The Effect of Gender on Leadership
PHYLLIS A. DUNCAN,
and Culture
Increasingly, human resource managers are recog-
nizing the need to understand how the differences
between men and women affect organizational cul-
ture and leadership. This study of 314 workers ex-
amines the influence of gender on the leadership
and cultural dimensions identified in the acclaimed
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Ef-
fectiveness (GLOBE) research program. The re-
sults show that gender is a significant predictor in
two of the nine cultural dimensions—gender egal-
itarianism and assertiveness—and two of the six
leadership dimensions—participative leadership and
self-protective leadership. These findings can help
HR managers capitalize on the strengths of both
male and female employees as they design policies
and practices to achieve organizational objectives.
© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Much has been written about the traits and skills
of successful leaders. Those whose names have be-
come synonymous with great leadership include
Jack Welch, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Bill Clinton.
But what do Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Indra
Nooyi, and Ursula Burns all have in common? They
are just a few of the many women whose names
have become identified with exceptional leadership
and whose styles break with traditional leadership
patterns among women.
According to Meister and Willyerd (2010), there
will be a dramatic change in the composition of
the American workforce. In The 2020 Workplace,
they write that the workplace of the future “will
be one that provides workers a personalized, so-
cial experience which attracts, develops, and engages
employees across all generations and geographies”
(p. 72). This will require leaders whose management
Global Business and Organizational Excellence • DOI: 10.1002/joe.21413 • January/February 2012
RICHARD HERRERA,
MARK T. GREEN,
AND SHERYL L. SKAGGS
styles create and enforce this type of environ-
ment. Studies have shown that women are more
transformational—that is, they are able to create a
positive change in followers with the end goal of
developing followers into leaders, and they have a
more collaborative and consensus-building leader-
ship style. Therefore, the number of women in se-
nior leadership positions is likely to increase over
the next decade.
What Constitutes Leadership?
Leadership has been defined in many ways. Accord-
ing to Northouse (2004, p. 3), it is “the process
whereby an individual influences a group of individ-
uals to achieve a common goal.” Influence is what a
leader exerts as a way to motivate followers. Most
interactions occur in group settings, although an in-
dividual who has no followers also can display lead-
ership. A leader’s objective is to achieve goals.
Yukl (2002) defined leadership as “the process of in-
fluencing others to understand and agree about what
needs to be done and how it can be done effectively,
and the process of facilitating individual and col-
lective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives”
(p. 7). Both Northouse and Yukl use the word in-
fluence in their definitions of leadership, and both
agree that the overall objective is to achieve goals.
Neither author distinguishes leadership in terms of
gender. Yet, the relationship between leadership and
gender is of significant concern and, therefore, merits
full examination. Although the number of females
in the workforce has continued to grow over the last
few decades, a proportional growth in the number
of women in the executive ranks of organizations
has not occurred. Despite the fact that women now
c 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
37
 occupy more than 40 percent of all managerial po-
sitions in the United States, they account for only 6
percent of those with such titles as chair, president,
and chief executive officer in Fortune 500 compa-
nies. Only 2 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs are
women, and women hold only 15 percent of the
seats on those organizations’ boards of directors
(Eagly & Carli, 2007; Ely & Rhode, 2010).
The labor market has been, and continues to be,
highly segregated by sex. Females remain concen-
trated in positions that have traditionally been held
by women, and they continue to be underrepre-
sented in jobs that are considered “masculine,” as
well as in higher positions (Dean, Mills, Roberts,
Carraher, & Cash, 2009). Moreover, female man-
agers who operate in male-dominated environments
are expected to utilize leadership styles that con-
form to masculine cultures to maintain their status.
According to Loden (1985), competitiveness, hier-
archical authority, and emphasis on control charac-
terize “masculine modes of management.” They also
include being aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-
confident, and individualistic. The “feminine modes
of management,” on the other hand, are associ-
ated with a concern for the compassionate treatment
of others. They include being affectionate, helpful,
friendly, kind, and sympathetic, as well as inter-
personally sensitive, gentle, and soft-spoken (Loden,
1985; Peters, 1990).
Studies have affirmed that people associate men and
women with different traits and associate men with
more of the traits that denote effective leadership
(Ely & Rhode, 2010). As a result, women in leader-
ship roles often find themselves in a double bind. If
they exhibit highly feminine modes of management,
they may be criticized for lacking some of the mascu-
line traits. On the other hand, if they display highly
masculine qualities, they may be criticized for lack-
ing a more feminine-participative style. Either way,
they are perceived as not having what it takes to fill
top leadership positions.
38 January/February 2012 DOI: 10.1002/joe
One of the reasons offered for the delayed ad-
vancement of women in leadership positions, par-
ticularly in those areas that are male-dominated, is
that women lack the appropriate leadership style.
This brings to the forefront the question of whether
women’s leadership styles break through gender bar-
riers, or whether they limit their advancement.
Since various studies indicate that women tend to
lead differently than men, it is certainly worth exam-
ining how gender affects leadership and, as a result,
an organization’s culture. This study examines:
r the leadership styles that are perceived as nec-
essary and effective in breaking through gender
barriers,
r how individuals perceive leadership to be affected
by gender, and
r whether those perceptions create a limitation or
disadvantage for women.
Since various studies indicate that women tend to
lead differently than men, it is certainly worth ex-
amining how gender affects leadership and, as a
result, an organization’s culture.
Using Project GLOBE as a Framework
Led by a worldwide team of 170 researchers, the
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Ef-
fectiveness (GLOBE) research program collected
and analyzed data on cultural values, practices, and
leadership attributes of 17,000 managers in 62 soci-
etal cultures from 1994 to 2004. Its goal was to
propose and validate an integrated theory of the
relationship between culture and societal, organi-
zational, and leadership effectiveness, According to
Morrison (2000), it was “the most ambitious study
of global leadership” (p. 126). Findings from the
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
 Exhibit 1. The Six Project GLOBE Leadership Dimensions
Team-Oriented Leadership
Charismatic Leadership
Humane-Oriented Leadership
Self-Protective Leadership
Participative Leadership
Autonomous Leadership
Emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common purpose or goal among
team members
Reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high-performance outcomes from others
based on firmly held core values
Reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also includes compassion and generosity
Focuses on ensuring the safety and security of the individual and group through status
enhancement and face saving
Reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and implementing decisions
Refers to independent and individualistic leadership attributes

project have been used to provide a sound basis for
conceptualizing worldwide leadership differences.
Empirical evidence indicates that leader attributes,
behavior, status, and influence vary as a result of
the cultural forces in the countries or regions where
leaders work. In addition, leadership differences and
similarities may be the result of a person’s implicit
assumptions regarding requisite leadership quali-
ties. The implicit leadership theory (ILT) states that
individuals hold a set of beliefs about the kind
of attributes, personality characteristics, skills, and
behaviors that contribute to or impede leadership.
GLOBE broadened ILT to the cultural level of anal-
ysis by arguing that belief systems are shared among
individuals in common cultures. Project GLOBE’s
leadership questionnaire consisted of 112 behav-
ioral and attribute descriptors that could facilitate
or impede outstanding leadership. These attributes
were initially reduced to 21 primary dimensions of
outstanding leadership. A second-order factor anal-
ysis subsequently produced the six global leader-
ship dimensions, which have come to be referred to
as the culturally endorsed implicit leadership the-
ory (Javidan, Dorfman, Howell, & Hanges, 2010).
Exhibit 1 defines the six Project GLOBE leadership
dimensions.
As defined by Project GLOBE, leadership is “the
ability to influence, motivate, and enable others
to contribute toward the effectiveness and success
of the organizations of which they are members”
(House, Javidan, Dorfman, & de Luque, 2006,
p. 102; Graen, 2006). Evidence from the GLOBE
research shows that people within cultural groups
agree in their beliefs about leadership (House,
Hanges, Javidan, & Gupta, 2004). Although the
GLOBE study did an excellent job of measuring
leadership by culture, it did not distinguish lead-
ership in terms of gender. Using the Project GLOBE
Research Survey (House et al., 2004) to assess the
six measures of leadership, this study addresses this
void. Four demographic variables were analyzed:
participants’ age, gender, years of work experience,
and years of management experience.
Participants in the study used a Likert scale that
ranged from 1 to 7 to respond to 112 leadership
behaviors. A rating of “1” was a very strong, neg-
ative rating and indicated that the respondent be-
lieved that the leadership behavior greatly inhibits
a person from being an outstanding leader. A rat-
ing of “7” indicated the belief that the leadership
behavior greatly contributes to a person being an
outstanding leader. Scoring options of “2” or “6”
represented somewhat inhibiting or somewhat con-
tributing to outstanding leadership. Scoring options
of “3” or “5” indicated slightly inhibiting or slightly
contributing to outstanding leadership. A rating of
“4” represented behavior that was perceived as hav-
ing no impact on being an outstanding leader.

Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe January/February 2012 39

 Exhibit 2. The Nine Project GLOBE Cultural Dimensions
Power Distance
Uncertainty Avoidance
Humane Orientation
Collectivism (Institutional)
Collectivism (In-group)
Assertiveness
Gender Egalitarianism
Future Orientation
Performance Orientation
The degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be
stratified and concentrated at higher levels of an organization or government
The degree to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by relying on
established social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for
being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others
The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward
collective distribution of resources and collective action
The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or
families
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, confrontational, and
aggressive in social relationships
The degree to which an organization or a society minimizes gender role differences while promoting
gender equality
The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviors,
such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification
The degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for
performance improvement and excellence

A Look at the Cultural Dimensions of Leadership
Understanding the essence of effective leadership has
always been a challenge for scholars, and even more
challenging has been the examination of leadership
through a cross-cultural lens. The GLOBE Project
pursued this task by looking into gender egalitar-
ianism, which is the way in which societies divide
roles between men and women. The nine cultural
dimensions used in Project GLOBE are defined in
Exhibit 2.
A study by Gupta, Turban, Wasti, and Sikdar (2009)
examined gender stereotypes in entrepreneurship
and their influence on men’s and women’s en-
trepreneurial intentions. Results revealed that en-
trepreneurs were perceived to have masculine
characteristics and only those women who per-
ceived themselves similar to males had higher
entrepreneurial intentions than those who saw
themselves less similar to males. Historically, the
vast majority of leaders who have been viewed
as charismatic-transformational have been men—
from the soft-spoken Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson
Mandela to the more energetic John F. Kennedy, Bill
Clinton, and Jack Welch. The number of women
viewed as charismatic, such as Madeleine Albright,
Hillary Clinton, and Oprah Winfrey, is small by
comparison. Yet, an examination of the elements
of charismatic-transformational leadership suggests
that women might be more likely to engage in trans-
formational leader behaviors and be more effective
transformational leaders than men (Bass & Riggio,
2006).
A study of 192 teams by Woolley and Thomas
(2011) examined the relationship between a group’s
collective intelligence and the IQs of its individual
members, and found gender to have a positive im-
pact. Each team was given several tasks to com-
plete and was assigned intelligence scores based on
their performance. Although teams that had mem-
bers with higher IQs did not earn significantly higher
scores, the teams that had more women did. This
finding helps establish the argument that gender
does, indeed, have an impact on group performance.
The most current meta-analysis by Eagly,
Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen (2003)
on gender and leadership styles included 45 studies
on transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership styles. Results revealed that female
leaders were more transformational than male

40 January/February 2012 DOI: 10.1002/joe Global Business and Organizational Excellence

leaders in their leadership styles. Females scored
higher on the subscales of charisma, idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulations, and individualized consideration. The
study also indicated that women’s mean scores
surpassed men’s in areas of leadership that had
positive relations to effectiveness, while men’s mean
scores were higher in areas that had a negative
relationship to effectiveness (Eagly et al., 2003).
The academic literature on gender and leader-
ship (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Heilman,
2001; Schein, 1983) indicates that male and female
managers perceive leadership roles differently. Men
perceive hierarchical and competitive behaviors as a
more significant component of the leadership role,
whereas women view collaborative and consensus
building as crucial components of leadership. This
seems to coincide with the literature on gender roles,
which indicates that people’s beliefs about the capa-
bilities of males and females are a function of how
males and females are socialized in a society.
Another meta-analytic study by Eagly, Karau, and
Makhijani (1995) integrated 76 studies on the ef-
fectiveness of women and men who hold leadership
and managerial roles. The study revealed that the
leaders’ effectiveness had a significant correlation
with the congeniality of their gender role. The au-
thors concluded that, on average, women were rated
less effective than their male counterparts when men
dominated the work environment. In addition, re-
spondents rated women as more effective than men
in feminine leadership roles that required interper-
sonal skills and the ability to promote working re-
lationships. The study further proposed that when
males or females are in an environment where the
majority is made up of the opposite gender, the result
may be a diminished perception of the effectiveness
of the minority gender (Eagly et al., 1995).
Eagly and Johnson (1990) also conducted a meta-
analysis of 162 studies to examine the leadership
styles of women and men and the absence or
Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe
presence of mean differences between the sexes.
Their study indicated no differences in terms of
the gender-stereotypic expectations between males
and females in organizational studies. Laboratory
and assessment studies, however, found differences
when considering gender-stereotypic expectations
that women lead in an interpersonally oriented style
and men in a task-oriented style. Consistent with
expectations, women were found to lead in a more
democratic or participative manner, whereas men
utilized a more autocratic and directive style.
Most research studies have demonstrated that trans-
formational leadership is one of the most success-
ful forms of leadership. As already noted, studies
have shown that women tend to be more transfor-
mational and more focused on the aspects of leader-
ship that predict effectiveness than men (Eagly et al.,
2003; Ely & Rhode, 2010). Yet, the presence of
women in senior leadership positions is proportion-
ally small.
Just as gender has been shown to have an impact on
leadership styles, so has culture. Research linking
the relationship between organizational culture and
leadership has reflected several schools of thought.
Some researchers have suggested that leaders shape
organizational cultures (Deal & Kennedy, 1982;
Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Peters & Waterman, 1982;
Sims & Lorenzi, 1992). Others adhere to another
school of thought proposed by Schein (1992), who
argues that the organizational life cycle is a key fac-
tor in the connection between leadership and or-
ganizational culture (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson,
2003). Based on this theory, in the early part of
the life cycle, leaders help shape the organization’s
culture, but as the organization matures, its culture
increasingly influences the actions and behaviors of
its leaders (Javidan et al., 2010).
Assertiveness is one cultural dimension that has re-
ceived little attention in cross-cultural research. In
essence, it reflects the belief as to whether people are
or should be encouraged to be assertive, aggressive,
January/February 2012 41
 and tough, or nonassertive, nonaggressive, and ten-
der in social relationships (House et al., 2004). In a
study of human resource management practices in
11 countries where such practices as recruitment and
selection, training and development, workforce di-
versity, and business strategy are synonymous with
building relationships and business effectiveness, the
cultural practice of assertiveness was considered a
disabling factor (Alas, Kaarelson, & Niglas, 2008).
Another study by Ogbonna and Harris (2000)
of 1,000 business units in UK firms found that
leadership styles are associated with organizational
culture. More specifically, findings showed that lead-
ership style was not directly linked to performance,
but indirectly associated. It was proposed that orga-
nizational culture mediated the association between
participative leadership style and performance.
Five Hypotheses on the Effect of Gender
Unlike previous research, this study examines the
effects of gender on the GLOBE study dimensions
of leadership and cultural influences. Its focus is to
better understand how the leadership differences be-
tween men and women affect the GLOBE leadership
and cultural dimensions. Finally, this research con-
siders and suggests how women leaders can affect
the environment for successful and effective orga-
nizational outcomes. The following hypotheses are
proposed:
1. The greater the number of women in the orga-
nization, the more likely the organization is to
prefer participative leadership.
2. The greater the number of women in the organi-
zation, the less likely the organization is to prefer
self-protective leadership.
3. The greater the number of women in the orga-
nization, the more likely the organization is to
prefer gender egalitarianism.
4. The greater the number of women in the organi-
zation, the less likely the organization is to prefer
assertiveness.
42 January/February 2012 DOI: 10.1002/joe
5. The greater the level of women’s experience in
the organization, the less likely they are to value
assertiveness.
A total of 314 workers from an array of organiza-
tions agreed to take part in this study. Of them, 205
(65 percent) were women and 109 (35 percent) were
men. More than half (57.3 percent) of the respon-
dents self-reported as Hispanic. Participants who
self-reported as white, Caucasian, or Anglo consti-
tuted 24 percent of the sample. Participants who
self-reported as black or African-American consti-
tuted 9.8 percent of the sample. The remaining 8.9
percent identified themselves as American Indian,
Asian Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Pacific Islander,
or Italian. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 64:
31.4 percent were 21 to 30 years old, 33.9 percent
were 31 to 40, 22.8 percent were 41 to 50, and 11.9
percent were 51 to 60. Seventy-two respondents (23
percent) had earned less than an undergraduate de-
gree, 123 respondents (39 percent) held a bachelor’s
degree, and 119 respondents (38 percent) had earned
postgraduate degrees.
Of the 314 individuals surveyed, 222 responded to
the question regarding the type of work they do.
As Exhibit 3 shows, most respondents worked in
Exhibit 3. Type of Work Done by Study Participants
Finance/Acc
14%
Administration
21%
Other Business
Occupations
18%
Education
27%
Support
Services Eng/
14% R&D
6%
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
Exhibit 4. Study Participants’ Years of Management Experience

30

25
Frequency

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 23 25 27 28 30

Years of Management Experience

education (27 percent), followed by administration organization and asked them to describe its culture
(21 percent), other business occupations (18 per- “as is” and “as it should be.” In Sections 2 and 4,
cent), finance/accounting (14 percent), support ser- participants were given a list of behaviors and char-
vices/other (14 percent), and engineering/research acteristics that a leader might display. They were
and development (6 percent). With regard to partic- also asked to rate these behaviors and characteris-
ipants’ years of management experience, only 158 tics using a scale of 1 (greatly inhibits) to 7 (greatly
(50.3 percent) of those surveyed responded. This contributes to).
would indicate that the other survey participants ei-
ther had no management experience, or were not Gender as a Predictor of Leadership
sure as to how to designate themselves. As Exhibit 4 The study asked respondents to rate the degree
illustrates, 18 individuals had one year of manage- to which the six dimensions of leadership used in
ment experience, 24 had two years of management Project GLOBE were desirable. A correlation and
experience, 18 individuals had ten years of manage- regression analysis was conducted on each of the
ment experience, and 12 had 15 years of manage- six dimensions. As Exhibit 5 shows, a significant
ment experience. correlation was found between gender as the inde-
pendent variable and participative leadership and
Participants who took part in this study each com- self-protective leadership as the dependent variables.
pleted the GLOBE Research Survey, which con- There were no significant differences with regard
sisted of five sections and measured the degree to to the charismatic, team-oriented, humane-oriented,
which participants believed their organizations val- and autonomous leadership styles. These results
ued each of the Project GLOBE leadership and cul- have significant human resources management
tural dimensions. Sections 1 and 3 asked about their implications.

Exhibit 5. Pearson Correlation of Gender and Leadership Dimensions

Gender Team-Oriented Charismatic Humane-Oriented Self-Protective Participative Autonomous
Gender Pearson Correlation 1 .117 .043 .077 .164∗ .209 .061∗
n 303 303 303 303 303 303 303
∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe January/February 2012 43

 Exhibit 6. Multiple Regression Analysis for Participative
Leadership
Model R R2 R2 Change df1 df2
1 .202 .041 .048 1 156
Note: Model 1—Gender.
The results of the regression analysis using the in-
dependent variables of age, gender, years of work
experience, and years of management experience,
and ratings of the dependent variables of the six di-
mensions of leadership indicated that gender was
a significant predictor in two of the six leader-
ship dimensions: participative leadership and self-
protective leadership. Hypotheses 1 and 2 addressed
the relationship between gender differences and
leadership. Showing that gender explains 4 per-
cent of the variance in the preference for partic-
ipative leadership, the results found that women
preferred participative leadership more than men
did. The greater the number of females in the or-
ganization, the higher the organizational preference
for participative leadership. Thus, these results sup-
port Hypothesis 1. (The results of this regression
analysis are provided in Exhibit 6.) There were no
significant differences with regard to charismatic,
team-oriented, humane-oriented, and autonomous
leadership styles.
For Hypothesis 2, a regression analysis was run
using gender as the predictor variable and crite-
rion variable of the participants’ rating of the de-
gree to which they would prefer a self-protective
leadership style. The results (see Exhibit 7) showed
that gender explained 4 percent of the variance
for preference of self-protective leadership. Support-
ive of Hypothesis 2, the results found that women
preferred self-protective leadership less than men.
Exhibit 7. Multiple Regression for Self-Protective Leadership
Model R R2 R2 Change df1 df2
1 .195 .038 .038 1 156
Note: Model 1—Gender.
44 January/February 2012
Exhibit 8. Regression for Gender Egalitarianism
Model R R2 R2 Change df1 df2 Sig.
Sig. 1 .262 .069 .069 1 156 .001
.011 Note: Model 1—Gender.
Thus, the greater the number of females in the
organization, the lower the organizational prefer-
ence for self-protective leadership.
Gender as a Predictor of Culture
This study also asked respondents to rate the de-
gree to which the nine dimensions of culture used in
Project GLOBE were desirable. A regression analy-
sis using the independent variables of age, gender,
years of work experience, years of management ex-
perience, and ratings of the culture in the organi-
zation with each of the nine dimensions of culture
as a dependent variable was conducted. The results
indicated that gender was a significant predictor in
two of the nine culture dimensions: gender egalitar-
ianism and assertiveness.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 questioned the relationship be-
tween gender differences and culture. In support of
Hypothesis 3, the results of the regression analysis
given in Exhibit 8 show that the greater the num-
ber of females in the organization, the greater the
organizational preference for gender egalitarianism.
The study found that women preferred an organiza-
tional culture in which men and women are valued
as equals more than men do.
With regard to assertiveness, regression results
showed that the greater the number of women in the
organization, the greater the organizational prefer-
ence for assertiveness.Results showed that women
preferred assertiveness more than men did. Thus,
the results given in Exhibit 9, which provides re-
gression analysis for the relationship between gen-
der and assertiveness, do not support Hypothesis
Sig.
4 as originally expected. There was no significance
.014 found with gender as a predictor and the cultural di-
mensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
DOI: 10.1002/joe Global Business and Organizational Excellence
 Exhibit 9. Multiple Regression for Assertiveness
Model R R2 R2 Change df1 df2
1 .200 .040 .040 1 156
Note: Model 1—Gender.
Exhibit 10. Multiple Regression for Years of Management
Experience
Model R R2 R2 Change df1 df2
1 −.206 .042 .042 1 104
Note: Model 1—Gender (Female), Assertiveness.
humane orientation, collectivism, individualism, fu-
ture orientation, and performance orientation as the
dependent variables.
Further regression analysis on the two leadership
dimensions that showed gender as a significant pre-
dictor (participative leadership, self-protective lead-
ership) indicated that no further distinctions (age,
years of work experience, years of management ex-
perience) existed in the women’s group. In addition,
further regression analysis on the two cultural di-
mensions (gender egalitarianism, assertiveness) that
showed gender as a significant predictor indicated
that years of management experience was also a sig-
nificant predictor of the cultural dimension of as-
sertiveness. As a result, the more experience women
had, the less they valued assertiveness. Exhibit 10
provides the results of this regression analysis, which
supports Hypothesis 5.
Implications for Management
This research adds to the literature by providing in-
formation that gives validity to the influence of gen-
der differences on the GLOBE study leadership and
cultural dimensions.
The study showed that there was a significant
relationship between gender and two of the six lead-
ership dimensions: participative leadership and self-
protective leadership. With respect to participative
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
leadership, results showed that women preferred
Sig. participative leadership more than men did. This
.012
supported Hypothesis 1, which stated that the
greater the number of females in the organization,
the greater the preference for participative leader-
ship in the organization. The findings also supported
Hypothesis 2, which stated that the greater the num-
ber of females in the organization, the lower the
Sig. preference for self-protective leadership.
.034
The study also showed that there was a significant
relationship between gender differences and two of
the nine GLOBE cultural dimensions. In support of
Hypothesis 3, the study found that the greater the
number of women in the organization, the greater
the preference for gender egalitarianism. With re-
spect to assertiveness, the results indicated that the
greater the number of women in the organization,
the higher the preference for assertiveness, which
did not support Hypothesis 4. It was, however,
also found that the more managerial experience
that women had in the organization, the less they
valued assertiveness, which provided support for
Hypothesis 5.
The practical implications from the results of this
study are for management to acknowledge that gen-
der differences do, indeed, affect certain dimensions
of leadership and culture. Once this is recognized,
organizational leaders can use this information to
employ the human resource management policies
and procedures that will help them achieve their ob-
jectives. More important, these findings have signif-
icant HRM implications with regard to women and
organizational competitiveness. With women now
making up the majority of those entering the work-
force, HRM professionals need to realign recruit-
ment and promotion practices accordingly if they
expect to enhance their firms’ competitiveness.
The indication that women are more transforma-
tional leaders than men are was a recurring theme
in the literature reviewed. Studies have shown that
DOI: 10.1002/joe January/February 2012 45
 organizations that are successful in attracting em-
ployees with high levels of ability and achievement
can expect to enhance their organization’s compet-
itiveness (Hough, 1984; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981).
Therefore, it stands to reason that any organiza-
tion’s HRM strategy should not only include the re-
cruitment of women, but also their preparation for
managerial and executive positions. Societal and or-
ganizational stereotypes and barriers, however, have
precluded many transformational women from per-
forming at their maximum effectiveness as leaders.
Nonetheless, women continue to break through bar-
riers and reach new heights in both the corporate
and government sectors.
Whereas men perceive a hierarchical and compet-
itive behavioral style as crucial to their leadership
style, women view a more democratic-participative
style that involves collaboration and consensus
building as crucial to their leadership status. As a re-
sult, women are rated as more effective than men in
feminine leadership roles that require interpersonal
skills and the ability to promote working relation-
ships. Additionally, Meister and Willyerd (2010)
propose that organizational leaders in the future
must bring a collaborative mind-set to the work-
place, which means that leaders will need to embrace
inclusive decision making and solicit genuine feed-
back. Therefore, HR managers will need to seek out
ways to develop current leaders and emerging man-
agers to support employee engagement in a partici-
pative environment.
The process of changing stereotypical behaviors in
the hope of fostering inclusiveness in organizations
is both timely and challenging. Top executive and
HR leaders can assist in accomplishing this by pro-
viding a better understanding of gender differences
and their influences upon leadership and the orga-
nization. The findings reported here indicate that
managers at all levels would do well to establish
an inclusive atmosphere in their organizations. Fur-
thermore, those in a leadership capacity with the
46 January/February 2012 DOI: 10.1002/joe
ability to create change should aim to stress the im-
portance of diversity that goes beyond ethnic and
cultural considerations to include gender values into
the corporate culture. Implementing this type of
awareness and change in the organizational culture
is no longer a luxury, but a necessity that leaders
must face head-on in today’s global environment.
Striving to reduce obstacles to women’s achievement
will not only help reduce turnover. It should also
help increase the level of morale, commitment, and
retention among all employees and enhance perfor-
mance throughout the organization.
References
Alas, R., Kaarelson, T., & Niglas, K. (2008). Human resource
management in cultural context: Empirical study of 11 coun-
tries. EBS Review, 1(24), 49–61.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 207–218.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leader-
ship (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate culture.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dean, A. M., Mills, Y., Roberts, A., Carraher, S., & Cash,
R. (2009). Women and minorities in corporate America: An
empirical examination. Proceedings of the Academy of Or-
ganizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 14(1),
2–5.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth
of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 63–71.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The lead-
ership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
781–787.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen,
M .L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women
and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–594.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and lead-
ership: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–
256.
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender
and effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis, Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 125–145.
Ely, R. J., & Rhode, D. L. (2010). Women and leadership:
Defining the challenges. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.),
Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 377–410).
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Graen, G. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural
lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Man-
agement Perspectives, 20(4), 95–101.
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A.
(2009). The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of en-
trepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. The-
ory & Practice, 33, 397–417.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How
gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organiza-
tional ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
Hough, L. (1984). Development and evaluation of the “ac-
complished record” method of selecting and promoting pro-
fessionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 139–146.
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., & Gupta, V. (2004).
Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of
62 societies. London, England, UK: Sage.
House, R., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & de Luque, M. S.
(2006). A failure of scholarship: Response to George Graen’s
critique of GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives,
20(4), 102–114.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., & Hanges,
P. J. (2010). Leadership and cultural context: A theoretical
and empirical examination based on Project GLOBE. In N.
Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory
and practice (pp. 335–376). Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Press.
Kouzes. J. M., & Posner, Z. P. (2002). Leadership challenge
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Loden, M. (1985). Feminine leadership, or, How to succeed
in business without being one of the boys. New York, NY:
Time Books.
Meister, J., & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace: How
innovative companies attract, develop, and kept tomorrow’s
employees today. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Morrison, A. J. (2000). Developing a global leadership model.
Human Resource Management, 39(2/3), 117–131.
Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership theory and practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ogbonna, F., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, orga-
nizational culture, and performance: Empirical evidence from
UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 11, 766–788.
Peters, T. (1990). The best managers will listen, motivate,
and support: Isn’t that just like a woman? Working Woman,
15(9), 142–146.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of ex-
cellence: Lessons from America’s best run companies. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating
organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 13–28.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1981). Employment testing:
Old theories and new research findings. American Psycholo-
gist, 36, 1128–1137.
Sims, H. P., & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new leadership
paradigm: Social learning and cognition in organizations.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Woolley, A., & Thomas, M. (2011). What makes a team
smarter? More women. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 32–
33.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Richard Herrera, PhD, is an assistant professor of man-
agement at Texas A&M University-Texarkana. His primary
teaching areas include operations management, human re-
sources, organizational behavior, and leadership in orga-
nizations. He holds a BS in business and an MBA from
St. Mary’s University, and received his PhD in leader-
ship studies from Our Lady of the Lake University. His
research interests are in the areas of organizational di-
versity practices, diversity management, and organizational
culture and behavior. He has served on numerous cor-
porate boards and has dealt extensively in the areas of
diversity and diversity management in organizational set-
tings. He can be reached at richard.herrera@tamut.edu.
Phyllis A. Duncan, PhD, is an assistant professor in the
School of Business and Leadership at Our Lady of the
January/February 2012 47
 Lake University, where she teaches and is coordinator of
the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program. She has held vari-
ous leadership positions in businesses, including CEO, COO,
and senior vice president. She holds a BS from the Univer-
sity of the Ozarks, an MBA from the University of Arkansas,
an MS in industrial engineering from Southwest University,
and a PhD in philosophy from the University of the Incar-
nate Word. She can be reached at paduncan@lake.ollusa.edu.
Mark T. Green, PhD, received his doctoral degree from the
American University in Washington, DC. He holds several
masters’ degrees and also completed the Management Exec-
utive Program at Harvard University. He is a retired military
officer with assignments at the Pentagon and Army Medical
Department Center and School. He is currently a professor
48 January/February 2012 DOI: 10.1002/joe
of leadership at Our Lady of the Lake University and served
as the department chair for nine years. He has many pub-
lications to his credit and continues to develop and mentor
many students. He can be reached at GreeM@lake.ollusa.edu.
Sheryl L. Skaggs, PhD, is an associate professor of sociology
and public policy at the University of Texas at Dallas. She re-
ceived her doctorate in sociology from North Carolina State
University. Her research primarily focuses on workplace di-
versity for racial/ethnic minorities and women. Her recent
research has been published in the American Journal of Soci-
ology, Sociology Forum, Research in Political Sociology, and
Work and Occupations. Currently, she is studying issues re-
lated to firm-level diversity and corporate profits. She can be
reached at slskaggs@utdallas.edu.
Global Business and Organizational Excellence