WHY ARE WOMEN

UNDERREPRESENTE
D IN SENIOR ROLES?
Perspectives of gender contrasts in leadership traits and
style

KAIRN MCKEE (1603868)

Contents
__________________________________________________0
AIM______________________________________________2
INTRODUCTION______________________________________2
UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN__________________3
THE EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP________4
GENDER-ROLE STEREOTYPING____________________________5
ROLE CONGRUITY THEORY (RTC)__________________________6
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES_______________________________7
LEADERSHIP STYLES_________________________________7
TRANSFORMATIONAL__________________________________8
TRANSACTIONAL_____________________________________9
LAISSEZ-FAIRE_______________________________________9
MALE OR FEMALE STYLE?_____________________________9
SAMENESS V DIFFERENCE______________________________10
Difference______________________________________10
Sameness______________________________________11
CONCLUSION_____________________________________11
REFERENCES______________________________________12

1
Aim
The aim of this review is to discuss the perspectives offered for the disproportionate
number of women in senior roles, particularly, the contrasts between men and women’s
leadership traits, style and effectiveness.
While conducting this review the questions that shaped it were: How underrepresented are
women in leadership roles? What makes a good leader? Are there fundamental differences
between males and females' that make men more suitable for leadership roles? What
potential inputs shape these differences, is it predetermined from birth or are men
“moulded” into leaders? And finally, how do differing leadership traits correlate to
leadership style contrasts between men and women?

Introduction
The review will start by discussing just how underrepresented women are in senior roles,
speaking to figures of the world's top corporate organisations. Moving on to four theories
that give perspectives on the issues faced by women: Male Dominance Theory, Gender-role
stereotypes (Cognitive-Development Theory), Role Congruity Theory and Sociological
theories are examined. Are women always disadvantaged due to social constructs or
stereotypes? Are men naturally better leaders? Or, Is there mismatch between expectations
of women and leaders?
Next, Bass and Avolio’s (1985) Transformational Model of leadership will be explained. The
review will introduce the 3 main components: transformational, transactional and laissez-
faire and whether either is preferred by males or female. Leading to exploration of the idea
of “sameness v difference” in relation to leadership styles.
The review will conclude with summary of the perspectives offered by the literature to
answer the age-old question “Why are women so sparse at the top?”

Underrepresentation of Women

2
Since the dawn of time women have been unfairly represented in all leadership roles; from
ranks of politics to the c-suite in private organisations. The most prominent leaders have
been males; from the stories in history of all the “great kings” to modern times with the
likes of Steve Jobs and Elon Musk.
In politics women have improved their representation over recent years, however, they are
still outnumbered by men. In the United States Congress, there are only 127 women out of
the of the 535 (23.7%) members (CAWP, 2020). They have slightly better representation in
Europe, 36.1%, although this differs largely between countries; Finland 76%, Ireland 54% to
Bulgaria 17% and Estonia 16% (European Parlimeant, 2019), The situation in the UK is far
from the best in Europe, with 34% of members of the House of Commons being women
Although this is an all-time high it’s quite a way from fair representation (Watson, Uberoi,
and Kirk-Wade, 2020)..

The lack of women in leadership roles is not limited to politics, and is particularly prevalent
in the corporate world. In 2019, women only held 29% of senior management roles globally
and 13% of businesses still did not have any women in senior management. Although these
are the most positive numbers ever recorded it doesn’t scream greatness for female
leaders. This figure gets even lower further up the ranks; in the EU only 17% of senior
executive roles are held by women and less than 7% of CEOs in the EU-28 (top organisations
in Europe) are women. The same trend can be seen in the USA with only 5% of CEOs being
women, Canada with 10% and Asia Pacific, with 16.8% of CEOS being female (Catalyst,
2019.) Overall, this isn't positive for women in leadership roles or who aspire to fill them in
the future. There is a plethora of literature into the potential reasons for the lack of women
in leadership positions, yet the problem persists, suggesting issues with the practical
implications for the existing literature.

The Evolutionary Psychology Theory of Leadership

3
This branch of psychology puts forward the notion that males are innate leaders, and
therefore women will always be disadvantaged in attainment of senior roles. The
foundation of their claim is that through evolution and adaptation from ancient civilisations
the qualities needed for leadership are more prevalent in males (Archer, 1996) Due to the
fight for access to women and resources in past times, apparently, men have ingrained traits
such as risk-taking, aggression and competitiveness that are associated with leadership.
They assume that prehistoric women's main priority would have been child rearing, thus,
they shied away from danger and don’t have pre-existing traits commonly attributed to
leadership. (Bussey and Bandura, 1999)
Many rejections have been proposed to this theory, including, queries about the reasoning
used to arrive at the conclusions, lack of anthropological evidence used and negligence to
discuss women's history of producing for their family and society. Their assertion of
complete “male dominance” fails to stand up against the figures suggested in said evidence,
approximately one-third of smaller scale societies place equal power and authority on
women and men. (Eagly and Carli, 2007). If these traits were innately male, all societies
would be predominantly male led, which isn't the case in simpler economical
infrastructures. Leading to the question, if it's not biology holding women back, what is?

Gender-role Stereotyping

4
Social Scientists have put forward various perspectives to explain why women seem to be
the “underdogs” of society and more specifically in the attainment of meaningful leadership
roles.
Geert Hofstede coined the term “gender-role” in 1954, used to describe behaviours and
actions that are deemed acceptable for the (perceived) sex of the person. Gender-role
stereotypes are widely agreed beliefs or assumptions about jobs or roles people should be
doing based on their gender. These expectations translate to the belief that there are jobs
better suited to men or women. Rather than these differences being hard-wired, as
suggested by evolutionist, they claim differences are due to social constructs.
The literature points to a long-standing perception of there being “male” and “female” roles
(men being better received as leaders) and in general superior to women. The literature is
mixed on whether there are any actual differences in the way men and women act in senior
roles (Kolb, 1999).
A lot of studies over the years have focussed on the idea of there being a perception of
“masculine agentic traits” (stereotypically male behaviours: aggression, assertion,
individualism, dominance, self-reliance and control) and “feminine communal traits”
(stereotypically female traits: unselfish, sensitive, gentle, empathic and kind) traits to
explain the mis-match between facts and perceptions. Either gender can possess traits from
each category, but they are more strongly and positively attributed to males or females
(Eagly and Carli, 2007).
Schein’s (1973) “think manager–think male” model suggests successful and effective leaders
are perceived to display behaviours that are widely accepted as masculine. Heilman, Block,
and Martell (1995) simulated Schein’s work to discover similar findings; men were perceived
as more similar to successful managers than women.
A meta-analysis that examined the extent to which stereotypes of leaders are culturally
masculine found that across all the studies ideal leader behaviour was more strongly and
positively associated with men (Asha et al, 2017). This of course creates a disadvantage for
women trying to rise to the top (Costa,2001).
McGlasham, Wright, and McCormick (1995) state that “Most managerial jobs have been
attributed masculine characteristics, that is, they have been male ‘sex-typed’ or “gender-
typed’’.” Meaning they are not aligned with what is widely assumed “typical” for women
(Billing and Alvesson, 2000)
Berkery, Morley and Tiernan (2013) looked further at the stereotypes faced by women,
particularly, the relationship between required leadership traits and gender role
stereotypes. They found that male participants gender-typed senior roles in favour of males
and that males and managers continue to be viewed as “agentic” while women are viewed
more androgynous (using aspects of both). Both studies point to gender-role stereotypes
and perceptions of leadership traits adversely effecting females in attainment of senior
roles.

5
If women are being viewed negatively for acting in the same way as men, they are less likely
to be selected for senior roles, which could help explain the lack of emergence of women
leaders at all levels (Kolb,1999).

Role Congruity Theory (RTC)

Eagly and Karau (2002), explain this using Role congruity theory (RTC); gender and
leadership stereotypes create preconceptions resulting in bias against women in the battle
for senior roles. The theory being that this is a result of women being judged on pre-formed
ideas of their gender rather than on the merit and skills they possess, like is the case for
their male counterparts (Koburtay, Syed, & Haloub 2019). Opening women to a conflict
between their gender-role and leadership roles. A perceived push to display agentic
qualities to be an effective leader balanced with communal traits “expected” of women as
not to be seen negatively (Eagly and Johannesen‐Schmidt, 2002). Creating a 2-prong
prejudice for women: A lower chance of a positive and fair judgement when going for
potential leadership and perceived as having less desirable style once they attain a role.
(Eagly and Karau, 2002)
In a large-scale study looking at gender bias against female leaders, 60,470 women and men
were asked for opinions on their bosses. They were asked to rate their current boss on
competence and relationship with them, on top of more generalised questions about
opinions of male and female managers. The study found 54% of participants reported no
preference for either gender with the remaining participants viewing males favourably by a
2:1 ratio. Interestingly, there was a slight preference for male leaders by female participants
and female leaders by males (Elsesser and Lever, 2011).

6
Sociological Theories

Sociologists turn away from the notion of contrasting men and women, believing, the
similarities between them are more prevalent than differences. And the differences arise as
a result of the gender-role stereotypes or other variables unlinked to gender, such as social
class. race, geographical location, education etc. (Bussey & Bandura 1999). They reject that
men are pre-programmed to display agentic traits and women to be communally and
emotionally focussed.
Some theories point to social constructs being the basis for the perceived gender
differences. Mead was an early advocate for this perspective, claiming that many of the
traits we associate with masculinity and femininity differ across cultures and periods. By this
logic gender can't be innate or predicted, rather, it is constructed by the customs and
culture of place and time. (Wood & Eagly, 2002)
Epstein (1997) echo's Meads earlier work by highlighting cultural differences; she notes that
in Middle Eastern Arab cultures men show their emotion more and is said to be true for
both: positive emotions (happiness, excitement) and negative emotions (anger, fear,
sadness). Also supported by how over generations gender differences are becoming less and
stereotypes are now less accepted. Women no longer accept their place as “home-makers”
and they are occupying more and more “male” roles; split responsibilities between men and
women of work/life being the new norm. (Eagly,2016) If gender was fixed differences across
periods and cultures wouldn’t exist according to social constructionist theories.
A lot of feminist writers believe the overstatement of gender differences in the literature
adds to the issues faced by women who are trying to enter, or, who hold leadership roles.
By advocating for differences, it justifies gender inequality and acts to confirm stereotypes
and social ordering. This leads to gender segregation and classing in professional and
personal settings, leaving women at the bottom of this order.
“Gender-role stereotypes shape the perception, evaluation, and treatment of males and
females in selectively gendered ways that beget the very patterns of behaviour that confirm
the initial stereotypes.” (Bussey & Bandura 1999)
Contending that stereotypes and opportunity structures hold women back overall; believing
that people are set on their “life path” and different opportunities are given to men than
women (West and Zimmerman, 2009).

Leadership styles

7
Leadership “style,” first defined by Blake and Mouton (1964), as the “relatively stable” set of
behaviours shown by a leader (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001,). Style is viewed in terms
of two intersecting axes, one of which is related to task, and the other people. (Gipson et al,
2017)
The three styles being referred to in this review all come under the Transformational
Leadership Theory: Transformational. Transactional and Laissez-faire. The term
“transformational leadership” was first defined by James MacGregor Burns in 1978 as a way
that leaders and followers strive to empower and motivate their team in order to achieve
the objectives. It was then developed by Bass and Avolio (1985) to include measurement
tools and models. The most popular measurement of transformational, transactional and
laissez-faire leadership is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, known as the MLQ
(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 2010). It measures transformational leadership in five scales with four
items in each (20 item total), transactional has two scales- four items (8 total) and laissez-
faire one scale-4 items. Each of the studies discussed in the next section (“Male or Female
Style?”) were carried out using the MLQ-5X.

8
Transformational
Transformational leadership is defined using four subcomponents: idealised influence (II),
inspirational motivation (IM), individualised consideration (IC), and intellectual stimulation
(IS). (Miranda, 2019) II refers to leaders acting as role models for subordinates, their work is
carried out in a manner that others want to replicate. IM is having the ability to motivate
and energise the team towards a common goal to create a level of unity. Leader and
subordinates feeling like a collective rather than “us” and “them”. IC occurs when leaders
get to know the individuals they are working with and seek unique strengths in them,
leading to more skilled employees who want to achieve the organisational goals
(Longenecker, 2006). This is widely regarded as the most effective style; a meta-analysis of
39 studies highlighted positive correlations between effectiveness and all components of
transformational leadership (Eagly et al, 2003).

Transactional
Bass and Avolio (2000), define transactional leaders as having a “give and take” relationship
with subordinates. This can take the shape of two forms: contingent reward and
management-by-exception. Contingent reward systems provide rewards in exchange for
goals or tasks achieved. This could be financial rewards like commission-based pay schemes
or bonuses for targets met. Non-financial rewards are also common: positive feedback, time
off etc (Gunkel, Lusk, Wolff and Li, 2007). This style has also been linked to effective
leadership and is ranked second. Conversely, management-by-exception runs on negative
reinforcement if any mistakes are made (Longenecker, 2006). They control employee
behaviour through punishment when goals or expectations aren't met (Groves, 2011). As
would be expected, this style harbours a less unified culture; less emphasis being placed on
providing a sense of belonging and individualism in leader and subordinate relationships.
This style has been shown to have negative correlations to effectiveness across multiple
studies (Eagly et al, 2003)

Laissez-faire
Laissez-faire was coined in 1939 by Kurt Lewin, characterised by avoidance of leadership; a
“hands off approach”. They don’t take an active part in the decision-making process and
only give input when asked for by employees. There are no systems in place to modify or
control subordinate behaviour (Longenecker, 2006). This style is not linked to high
productivity, with no-one setting the direction of the group towards organisation goals, they
often take longer to reach than they would under the other two styles mentioned above.

9
Male or female style?

The idea of women and men acting differently in leadership roles has been highly debated in
the literature for decades. It can't be denied that women have more difficulties emerging in
leadership positions, given the figures provided by Catalyst (2019) in the first section of the
review. What is up for debate, however, is the idea of differing leadership styles of males
and females being displayed once they obtain said roles (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt,
2001).
Elaine La Roche “issues of style with respect to women can unfortunately often be more
important than issues of substance” (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
As shown in the review the biggest argument in the literature about gender and leadership
style is sameness vs differences. With some writers advocating for gender differences
(Helgesen, 1995, Rosener,1990). They hold the view that differences give women the chance
to acknowledge their desirable leadership qualities (compassionate, cooperative, less
hierarchical) that could hint to females being superior for such roles. While others reject
gender differences (Powell,1990) and claim there are no differences in the way men and
women lead and any perception of them will lead to women being adversely affected
(Manning, 2002).

10
Sameness v Difference
Difference
Advocates for gender differences in leadership behaviour claim that women are less-
hierarchical, have a higher tendency to cooperate and value promoting the self-worth and
interests of others, more than men. Writers in this area argue that such differences make
women better suited for leadership roles in the modern world.
In a study by Burke and Collins (2001) they reported minor gender differences in leadership
styles. A sample of 711 females and 320 males were sent a questionnaire to self-assess their
leadership styles. The study found female leaders are more likely to use behaviour that is
transformational, and this applied to all 4 subcomponents (individual consideration,
intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence) of the style. The
differences highlighted the in transactional style were minor, with the only notable thing
being males self-reported the use of management-by-exception more than females.
These findings were supported by Bass et al. (1996), their approach differed slightly as they
got the opinions of the subordinates as well as the managers. They discovered females were
most likely to be perceived and self-report as transformative leaders. Again, echoing Burke
and Collins (2001) female managers are less likely than male managers to report practicing
management‐by‐exception.
Another interesting finding by Eagly et al (2003), was that women had tendencies to engage
in more contingent reward behaviours and reject the negative behaviours associated with
management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership (Gipson et al, 2017)

Sameness
This view is not supported by all, academic writers reject the idea of differences in style and
behaviour, some claiming differences don’t exist (Bass, 1990) others minimising their
importance. Kanter, (1977) contends that differences shown in the literature are as a result
of the differing positions held by men and women in organisations. Due to women
occupying roles of less power than men, it’s inevitable differing leadership styles are shown.
Another explanation gave for the differences is the RCT, mentioned earlier, the conflict of
gender roles and leader roles may explain why women favour transformational styles. It
gives them an opportunity to display effective leadership behaviours while still acting within
the norms of gender roles (Eagly et al, 2002).
In studies that looked at task-orientated versus people-originated styles no differences are
reported between genders, contrary to the stereotypical beliefs that males focus more on
“getting the job done” while females are more sensitive and cater to the needs of
employees (Eagly and Johnson, 1990). Another notable point is that studies carried out in
the form of real-life observation show little to no differences, while, reported based ones
do; again, working discredit the literature on difference. (Kark, 2004)

11
Conclusion

The aim of this review was to explore the perspectives offered to explain the
disproportionate number of women in leadership roles. Focus was given to literature on
gender differences in leadership traits, style and effectiveness. Looking at each from
different theoretical lenses: Evolutionary, Gender Stereotypes, RTC and Sociological.
The first conclusion to be drawn, there are differences in the way men and women are
perceived as leaders, however, the literature is mixed on whether these differences exist.
They all acknowledge that organisational gender inequality is still very prevalent and seems
to be most so in the corporate sector, they just differ in their rationale of it.
Women are viewed less favourably when they show agentic qualities than when men do, so
it's not that men are born great leaders, as suggested by evolutionary psychologists, simply,
they are perceived to be (even when acting in the exact same fashion as women).The
problem here for women is that they are being negatively viewed due to the pre-formed
ideas people have about gender roles, rather than on their talents, skills and experience, like
is true for their male counterparts. Leading to an unproportionate number of women in
senior roles as they aren't getting the opportunities that men are to access them.
Further to this, if they do reach their professional aspirations, they are met with discourse,
between their gender and leadership role, which presents as negative bias against women in
pursuit of the highest ranks. Correlating with the figures shown in section 1 “under
representation of women” Only 7% of CEOs are women but the figure for senior executive
roles is 17%, this again rises as the rank falls with 29 % of senior management roles being
occupied by women.
The literature is mixed on the differing styles of men and women, some studies showing
women are more transformational while others show little differences between genders.
Some opting to celebrate differences, others seeing it as another way for women to be held
back and oppressed.
Components of all the theories together make more sense than they do separately. They all
arrive at similar conclusions; actual differences are minimal while perceptions of them rife in
organisational settings. The literature would benefit from further research into the practical
implications of leadership style and gender role biases in an attempt to level the playing
field. More emphasis is placed on “proving” or “disproving” difference than on how to level
the playing field for women.

12
References

Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary
explanations compatible? American Psychologist, 51(9), 909–
917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.9.909
Bass, B, Avolio, B and Atwater, L (1996) “The Transformational and Transactional Leadership
of Men and Women” Journal of applied Psychology, Vol 45, Issue 1.

Bass. B and Avolio. B “TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE”

Public Administration Quarterly Vol. 17, No. 1 (SPRING, 1993), pp. 112-121
Berkery. E, Morley. M and Tiernan. S (2013) ”Stereotypes and requisite managerial
characteristics: From communal to androgynous, the changing views of women” Beyond
gender role stereotypes and requisite managerial characteristic Volume 28 Issue, 5
(https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/GM-12-2012-0098/full/html)se
Billing, Y.D. and Alvesson, M. (2000), “Questioning the notion of feminine leadership: a
critical perspective on the gender labelling of leadership”, Gender, Work and Organization,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 144-157.
Burke, S. and Collins, K.M. (2001), "Gender differences in leadership styles and management
skills", Women in Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 244-257.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420110395728

Bussey, K & Bandura, A (1999) “Social Cognitive Theory of Gender Development and
Differentiation” Psychological Review 1999, Vol. 106, No. 4, 676-713
(https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.589.763&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

Catalyst, (2019) “Quick Take: Women in Management”

(https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-management/)
CAWP(2020) “Women in US Congress 2020” (https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-
congress-2020)
Dappa, K, Bhatti, F & Aljarah. A (2019). “A study on the effect of transformational leadership
on job satisfaction: The role of gender, perceived organizational politics and perceived
organizational commitment.” Management Science Letters. 9. 823-834.
10.5267/j.msl.2019.3.006.

Eagly, A (2016) “Social Role Theory of Sex Differences” The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Gender and Sexuality Studies
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss183

Eagly, A. & Johnson, B. (1990). “Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.”

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.

13
Eagly, A. (2003) “More women at the top: The impact of gender roles and leadership style”
Department of Psychology of the North-western University, Evanston, USA (https://page-
one-springer-com.ezproxy.rgu.ac.uk/pdf/preview/10.1007/978-3-322-80475-4_11)

Eagly, A. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M., (2003) “Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-

Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women and Men.” Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 129, Issue4

Eagly, A. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 573-598.
Eagly, A., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard business
review, 85(9).
Elsesser. K and Lever. J, 2011) “Does gender bias against female leaders persist?
Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey” Human Relations: 64(12). The
Tavistock Institute, Sage Publications.
(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0018726711424323?
utm_campaign=3C28&utm_medium=interest&utm_content=online&utm_source=email&pr
iorityCode=3C28&utm_term=April-13)
Epstein, C. F. (1997). “The multiple realities of sameness and difference: Ideology and
practice.” Journal of Social Issues. 53, 259-
278.https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02443.x?
casa_token=lCiDYKIxKSsAAAAA:AoFrUID0jVryRSeJgOonuaMFe1JcAA9lcnCLJuExXDcaUgEKW
3ud6sWS2yfYcKZOSRoKdX1U_l_OaEs

Gipson, A. N., Pfaff, D. L., Mendelsohn, D. B., Catenacci, L. T., & Burke, W. W. (2017).
“Women and Leadership: Selection, Development, Leadership Style, and Performance”. The
Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 53(1), 32–65.
(https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316687247)

Groves, K (2011) “An Empirical Study of Leader Ethical Values, Transformational and
Transactional Leadership, and Follower Attitudes Toward Corporate Social Responsibility”
Journal of Business Ethics., Vol. 103 Issue 4, p511-528. 18p. 6 Charts.

Gunkel, M., Lusk, E.J., Wolff, B. and Li, F. (2007), “Gender‐specific Effects at Work: An
Empirical Study of Four Countries.” Gender, Work & Organization, 14: 56-79.
(10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00332.x)
Helgesen, S. (1990). “The female advantage: women's ways of leadership”. New York, N.Y.:
Doubleday Currency.
Kanter R.M. (1977) Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life. In: Rieker P.P., Carmen E.
(eds) The Gender Gap in Psychotherapy. Springer, Boston, MA

14
Kark, R. (2004), "The transformational leader: who is (s)he? A feminist perspective", Journal
of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 160-
176. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530593
Koburtay, T., Syed, J. and Haloub, R. (2019), "Congruity between the female gender role and
the leader role: a literature review", European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 831-848.
Kolb. J (1999) “The Effect of Gender Role, Attitude Toward Leadership, and Self-confidence
on Leader Emergence: Implications for Leadership Development” HUMAN RESORCE
DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY. vol. 10, no 4,
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hrdq.3920100403?
casa_token=lxZkR4y2pkkAAAAA:a9_8iTkL1p_OL8AXNxerBwYK9hq_mzbLmOgj1QwIBIsnDqC
yJPnKZ_ZgvlxpzquCuZD0DR1gj1L8aog)
Lewin, K, Lippitt, R and White, K. (1939), “Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally
created ‘social climates’”, The Journal of Social Psychology, S.P.S.S.I. Bulletin, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 271-299.
Löckenhoff, C. & Costa, P. (2007). “Big five personality traits” Encyclopaedia of social
psychology. Vol. 1, pp. 116-117. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
(10.4135/9781412956253.n67)
Longenecker, P. (2006) “Evaluating Transformational Leadership Skills of Hospice
Executives” American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine / Vol. 23, No. 3,
Manning, T.T. (2002), "Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work
satisfaction", Women in Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 207-216.
(https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420210433166)
McGlasham. K, Wright. P and McCormick. B (1995) “Preferential selection and stereotypes.
Effects on evaluation of female leader performance, subordinate goal commitments and
task performance.” Sex roles, 33. 669-686.
Miranda. S (2019) “Preferred Leadership Styles by Gender” Journal of Management
Development. Vol. 38 Issue 7, p604-615. 12p.
Powell, G.N. (1990), “One more time: do female and male managers differ?” Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 68‐75.
Rosener, J.B. (1990), “Ways women lead”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, pp. 119‐25.
Schein, V. E. (1973). “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite
management characteristics.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100
Schuh, S.C., Hernandez Bark, A.S., Van Quaquebeke, N. (2014) “Gender Differences in
Leadership Role Occupancy: The Mediating Role of Power Motivation.” Bus Ethics 120, 363–
379. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1663-9)
West, C and Zimmerman, D. (2009) “Accounting for Doing Gender” Gender and
Society.Vol:23, p112-122.
(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0891243208326529?

15
casa_token=mq2wFbwtpWUAAAAA:0A2F_HpSKSc_A3-
WCIy1LjuZrbxY8X7DpGiebcnNsXENv5Y5bgaLGVDLm70Fdaz3MqnQK464eapWMQ)
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). “A cross‐cultural analysis of the behaviour of women and
men: Implications for the origins of sex differences.” Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.
(https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92784-6_7)

16