level HRD instruction. Clark (Eds. O... & Bass. The Psychology of Thinking. Conference Proceedings (pp. (1986). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study. Leadership Quarterly. (1990). (1991). The transformational leader. F. E. J.: Bureau of Labor Statistics.A. 151-169). Department of Labor. The Academy of Human Resource Development. Williams. (1981). & Kuchinke. W. Spangler. D. Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation.). Eaglewood Cliff. In K. H..C. G. & Best D. Walumbwa F. B. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. XXIII(February). J. M. Beverly Hills: Sage. Measure of leadership (pp. N.). West Orange. P.M. NJ: Prentice Hall 17 . (1999). E. F. Journal of Marketing Research. & Bass. Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings: In K. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Yammarino. J. E. L. 4(1). Kuchinke (Ed. J. Yammarino. Smarter versus harder: An exploratory attributional analysis of salespeople's motivation. K. Vinacke. & Devanna. U. W.. (1986). LA: Academy of Human Resource Development. Yukl. (1993). J.S. (1982). Employment and earnings Washington.1210-1216). B. Baton Rouge. 41-9. Inc. P. NJ: Leadership Library of America. (1952). Clark & M. Tichy. D.. 81-102. Leadership in organizations.Sujan. B.
68** 10 .75** . Laissez-Faire 10. Reliabilities.85** .65** -.27 7 α .02 1.80 .63 3.25** -.69** .70** .11* -. and Outcome Variables N 1.70** . Inspirational Motivation 4.79** .33** .12* -. Satisfaction *P < .71** -. Extra Effort 11.70** .38** . Transactional 10.58 3.10* -.32** .19 1. and Correlations among Leadership Scales. Effectiveness 12.01 20 8 4 4 4 12 4 8 4 3 4 2 5 .76** 9 2 3 4 . Charisma 3. Transformational 2. Mgt-ByException 9.35** . Extra Effort 11.86 .05.27** .51 . Laissez-Faire 10. Intellctual Stimulation 5.20 1.40** .70 .74 .70 .18** .56 1.74** .02 1.87 1.69** .13** -.68** M 3.71 3.63** .80 .94** .70** -.58 . Contingent Reward 11.70** .34** .74 6 . Transactional 7.50 3.64** .35** .72 1.76 .72** .71** -. Contingent Reward 8.05 -.73** -.33** . Satisfaction 6.25 1.63** 11 .83** .74 . Effectiveness 12.91 .63 3.43** .61** .78** .57** .53** . Mgt-ByException 12.15** SD .08 .69** .86** .34** -.11* -.75** .40 3.28** .45** -.13** .70** 18 .61** .85 .08 -.TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics. **p < .82** -.70 .05 .67 3.74** .75** .60 2.20** .65** .49 2. Individualized Consideration 6.74** .59 3.23** .70 8 1 .33** -.05 .
004 -.16* -.70** .83** .40 -.100 R2 .73 13.006 -.50 1.208* Degree .58 .32** -.69** .27** .62 .73** .017 Adjusted R2 .23** -.80** -. Transactional 2.63 .68** .25** .16 .70 .70** .90 .02 Consideration 9. Contingent 3.010 .70** .66 1.013 .044 7.279*** R2 .01 -.001 Independent Variable Dependent Variable: Inspirational Motivation 3.76** .70 TABLE 3 Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable Dependent Dependent Variable: Variable: Charisma Transformational Constant 3.69** .214† Degree .64 .73** 7 3.77 1.596*** 429 .04 .002 .79** .20 15.003 -. 3.70** -.30** .75 .65** .24** .50 .75** 14 3.10.11 .73** .48** .22** -.89** .01 1.79** .84** .208*** Age -158 -.70** .53 10. Satisfaction 3.004 .37** .74 .006 . Extra Effort 3.34** .063 . Management2.58** -.61** . Individualized 3.73** .178* Age -. 6.241* -.67** .67** .24 .05. Standard Deviations.60 .656 3.051 .156† .191** .56** .70** -.59** .756 -.75** 5 3.61** .075 .36** 13 3.012 2.84** .20** -.063 .23** .76** .76** .39** .260† .080 .396* N 429 429 Independent Dependent Dependent Variable Variable: Variable: Contingent Mgt -ByReward Exception Constant 3.82** .74** .70 .021 .05 Motivation 7.84 Charisma 3.78 .131 -.744 -.76** .007 .67** 9 2.70 .34** .28** .75** . **p < .87 .50** .017 .068 .56** .03 Stimulation 8.309** .70** -.867 429 19 Dependent Variable: Intellectual Stimulation 3.66 1.86 Inspirational 3.64** .TABLE 2 Correlations.64** .74 .093 .72** .75** .009 -.049 Adjusted R2 .37** -.149 .67** .80 .760* 429 Dependent Variable: Satisfaction 3.99 .86 .42** .624 .92 .997 429 Dependent Variable: Effectiveness 3.497 429 Dependent Variable: Extra Effort 3.455* 7.70 By-Exception 12.21** .84** .087 -.74** .77 .69** .84** .56** .019 . Means.67** .259*** N 429 429 † p<.26** -. and Reliabilities for the Study Variable by Gender [Female Sample (N=245) Below Diagonal and Male Sample (N=184) Above Diagonal] 1 2 Mean Std.59 1.140 -.18 .19 14.44** .68 .41 .26** .36** .72** .32** . **p<.22** -.847 2.84** 15 3.59 1. *p<.139 -.001 .21** .57 .70 . Effectiveness 3.000 .70 .30 .18* . 5.698 -.57** .02 -.68** -.21** -.19** -.76** -.32 .29** .94** .29 *P < .10 Reward 11.64 1.52 .559 -.089† -.025 -.66 1.36 1.84** .54 .34 .11 -.46 .04 -.680 -.05. 4.010 F 1.35** .55** .089 .023 .24** -.34** .68** .72 .53** .580 Gender -.168* -.99 .68** .74** .17* .62 .10 .18* .24** -.003 .30** -.31** -.582 429 Dependent Variable: Individualized Consideration 3.12 .78** .289*** .24** 11 2.78 .82 .042 F 2.45** 10 3.31** .74** .40** . Laissezz-Faire 1.74** .05 12 1.72** .81 .74 . 2.28** .74** .68** 6 3.90 .71** .06 .73** -.76** .96 .005 -.60** .71** . 3 4 3.197 .728 429 Dependent Variable: Transactional Leadership 2.61** .70 .83** .627 2.089 .60** 8 3.01***P<.91 .93** .68 1.70 1. Deviation Alpha (α) Transformational 3.122 Gender -.716 -. Intellectual 3.72 .
012† R2 .014 .182† Age -.971 226 Dependent Variable: Transactional Leadership 2.013† .648 226 Dependent Variable: Extra Effort 3.017† .006 -.228 -.10.001 Independent Variable Dependent Variable: Inspirational Motivation 3. *p<.026 .014 F 2.057 Adjusted R2 .024 .007† .146 -.05.561 .009 1.016 .714*** N 226 226 † p<.008 1.191* -.917 226 Dependent Variable: Effectiveness 4.647† N 226 226 Independent Dependent Dependent Variable Variable: Variable: Contingent Management Reward By-Exception Constant 4.011 .017 .026 .016** -.197* -.932 -.248** -.014 .739† 226 Dependent Variable: Satisfaction 4. **p<.023 Adjusted R2 .003 .138 -.129 -.015 2.017 .006 1.948 -.048 F 2.246† -.209† Age .545† 2.704 Gender -.137 -.329 -.792 3.008 1.851 -.775 Gender .017 .TABLE 4a Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable (Undergraduates Controlling for Age) Dependent Dependent Variable: Variable: TransforCharisma mational Constant 3.01.643 226 20 .489† 226 Dependent Variable: Individualized Consideration 3.872 226 Dependent Variable: Intellectual Stimulation 3.134 1.013 2. ***P<.750 -.996* 6.018* .011 .022 .009 R2 .009 -.003 .023 .
671 -.039** .042 .735* N 203 203 † p<.060*** . *p<.779* 203 Dependent Variable: Intellectual Stimulation 2.TABLE 4b Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable (Graduates Controlling for Age) Dependent Dependent Variable: Variable: Charisma Transformational Constant 2.655† 203 Dependent Variable: Individualized Consideration 2.063 7.033 .059** 5.033 4.042 F 6.083 .759 -. ***p<.079 .035 .033** R2 .251† .035 .707 -.016 2.01.041** .026 F 3.693 2.918** 203 Dependent Variable: Satisfaction 2.236* Age . **p<.034 .218 .035** -.038 4.37** N 203 203 Independent Dependent Dependent Variable Variable: Variable: Contingent Management Reward -By-Exception Constant 2.014† 2 R .047 .047 .026 .051 Adjusted R2 .336 203 21 .10.037 .001 Independent Variable Dependent Variable: Inspirational Motivation 2.915 .003 1.255 -.035 .777 2.140† .026 .336 Gender -.404** 203 Dependent Variable: Effectiveness 2.026** 3.653* 203 Dependent Variable: Extra Effort 2.692 Gender -.05.458* 3.881 -.173 Age .013 .027 3.048 .024 .455 .102 .700*** 203 Dependent Variable: Transactional Leadership 2.036 Adjusted R2 .057 .042 .179 -.072 .034* .