GENDER STEREOTYPE AND INSTRUCTORS LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR:

TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP

FRED OCHIENG WALUMBWA

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations
E.mail: walumbwa@uiuc.edu

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
studys 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, & Wickens (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 students
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

2
needs in relation to one of the distinguishing features of the traditional training institutionsthe
instructor. 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. A
secondary motivation for this study is to evaluate the robustness of the FRL model. A large
number of studies have adopted the FRL framework to model gender differences in a variety of
settings (Bass, 1998) with consistent empirical evidence for the theory (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
However, we are unaware of any study that investigates gender differences in students
perception of instructor leadership behavior.

The Full Range Leadership Theoretical Framework

The Full Range Leadership model proposes that certain characteristic outcome variables
result from transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. We omitted the third
component of the FRL modelthe laissez-faire leadership because its single leadership
dimension makes it inappropriate for the instructional setting. Outcomes from transformational
and transactional leadership behaviors include the degree to which the leader might elicit extra
effort from his/her followers, leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leader.
Transformational leadership style comprises charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Leaders who demonstrate transformational
leadership behaviors provoke emotional response in followers (Druscat, 1994). They stimulate
followers to change their beliefs, values, capabilities, and motives in order to raise performance
beyond self-interest for the good of the organization (Bass, 1985, 1990; Burns, 1978; Tichy &
Devenna; Burke, 1986). Transactional leadership consists of contingent reward, active
management-by-exception (MBE-A), and passive management-by-exception (MBE-P). This
leadership style focuses on follower motivation through (extrinsic) rewards or discipline.
Consequently, leaders who adopt this style of leadership clarify kinds of rewards and punishment
that followers expect for various behaviors (Bass, 1998). Leaders may actively monitor
deviations from standards to identify mistakes and errorsMBE-A, or they may wait (passively)
for subordinates to err before initiating corrective actionMBE-P (Bass, 1985).

Several studies have addressed the relationship of subordinate satisfaction and leader
effectiveness to transformational and transactional leadership styles. These studies demonstrate
that transformational leadership is associated more with followers satisfaction and willingness
to exert extra effort to achieve organizational goals (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993,
1995; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Shamir,
Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). There is no evidence from these
studies however that indicates that transformational and transactional leadership styles are
mutually exclusive, neither is any normative claim made for the superiority of a given behavior.
Rather, the FRL research reveals that transactional leadership style is equally important and
sometimes constitutes a necessary counterpart to transformational leadership style (Druscat,
1994). The transactional leadership style may even be preferable in some cases such as in stable
organizations or during times of economic stability (Bass & Avolio1990).

Gender and Social Behavior

Behavioral gender differences may be viewed in terms of Agentic and Communal

qualities (Eagly, 1987). Agentic qualities involve assertiveness, control, and drive or
3
purposefulness and are characterized by aggressiveness, ambition, dominance, independence,
self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and decisiveness. Communal qualities on the other hand represent
concern with the welfare of other people. These qualities include ability to devote self to others,
caring, affectionate, emotional expressiveness, empathy, helpfulness, and sympathy among
others. Empirical evidence indicates that males in general exhibit agentic characterized while
females tend to exhibit communal characteristics (Bem, 1974; Rosener, 1990; Ruble, 1983).

Since agentic qualities appeared to be more critical for survival outside the home in paid
employment where men traditionally outnumbered women (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991),
males may have been culturally institutionalized to exhibit agentic tendecies (Williams & Best,
1982). Similarly, females disproportionate domestic assignments may have institutionalized
them to exhibit communal tendencies (Williams & Best, 1982). Cultural environmental
imposition and biological role mental context provide a framework for experience internalization
that could lead males to identify with, emphasize, and perceive agentically-inclined leadership
behaviors and styles while females identify with, emphasize, and perceive communally-inclined
behaviors and styles.

Empirical evidence indicates that male and female leaders exhibit aspects of behavioral
qualities that are consistent with the agentic-communal characterization. In an investigation of
leadership behaviors from four continents for instance, Rosener (1990) distinguished male and
female leaders according to agentic and communal qualities. 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. Female leaders on the
other hand advocated participation, power sharing, and self-worth enhancement. Similarly,
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. On the other hand,
women rated higher on supportive and considerate behavior in consistency with transformational
leadership style. 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.
Ninety-two percent of the available comparisons went in the direction of more democratic
behavior for women than men" (p. 255). This observation is consistent with female leaders
higher scores on all components of transformation leadership style that Bass et al (1996) also
observed.

Instructor Leadership Style and Students 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. Throughout the investigation we
recognize that other mediating factors could influence students perception of the instructor
leadership style. For example, students may rate instructors who award good grades as
exhibiting characteristics consistent with transformational leadership behaviors because they like
them. However, we believe it is less likely that students will pick the related items consistently
since they are unaware of the item groupings.

4
 While both transactional and transformational instructors would attempt to sense students
felt needs, transformational instructors may be more likely to probe deeper to identify and arouse
students current and long-term considerations including the dormant or higher order needs.
Capable transformational instructor would have the ability to convert the student's latent desires
into current needs. Such instructors could broaden the scope and magnify the strength of
students' wants, desires, aspirations, and needs. 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. 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, 1992; Rosener, 1990). Thus women, in comparison to men are more
likely to be democratic, interpersonally oriented, and less task oriented in certain situations
(Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990)behaviors consistent with transformational leadership
style. We therefore propose that since female students are more likely to exhibit characteristics
that are consistent with transformational leadership behavior, these students will be more likely
to perceive and rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership attributes.

H1: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as displaying
transformational leadership style.

Charisma. In a study of male and female leaders' subordinates responses, 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. Consistent with Rosener (1990), these results render
support to the anecdotal evidence that women leaders are more likely to be charismatic (Bass,
1985). Females may therefore be expected to perceive factors associated with charisma such as
feelings of esteem, affection, admiration, respect, and trust than their male counterparts. Further,
due to communal behavioral qualities, women may be conditioned to suppress negativity,
ambition, dynamism, and willingness to take risks, feelings that may promote self doubt (Heinen,
McGlauchlin, Legeros, & Freeman, 1975). As a result of this conditioning, female students in
contrast to their male counterparts may be 'crisis prone' and may tend to 'feel needy of
intervention' (Comer & Jolson, 1991). Such needs may draw female students to view instructors
as leader figures thus increasing the likelihood of accrediting instructors with charisma. Female
students may therefore be expected to be more likely than their male counterparts to perceive and
rate instructors with charisma.

H1a: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as charismatic.

Inspirational Motivation. Inspirational leaders arouse follower enthusiasm by

appealing to "faith" rather than "reason" and to "emotions" rather than "intelligence" (Yukl,
1981). Inspirational leaders also tend to eschew gradual step-by-step approaches and prefer
"quantum leaps." 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. For instance, female students may ascribe concerns that result from lack
of ability or faulty techniques to imagination and emotions. According to Licht and Dweck
(1984) for example, feedback given to female students leads them to think of themselves as
incompetent, whereas male students tend to conclude that any failure is the result of lack of

5
effort or some other situational factors. Females were found to be much more likely than males
to attribute failure, especially in school-related tasks to lack of ability, even in the face of
objective evidence that they performed better academically than their male counterparts (Dweck
& Gillard, 1975). We therefore hypothesize that female students higher emotional sensitivity
may predispose them to ascribe instructor attendance and feedback to inspirational motivation.

H1b: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as providing inspirational
motivation.

Intellectual Stimulation. In contrast to inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation

enhances performance through the mind rather than emotions. Intellectually stimulating leaders
challenge their followers to reject conformity and guide them into novel approaches. Intellectual
stimulation within instructional setting thus entails the encouragement of students to work
"smarter" rather than "harder" (Sujan, 1986). The instructor guides students in structuring their
thoughts to work "smarter." 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. Research also indicates that unlike their
male counterparts, 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, 1986). 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.

H1c: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as providing intellectual
stimulation.

Individualized Consideration. Leaders who use individualized consideration tend to

personalize interaction with followers in order to remain responsive to each follower's individual
needs (Bass 1985). As a behavioral attribute, individualized consideration is consistent with the
culturally ascribed female communal characteristics (Rosener 1990). Consequently, females may
be expected to perceive and acknowledge such behaviors more than the males. For instance, Lee
and Alvares (1977) found that female subordinates were more likely than their male counterparts
to describe their leaders as exhibiting individually considerate behaviors. Therefore, we
hypothesize that female students are more likely than their male counterparts to evaluate their
instructors as engaging in individualized considerate behaviors.

H1d: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as individually
considerate.

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, 1998). The
'transactions' or relationship between the leader and follower are enhanced by a sequence of
bargains (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997) and involves the use of incentives to
influence effort as well as clarification of the work needed to obtain rewards (Bass, 1985).

6
Previous research identifies association between components of transactional leadership, gender
and resultant outcomes (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990). For instance, due to their
agentic stereotypical inclination, males tend to respond to the task structure and identify more
with the transactional components of leadership situation (Davidson & Ferrario, 1992). The
transactional leadership style is based on a rational model that is compatible with the expectancy
theory that underlies traditional thinking (Comer et al., 1995). Such rational approaches are
more consistent with agentic rather than communal characteristics. 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.

H2: Female students are less likely to rate their instructors as displaying transactional
leadership style.

Contingent Reward. The contingent reward or reinforcement dimension of transactional

leadership is based on the assumption that reward is the overriding principle for effective
performance. 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. Instructional setting is ideal
for investigating whether student perception of instructor's use of contingent reinforcement
varies by gender. Most instructors specify the benefits that students receive if a predetermined
short-term performance is reached. Goals for students can include the contribution of the course
to grades and overall GPA that determines student competitiveness, job prospects, and 'quality.'
The instructor can reward successful performance with good grade, praise, commendation, etc.,
while penalizing poor performance by withholding reward. Few gender differences have been
noticed in the way people respond to penalty or "punishment" that is "contingent" on
performance (Comer et al., 1995). However, scanty literature indicates that women may be more
concerned than men with "punishment" that is perceived as arbitrary or unmerited (Shul,
Remington, & Berl, 1990). Because of their communal behavioral inclination and non-linear
approaches to tasks, female students may be less likely to view instructors as incorporating all
their inputs in considering the reward. This may further mean that female students are less
likely to perceive a stronger linkage between their efforts and their achievements (expectancy).
Given the above argument, it is unlikely that female students will perceive instructors as users of
contingent reward.

H2a: Female students are less likely to rate instructors as employing contingent reward.

Management-By-Exception. Management-by-exception (MBE) provides for little or no

contact between followers and their leaders. Leaders take action only when things go wrong
(active) or when standards are unmet (passive). 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, Spanger, & Bass, 1993). Although MBE may
provide opportunity for student initiative and pro-action, the emphasis on correction that focuses
on negative variance or error may be counteractive. Research indicates that male leaders are
more likely to practice MBE (Bass, 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., 1995). Female subordinates on the other hand prefer

7
contingent reward and those capable of intellectually stimulating them (Comer et al., 1995). If
female students in contrast to their male counterparts are more needy of instructor attention and
intervention as argued earlier, then female students may tend to view instructor intervention as
normal. Consequently, female students are less likely to perceive instructors as managing-by-
exception.

H2b: Female students are less likely to rate instructors as managing-by-exception.

Students' Responses to Instructor Leadership Styles

A secondary purpose of this study was to investigate male and female student responses
to instructor leadership style, specifically students' perception of the instructors ability to elicit
extra effort, leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with instructor. According to the FRL model,
transformational leadership style is positively associated with follower motivation, satisfaction,
willingness to put extra effort, and perception of leader effectiveness (Shamir et al., 1998).
Further, empirical evidence associates transformational leadership style with follower level of
satisfaction and performance (Bycio et al., 1995; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996;
Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
Shamir et al (1993), for example, reviewed more than 20 studies that found
transformational leadership to be positively associated with followers performances and
perceptions. 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. Hypothesis 3 following is based on the suggested link
between transformational leadership behavior and followers rating of leader effectiveness, ability
to elicit extra effort and satisfaction with the leader. Based on the earlier argument and
prediction that females are more likely to identify with behaviors that are consistent with
transformational leadership style, we predict that female students will be more likely to rate
instructors higher on these three outcome variables.

H3: Female students are more likely to rate instructors as effective, eliciting extra effort
and satisfaction.

Methods

Measures of Leadership

The study uses a modified version of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass
& Avolio, 1995) to test the above hypotheses. The MLQ focuses on individual behaviors as
observed by the followers and assesses the leadership behaviors that motivate followers to
achieve expected performance. Used widely in various settings to study transactional and
transformational leadership styles, the instrument has shown consistent internal reliability (Bass
& Avolio, 1997). It contains 36 items that distinguish seven dimensions of transactional,
transformational, and laissez-faire leadership (not considered in the current study) styles. It also
includes nine items measuring learner willingness to put extra effort, the effectiveness of the
leader, and satisfaction with the leader. The MLQ items are based on a 5-point scale (0=Not at
all to 4=Frequently, if not always). A pair of rating forms was administered per class: the self-
rating form for instructors and rater form for students. Although we collected the instructor self-
8
rating information, the instructor sub-sample size was too small to be used in the current study.
We also modified the FRL framework and existing instrumentation to fit the instructional setting
(Walumbwa & Kuchinke, 1999).

Sample and Procedure

We collected data from 478 students from a large Midwest research oriented university.
The non-random sample selection was based on the faculty willingness to participate in the
study. Because of the nature of the study, we selected relatively small classes to allow for
student-instructor interaction. Consequently, we collected data from six colleges. The student
sample included undergraduates and graduates. Due to missing information, about 10 percent of
the questionnaires were unusable. 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. The
remaining sample of 90 percent (N=429) usable questionnaires did not appear to be statistically
different from those that were omitted. The final sample consisted of 57% female and 43% male
and averaged 25.24 (SD=7.12) years in age ranging from 18 to 53 years old. Of the total
participants, 226 were undergraduates (47% female) and averaged 21.61 (SD=2.68) years in age
and 4.84 (SD=2.74) years of part-time working experience. The graduates (61% female)
averaged 29.28 (SD=8.26) years in age and full-time working experience of 5.02 (SD=7.73)
years. The faculty (29% female) averaged 47.33 (SD=7.55) years in age with 19.57 (SD=7.69)
years of full time working experience.

Results

The focus of this study was the comparison of female and male students' perception of
instructors' style of leadership. Tables 1 and 2 following provide summary statistics, reliabilities,
and correlation matrices for the seven leadership scales. The descriptive statistics reveal ranges
of mean scores and standard deviations that are consistent with those reported in previous studies
(e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1997). Save for the combined transactional leadership dimension, all the
measures on internal consistency assessed using Cronbachs alpha ranges from =. 70 to = 91
meeting the generally accepted criteria of = .70 (Nunally, 1967). We also combined MBE-A and
MBE-P into MBE to meet the study criteria of =. 70. The inability of the combined transactional
leadership measure to meet the = .70 criterion is probably contributed by the negative
correlation between the contingent reward scale and the MBE components. Despite this
potential shortcoming (Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 1998), the instrument is reasonably
reliable at tapping students perception of their instructors leadership behaviors.

-----------------------------------
Insert 1 & 2 Table Here
------------------------------------

Table 3 following provides the results of the regression analysis. Since the demographic
variables of age and level of educational achievement affect leadership behavior ratings, we
controlled for these variables in our analysis. Similarly, level of academic achievement was
divided into undergraduates and graduates. In hypotheses 1 and 1a to 1d we predicted that
9
female students would be more likely to rate their instructors as displaying transformational
leadership behavior and its corollaries. As Table 3 indicates, these hypotheses were supported
for the combined transformational leadership style (p<.05), for charisma (p<.05), for intellectual
stimulation (p<.10), and for individualized consideration (p<.05). Female students tended to rate
instructors with transformational leadership behaviors than their male counterparts.

-----------------------------------------
Insert Tables 3, 4a, and 4b Here
------------------------------------------

To evaluate the robustness of the models, we ran separate regression analyses for
undergraduates and graduates while controlling for age. Tables 4a and 4b following provide the
results of these analyses. Save for the inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation items
for which the gender coefficients are not statistically significant, 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. Table 4a
indicates that the hypotheses were supported for the combined transformational leadership style
(p<.10), for charisma (p<.05), and for individualized consideration (p<.01). Female
undergraduates were more likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as exhibiting
transformational leadership behavior. The graduate students were a little different from their
undergraduate counterparts. Save for the individualized consideration scale, gender did not
appear to discriminate the graduate students rating of instructors as exhibiting transformational
leadership behavior. As Table 4b indicates, female graduate students compared to their male
counterparts were more likely to rate instructors as exhibiting individualized consideration
(p<.10). 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.

Hypotheses 2 through 2b address the moderating effect of students gender on their

perception of instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership behavior. 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. As Table 3 indicates, 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<.10) and that female students are less likely than their male counterparts to
rate instructors as managing-by-exception (p<.001). The hypothesis that female students are less
likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as employing contingent reward was
rejected. These results indicate that regardless of gender, students generally view instructors as
employing a system of contingent reward. However, unlike their female counterparts, male
students are more likely to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership style and as
employing a system of management by exception.

Table 4a shows that undergraduates gender (controlling for age) discriminates students
perception of instructors use of contingent reward system but in the opposite direction to our
prediction. That is, female undergraduates are more likely (not less likely) than their male

10
counterparts to rate instructors as employing a system of contingent reward. This anomaly is
probably accounted for by the negative correlation between the contingent reward and MBE
items. The anomaly disappears when we use the graduate sub-sample. 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<.10) and that female
graduates are less likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as managing-by-
exception (p<.05). 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. These results indicate that regardless of gender, graduate students generally view
instructors as employing a system of contingent reward but unlike their female counterparts,
male graduates are more likely to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership style and
as employing a system of management by exception.

The final hypothesis addressed the relationship between gender and students' perception
of the instructors ability to elicit extra effort, instructor effectiveness, and satisfaction. As
Tables 3, 4a, and 4b indicate, we did not find statistically significant results for the hypothesis
that female students are more likely to rate instructors as effective, eliciting extra effort and
satisfaction. However, as Table 4a indicates, female undergraduates were more likely than their
male counterparts to perceive instructors as eliciting extra effort, a perception that was not shared
by the female graduates.

Tables 3, 4a, and 4b also provide interesting results on the moderating effect of student
age on their perception. Table 3 indicates that younger students (under 25) tended to rate
instructors as exhibiting charisma (p<.10), employing individualized consideration (p<.10),
exhibiting transactional leadership style (p<.01), and as employing a system of management by-
exception (p<.05). Further, Table 4a indicates that younger undergraduates tended to rate
instructors as exhibiting intellectually stimulating characteristic (p<.10) and as employing
contingent reward system (p<.10). Table 4a also indicates that younger undergraduates tended to
rate instructors as effective and as satisfactory. Older undergraduates on the other hand tended to
rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership style (p<.10) and as employing a system of
management by-exception (p<.01). Similarly, Table 4b indicates that older graduate students
tended to rate instructors as exhibiting charisma (p<.01), as employing a system of
individualized consideration (p<.01), and as employing contingent reward system (p<.01). Table
4b also indicates that older graduate students tended to rate instructors positively in all the
outcome variables. They rated instructors as eliciting extra effort (p<.01), as effective (p<.05),
and as satisfactory (p<.001). Younger graduate students on the other hand tended to rate
instructors as employing a system of management by-exception (p<.10).

Discussion

In this study we sought to investigate whether gender discriminates students perception of

instructors leadership behaviors. In the first hypothesis, we predicted that more females than
males would rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors. We found
evidence that is largely supportive of this hypothesis in consistency with previous studies (Bass,
1998; Druscat, 1994; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990) that support the notion that
females are likely to identify with attributes conforming to transformational leadership.
11
Although previous studies were contextualized in traditional work-oriented organizations while
the current studys context is instructional, the supportive evidence is consistent with the
robustness of the transformations leadership behavior dimension of the FRL model. 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. 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. For instance, it may be difficult to define non-
contingent reward in a classroom setting.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that male students as opposed to female students would rate
instructors high on transactional leadership attributes. This hypothesis was also largely
supported and the evidence is consistent with previous research (Eagly & Johnson, 1990;
Rosener, 1990) that identifies males with behaviors consistent with transactional leadership
qualities. However, the results did not hold for contingent reward but contradicted our
hypothesis in the undergraduate sub-sample thereby supporting Comers et al. (1995) argument
that female subordinates tend to prefer demonstration of contingent reward (Table 4a). The
correlation matrix shows a similar pattern of negative correlation between the contingent reward
and MBE leadership scale. On the other hand, the matrix registered positive correlation between
the contingent reward item and all the transformational leadership behavior items. Our finding on
the gender-contingent reward rating thus revisits an important question regarding the
classification of contingent reward under transactional leadership behavior. Is the classification
of contingent reward under transactional leadership dimension appropriate (Goodwin et al.,
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, female students would rate instructors as eliciting extra
effort, effective, and as satisfying. This hypothesis was not supported. 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. 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. 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 instructors ability to elicit extra effort,
effectiveness, and satisfaction until they receive their final grades.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

While the study shows promise for gender-leadership style-instructional setting research,
caution is necessary in interpreting the results due to constraints such as sample homogeneity. A
larger and more diverse student body in terms of ethnicity and other attributes could constitute a
rich and better testing sample. Also, because there were only 21 faculty (15 males and 6
females), leader subjects were insufficient for assessing the impact of the match between
female/male students with female/male instructors. Future research may consider the effects of
matching follower-leader gender that could affect subordinate perceptions and outcome variables
(Comer et al., 1995).

12
 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. 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. 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, values, and beliefs consistent with continuous improvement for students (Leithwood,
Menzies, Jantzi, & Leithwood, 1996). However, since transformational leadership introduces a
number of complex variables that in some cases appear to defy measurement, presenting
quantitative and qualitative assessment of these dynamics particularly in an academic setting
portends a great challenge to researchers (Gold & Quatroche, 1994).

Despite these limitations the study provides some intriguing results that hitherto were not
identified in the literature. In general, 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. The findings further
reinforce Druscats (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. In conclusion, the results of
this study serve as a beginning for the exploration of issues adjoining the gender-leadership
behavior interface in academic setting. 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, 1995).

REFERENCES

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire:
Technical report. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance and beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(Winter), 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend

organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, Military, and educational impact.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

13
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications for transactional leadership for individual,
team, and organizational development. In R.W. Woodman & W.A. Pasmore (Eds.),
Research in organizational change and development (Vol.4) (pp. 231-272). Greenwich: JAI
Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M.

M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form,
rater, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Redwood City: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership: Manual for the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Palo Alto: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater L. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership of
men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(1), 5-34.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162.

Bernstein, D. A., & Roy, E. J., Srull, T. K., & Wickens, C. D. (1988). Psychology. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

Burke, W. W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivasta (Ed.), Executive power

(pp. 51-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Basss (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 49(2), 112-114.

Comer, L. B. & Jolson, M. A. (1991). Perception of gender stereotypic behavior: An exploratory

study of women in selling. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, XI(Winter),
43-59.

Comer, L. B., Jolson, M. A., Dubinsky, A. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1995). When the sales
manager is a woman: An exploration into the relationship between salespeople's gender and
their responses to leadership styles. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
15(4), 17-32.

Davidson, M. & Ferrario, M. (1992). A comparative study of gender and management style.
Target Management Development Review, 5(1), 13-17.

14
Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational psychology,
7(1), 19-34.

Druscat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional

leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 99-119.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational forces affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10),

1040-1048.

Dweck, C. S., Gillard, D. (1975). Expectancy statements as determinants of reactions to failure:

Sex differences in persistence and expectancy change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32(6), 1077-1084.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale:

Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-57.

Forgionne, G. A., & Peters, V. E. (1982). Differences in job motivation and satisfaction among
female and male managers. Human Relations, 35(2), 101-118.

Futrell, C. M. (1984). Salespeople's perceptions of sex differences in sales managers. Journal of

Personal Selling and Sales Management, IV(May), 19-23.

Goodwin, V., Wofford, J. C., & Whittington, J. C. (1998). An empirically based extension of the
transformational leadership construct. Paper presented to the 1998 Academy of
Management Meeting. San Diego, CA.

Gold, J. A., & Quatroche, T. J. (1994). Student government: A testing ground for
transformational leadership principles. New Directions for student services,66(Summer)
31-43.

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Supervisors evaluations and surbodinates perception of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-
702.

Heinen, J. S., McGlauchlin, D., Legeros, C., & Freeman, J. (1975). Developing the woman
manager. Personnel Journal, 54(5), 282-86.

House, R. J. & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary

Business, 3(4), 81-97.

15
Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus
of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.

Jacobs, R. L. & McClelland, D. C. (1994). Moving up the corporate ladder: A longitudinal study
of leadership motive pattern and managerial success in women and men. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46(1), 32-41.

Lee, D. M. & Alvares, K. M. (1977). Effects of sex description and evaluations of supervisory
behavior in a simulated industrial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 405-10.

Leithwood, K., Menzies, T., Jantzi, D., & Leithwood, J. (1996). School restructuring,
transformational leadership and the amelioration of teacher burnout. Anxiety, Stress, and
Coping: An International Journal, 9(3), 199-215.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellspring of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of

Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interactions of
childrens achievement orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 628-
636.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational
and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis review of the MLQ literature. Leadership
Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Fetter, R., (1993). Substitutes for leadership and the
management of professionals. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 1-44.

Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(November-December),

119-125.

Ruble, T. L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles, 9(3), 397-402.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effect of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader
behavior in military units: Surbodinates attitudes, unit characteristics, and superior
appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 4(4), 387-594.

Shul, P. L., Remington, S., & Berl, R. L. (1990). Assessing gender differences in relationships
between supervisory behaviors and job-related outcomes in the industrial salesforce.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, X(Summer), 1-16.

16
Sujan, H. (1986). Smarter versus harder: An exploratory attributional analysis of salespeople's
motivation. Journal of Marketing Research, XXIII(February), 41-9.

Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). Employment and earnings Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Labor Statistics.

Vinacke, W. E. (1952). The Psychology of Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc.

Walumbwa F. O., & Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). HRD faculty as leaders: The application of the
Full Range Leadership theory to graduate level HRD instruction. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.),
The Academy of Human Resource Development. Conference Proceedings (pp.1210-1216).
Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Williams, J. E. & Best D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study. Beverly
Hills: Sage.

Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. J. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership

and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings: In K. E. Clark & M. B.
Clark (Eds.), Measure of leadership (pp. 151-169). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of
America.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and
performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102.

Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Eaglewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall

17
 TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations among Leadership Scales, and Outcome
Variables

N M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Transformational 20 3.50 .85 .91
2. Charisma 8 3.40 .87 .76 .94**
3. Inspirational 4 3.63 1.02 .70 .85** .74**
Motivation
4. Intellctual 4 3.59 1.02 .70 .83** .70** .57**
Stimulation
5. Individualized 4 3.49 1.08 .74 .86** .74** .63** .65**
Consideration
6. Transactional 12 2.67 .56 .58 .43** .40** .38** .35**
7. Contingent 4 3.60 1.05 .74 .82** .73** .70** .71**
Reward
8. Mgt-By- 8 2.20 .80 .70 -.10* -.05 -.08 -.11*
Exception
9. Laissez-Faire 4 1.71 .72 .51 -.28** -.23** -.20** -.27**
10. Extra Effort 3 3.58 1.25 .86 .75** .69** .61** .61**
11. Effectiveness 4 3.63 1.19 .80 .79** .72** .69** .64**
12. Satisfaction 2 3.74 1.27 .70 .76** .68** .63** .65**
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6. Transactional .33**
10. Contingent .71** .53**
Reward
11. Mgt-By- -.13** .78** -.12*
Exception
12. Laissez-Faire .05 .18** -.33** .45**
10. Extra Effort .69** .34** .70** -.11* -.25**
11. Effectiveness .70** .35** .75** -.13** -.33** .74**
12. Satisfaction .68** .34** .75** -.15** -.32** .70** .70**

*P < .05; **p < .01

18
 TABLE 2
Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for the Study Variable by Gender
[Female Sample (N=245) Below Diagonal and Male Sample (N=184) Above Diagonal]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Mean 3.41 3.30 3.58 3.50 3.36 2.74 3.54 2.34 1.74 3.50 3.59 3.70
2. Std. Deviation .86 .87 .96 .99 1.16 .60 .99 .72 .92 1.32 1.18 1.24
3. Alpha ( ) .91 .77 .63 .70 .78 .64 .70 .70 .40 .90 .81 .70
4. Transformational 3.57 .84 .90 .94** .83** .84** .89** .56** .84** .11 -.22** .74** .79** .76**
5. Charisma 3.46 .86 .75 .93** .73** .72** .78** .55** .76** .17* -.18* .73** .76** .72**
6. Inspirational 3.68 1.05 .74 .84** .75** .60** .67** .44** .71** .06 .20** .61** .73** .68**
Motivation
7. Intellectual 3.66 1.03 .72 .82** .67** .56** .67** .48** .73** .10 -.18* .53** .56** .57**
Stimulation
8. Individualized 3.59 1.02 .70 .84** .70** .61** .64** .45** .76** .04 .23** .68** .72** .70**
Consideration
9. Transactional 2.62 .53 .52 .34** .32** .34** .27** .24** .59** .83** .11 .40** .42** .37**
10. Contingent 3.66 1.10 .78 .80** .70** .70** .70** .68** .50** .05 -.26** .69** .76** .73**
Reward
11. Management- 2.12 .70 .70 -.24** -.19** -.16* -.24** -.26** .74** -.22** .31** .02 -.01 -.04
By-Exception
12. Laissezz-Faire 1.68 .73 .62 -.34** -.28** -.21** -.35** -.36** .25** -.39** .58** -.21** -.28** -.29**
13. Extra Effort 3.64 1.19 .82 .75** .64** .61** .67** .70** .30** .71** -.21** -.30** .74** .74**
14. Effectiveness 3.66 1.20 .80 .79** .70** .67** .69** .68** .31** .74** -.23** -.37** .74** .84**
15. Satisfaction 3.77 1.29 .70 .75** .65** .60** .69** .68** .32** .76** -.24** -.36** .75** .84**
*P < .05; **p < .01

TABLE 3

Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable

Independent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent

Variable Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable:
Transfor- Charisma Inspirational Intellectual Individualized Transactional
mational Motivation Stimulation Consideration Leadership
Constant 3.656 3.580 3.698 3.680 3.744 2.624
Gender -.168* -.178* -.089 -.156 -.241* .089
Age -.131 -.214 .025 .009 -.260 -.191**
Degree .023 .100 -.089 -.063 .080 .289***
R2 .013 .017 .003 .007 .019 .051
Adjusted R2 .006 .010 -.004 .000 .012 .044
F 1.847 2.396* .497 .997 2.760* 7.596***
N 429 429 429 429 429 429
Independent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent
Variable Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable:
Contingent Mgt -By- Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction
Reward Exception
Constant 3.627 2.122 3.756 3.559 3.716
Gender -.149 .208*** -.139 -.075 -.087
Age -158 -.208* -.140 .068 -.063
Degree .309** .279*** -.021 .093 .197
R2 .017 .049 .006 .004 .005
Adjusted R2 .010 .042 -.001 -.003 -.002
F 2.455* 7.259*** .867 .582 .728
N 429 429 429 429 429

p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01***P<.001
19
 TABLE 4a

Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable
(Undergraduates Controlling for Age)

Independent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent

Variable Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable:
Transfor- Charisma Inspirational Intellectual Individualized Transactional
mational Motivation Stimulation Consideration Leadership
Constant 3.792 3.704 3.750 3.948 3.851 2.561
Gender -.182 -.197* -.129 -.137 -.248** .026
Age -.009 -.009 -.003 -.013 -.011 .007
R2 .023 .023 .006 .017 .024 .014
Adjusted R2 .014 .014 -.003 .008 .015 .006
F 2.545 2.647 .648 1.917 2.739 1.643
N 226 226 226 226 226 226
Independent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent
Variable Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable:
Contingent Management - Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction
Reward By-Exception
Constant 4.134 1.775 3.932 4.228 4.329
Gender -.209 .191* -.246 -.138 -.146
Age -.012 .016** -.011 -.018* -.017
R2 .026 .057 .016 .022 .017
Adjusted R2 .017 .048 .008 .013 .009
F 2.996* 6.714*** 1.872 2.489 1.971
N 226 226 226 226 226

p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***P<.001

20
 TABLE 4b
Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable
(Graduates Controlling for Age)

Independent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent

Variable Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable:
Transfor- Charisma Inspirational Intellectual Individualized Transactional
mational Motivation Stimulation Consideration Leadership
Constant 2.777 2.692 2.915 2.881 2.707 2.455
Gender -.179 -.173 .083 -.218 -.251 .140
Age .035 .033** .033 .035 .039** .026
R2 .057 .051 .035 .042 .047 .013
Adjusted R2 .048 .042 .026** .033 .038 .003
F 6.059** 5.37** 3.653* 4.404** 4.918** 1.336
N 203 203 203 203 203 203
Independent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent
Variable Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable:
Contingent Management Extra Effort Effectiveness Satisfaction
Reward -By-Exception
Constant 2.693 2.336 2.671 2.759 2.255
Gender -.102 .236* -.047 -.042 -.079
Age .035** -.014 .041** .034* .060***
2
R .034 .036 .037 .026 .072
Adjusted R2 .024 .026 .027 .016 .063
F 3.458* 3.735* 3.779* 2.655 7.700***
N 203 203 203 203 203

p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

21