Gender and Leadership Qualities - Literature review Example

Gender and leadership qualities Student’s name University affiliation Do women perform better than men in leadership positions? Abstract The question “do women perform better than men in leadership?” is an issue that has emerged in the recent past. In trying to argue in support of their individual sides, scholars and other writers have performed studies and compiled articles of varied nature. This literature review paper, therefore, examines a number of such articles in its quest to obtain the necessary information that is used to base the two hypotheses i.e. those who are in support of women as better leaders and those who do not. Studies that were done by the original researchers on different institutions of learning are used to analyze the role of women in the general management in such institutions. In the end, a compromise position is discussed and conclusion made. Introduction Even as some global societal groups claim to have eliminated disparities between men and women, gender superiority debates still exist. Western countries, which are viewed as the most liberalized, the developing and those in the third-world category are all alike, they all seem to believe in the traditional and primitive thought that female gender is the weaker sex (Kanter, 1989). Global population studies reveal a balance between the sexes, with females taking a slight majority of the figures. In the lower and middle level organizational groupings, women are well represented to the right proportion of the overall population, but top management group comprising of CEOs and executives still scores very low on the gender balance aspect (Eagly & Wood, 1991). Educational institutions of varied levels and nature also display similar characteristics, assigning women leadership positions only in those institutions that are exclusively engaged in the female population e.g. girls’ schools and women sports clubs among others (Southworth, 2002). Whereas the figures of women leaders in educational institutions remain low, the universal average society proves to be slowly embracing the idea. The question of which among the genders does well in leadership has not been replied with sufficient answers. The political class and women activists’ agencies have argued back and forth with a tendency of leaning towards subjective view rather than basing their conclusions on objective findings (Pounder & Coleman, 2002). Literature review A close scrutiny of scholarly and literature review articles reveal somewhat a different point of view on the subject of which among the sexes perform better in leadership positions. Different interested parties have put forward varied articles that argue for or against the topic. Some publications have been premised on extensive research and studies, while others base on observations done on simple institutional frameworks. The continued deliberation on the issue has been motivated by the fact that women have not taken up the leadership issue as expected. Female gender has proved their academic prowess by slowly encroaching on the fields that were traditionally a preserve of men (Lundberg & Frankenhaeuser, 1999). A study of institutions’ leadership roles in Eastern European countries of Poland and Ukraine compared with UK, Australia and U.S. reveal various aspects, which puts the women at disadvantaged positions. The various limiting components prove that the men are still better leaders than women are, in the educational institutions leadership roles (Pounder & Coleman, 2002). Ukrainian educational system is premised on three principles of humanism, democracy and ethnic equality. Because of this, feminization enabled the Ukrainian women progress in the science disciplines increasing the percentage of postgraduate science students from 35 to 48 in the period between 1995 and 2000. To prove their ability and equality, the doctoral students rose from 26 to 31 percent in the same period. This phenomenon elevated the number of females among the universities’ academic staff (Denmark, 1993). However, women subject to vertical segregation have barred them from taking up administrative positions in the higher education institutions allocating them only 31 to 69 percent of men counterparts slots. Men took majority of slots in other areas such as faculty and scientific research leaving middle level roles of teachers, managers and administrative staff to female gender, which took 74 slots out of 100. This study off Ukrainian situation depicts that even as women enroll and graduate from various postgraduate schools unlike before; their administrative ability is still unmatched to that of men. Poland, a country credited to have made considerable developments in its social and economic fields still performs poor on gender equity aspect. Various affirmative actions by the authorities in support of women to take up administrative positions to bring some balance have not yielded much. Women are deputized in most of the country’s institutions of higher learning. The men continue to dominate such positions up to education that has always been viewed as the women’s field. The data from two Eastern European countries portray the laxity of women to take up challenging leadership positions in the higher education arena. Professional segregation of the female gender coupled with belief, which is within them that, competing successfully against men is impossible, have contributed to a great extend to the trend. Their laxity, vertical segregation and their internal beliefs and limitations are making them lose leadership positions to men. UK depicts different characteristics to that of Poland and Ukraine in terms of pay rates to higher education establishments, which are valued and highly remunerated. However, administrative roles are preserved for men with women taking up majority of lower grade jobs. A 1999/ 2000 survey reveal that 35 slots in 100 of all academic staff were women, with paltry 24 and 12 percent of senior lecturers and professors respectively. United States, on the other hand, had 18 percent to Australia’s 14 percent of professors in the countries’ universities. Engineering, physics, math and architecture disciplines take less than 10 percent of women figures, who perform better in social science subjects. Professional segregation and their internal perception of themselves make women assume and remain longer in the lower postings. The study of the trend in the four countries depicts the way women have been perceived concerning leadership roles in learning institutions. It is arguably true that women have not taken up the leadership challenge in the educational institution as per such study outcomes. Diverse articles that have been written concerning the issue cite varied reasons to explain the state of affairs (Amey & VanDerLinden, 2002). Leadership and management experts have indicated that leadership is founded on two notions, which are transformational and transactional leadership. Although the two notions are equally important, transformation leadership have received much focus and attention. An argument by some leadership literatures states that female leaders tend to offer the transformational aspect of leadership than their male counterparts (Blount, 1998). The argument is based on, among other things, the impression that nurturance of subordinates through socialization is characterized in women than in men. Because nurturing of subordinates and other colleagues in the institutional contexts are the pillars of transformational leadership, women are said to perform better (Mohr & Wolfram, 2008). Even as the arguments seem to be logical, other models that were recently put forward insist that modern leadership models should encompass broad competing roles that are inherent in the present-day organizational settings. The transformational aspect alone that seeks to conclude that women are better leaders, therefore, cannot suffice. Quinn’s competing values model is a classic example that describes how modern leadership entails. The model incorporates multifaceted features that are sometimes complementary, while in some instances, contradicting. Educational management research points out that such kind of model that is demanded by contemporary institutions can be accomplished effectively by both sexes (Pounder & Coleman, 2002). Leadership research has distinguished gender and sex, citing that the former is a pool of qualities that are culturally created, with the latter being attributed to biological characteristics (Kanter, 1976). Emotionality, sensitivity, expression, cooperation and intuitivism make up a female gender’s personality qualities. Women are also known to display warmth, receptive to ideas, gentle, empathetic and submissive characteristics (Oshagbemi & Gill, 2003). Aggressive, assertive and impersonal characteristics that are displayed in men make a sharp contrast with those that women possess. Each of the listed characteristics of women and men tend to suit transformational and transactional leadership notions respectively. Such division of transformational and transactional leadership components between the two groups are occasioned by the fact that each of the set traits tend to cultivate the given leadership notions. Socialization determines the gender leadership style by offering an alternative to the traditional leadership aspects (Tack & Patitu 1992). Traditional competitive, controlling and leadership traits that are associated with men are viewed by the modern school of management to be ineffective and tend to bring undesired effects in the end. The articles that support the women leadership premise their arguments on the fact that socialization element, which make the better leaders, are well developed in women (Trinidad & Normore, 2005). Managing the demanding households duties by women with those that are demanded by their careers have elevated their ability to incorporate such traits, which make them better leaders that are not seen in men (Hall, 1997). Despite being favored by their gender qualities, the societal expectations on the women to act in a manner that is caring and portraying good relations, which relegate them to perform in the supportive duties leaving the administration roles to the men. Various studies that were done in the 1990s support the use of socialization element to argue that women make better leaders than men. Some of such studies are the Rosener’s 1990 survey of male and female executives with similarities in all other aspects, discovered that the women are transformational than the men, therefore, making them the desired personalities in the contemporary challenging environment. On the other hand, Rigg and Sparrow found that women leaders are more inclined to team approach than men, who tend to be people approach and authoritative. Other studies, which complemented the women’s socialization trait as enabling better leadership, are Kousez and Posner (1990), Powell (1990), Comer et al. (1995), Yammarino et al. (1997), Bass et al. (1996), Terborg (1997) and Druskat (1994) among others. On the cross-cultural studies done in Norway, Australia, USA and Sweden, democracy, transformation and nurturing relations are some of the objects that were found to be championed by women in leadership, on the other hand, men leaders insist on goal achievement and authority among other traditional leadership traits. The characteristics that are depicted by women make them more consensual leaders rather than employing commanding leadership techniques (Bauer & Green, 1996). Communication, interpersonal and intermediation skills were found in more women leadership than in men, making the former more attractive and suitable to address the current demands. The suitability of women to the leadership positions are motivated by the tendency to employ the “power through” and “power within” techniques that empower and seeks everyone’s participation. “Power over” technique that is used by most men leaders tend to be domineering and imposing, which lowers productivity, thereby making men poor leaders than women. Women who are in the educational management contexts best depict this (Hall, 1996). Collaborative, people-oriented leadership technique is associated with female school heads and although both genders seek support and involvement of their staff, women are more collaborative with men often opting to delegate (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999). Other articles, which complemented the women collaborative in leadership are as follows: Bennis et al. (1995), Champy & Cohen 1995), Ryan & Haslam (1996), Tedrow (1999) and Brass (1995). With the vast supporting studies that link gender and leadership abilities, a different group of studies exist, which seek to refute the relationship between the two. They argue that noticing the differences between women and men leadership techniques is impossible in the institutional contexts. In their studies, they conclude that both men and women display similar amount of characteristics in task and people oriented leadership conduct (Magno & Silova, 2007). A study done using undergraduate university students in the USA concluded that male and female supervisors in the educational management do not have significant differences in their transformational and transactional abilities. Another study based on multidimensional models of leadership in the educational management contexts found no big difference between men and women leadership efficiency. Arguing against relationship between gender and leadership qualities, the researchers refutes the use of socialization aspect to determine leadership behavior, terming it as simplistic and naïve (Cubillo & Brown, 2003). According to their conclusions, the use of gender as a determinant factor of leadership style is mere stereotyping. Some articles in dissociating the leadership qualities with gender determinant, state that the various surveys conducted are largely subjective. The subjectivity is in the form of tendency to judge negatively an autocratic female leader than a male one. With the existence of subjectivity in the surveys, conclusions drawn cannot be relied on, therefore, invalidating the vast findings of various surveys (Trinidad & Normore, 2005). Other scholarly works that are against the linking of gender and leadership are as follows: Adkison (1991), Ledwith et al. (2000), Still (1994) and Bone (1997). With all the debates going on about gender and leadership, continuous arguments and counterarguments makes it hard for a conclusive point to be determined. Stereotyping, which is used as an argument against women transformational abilities, is inherent in both sides of the divides. This is so because associating male characteristics to good leadership, is equally a stereotype as the use women transformational ability to conclude that they are better leaders. Several studies amidst their consistent findings on their individual side of view are subject to other factors, which might compromise the quality and reliability of the findings (Normore & Jean-Marie, 2008). Culture, gender equity status and democratic space are some of the factors that could subject the various study findings to credibility and non-replicable risks inter alia. Because of the manifestation of other factors that were omitted during the research, a possibility of erroneous study conclusions exists on both sides (Toor & Ofori, 2010). The debate on whether women are better leaders than men does not seem valuable because the environment and leadership roles in the institutions are subject to continuous changes. The various dynamics that are experienced present a new set of evidence supporting or invalidating the previous conclusions, thereby rendering the whole debate worthless. Modern school of thought argues that, because of the conflicting interests, high levels of hostility and the aspect of change in the contemporary organizations, the need to balance on some of the qualities that are contained in either gender is necessary. Therefore, the debate should be changed to focus on finding the solutions for the current leadership and organizational problems. The current management theories have concluded that, no particular style of leadership is best. The theories insist on contingent management, which is flexible and apply different techniques to match the needs of different situations. Androgynous-leadership style, which incorporates the various characteristics depicted in each of the genders, is an appropriate style for the current management of educational institutions (Pounder & Coleman, 2002). The article: Women-better leaders than men? In general and educational management it still “all depends,” by Pounder and Coleman, provides a logical conclusion on the debate. The conclusion agrees with the current proposed management and leadership styles by various experts and theories. Anhydrous-leadership technique, which equates to the Contingent theory of management, can be argued to be the best offering to today’s demands of such roles. With the emergence of technology and other leadership tools, the environment is completely different from the occurrences of the 20th century. Therefore, the need for a paradigm shift is imperative for the present-day society. Conclusion The authors employ a wide array of research findings to base the different point of views on the debate and seamlessly arriving at a logical conclusion. Being the renowned scholars in the management arena, coupled with their multicultural exposure, makes the article reliable. The reasons for the unequal representation of women in the leadership of educational institutions seem to be motivated by the traditional belief, which puts a woman behind a man (Blackmore, 1989). The situation is the same across the continents with various authorities engaging in affirmative actions among other campaigns to elevate the women’s position in the society. Slowly, the society is beginning to appreciate the leadership abilities of the women and the stigma, which denied them opportunities, is being gradually eliminated (Eagly & Carli, 2007). References Pounder, J. S., & Coleman, M. (2002). Women–better leaders than men? In general and educational management it still “all depends”. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 122-133. Trinidad, C., & Normore, A. H. (2005). Leadership and gender: a dangerous liaison?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(7), 574-590. Oshagbemi, T., & Gill, R. (2003). Gender differences and similarities in the leadership styles and behaviour of UK managers. Women in Management Review, 18(6), 288-298. Mohr, G., & Wolfram, H. J. (2008). Leadership and Effectiveness in the Context of Gender: The Role of Leaders' Verbal Behaviour*. British Journal of Management, 19(1), 4-16. Toor, S. U. R., & Ofori, G. (2010). Women leaders breaking the glass ceiling in Singapore’s construction industry. Journal of professional issues in engineering education and practice, 137(1), 1-6. Normore, A. H., & Jean-Marie, G. (2008). Female secondary school leaders: At the helm of social justice, democratic schooling and equity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(2), 182-205. Rosener, J. (1990). How women lead. Harvard business review, 68(6), 119-125. Gardiner, M., & Tiggemann, M. (1999). Gender differences in leadership style, job stress and mental health in male‐and female‐dominated industries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(3), 301-315. Kanter, R. M. (1989). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business, 65-75. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 306-315. Lundberg, U., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1999). Stress and workload of men and women in high-ranking positions. Journal of occupational health psychology, 4(2), 142. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of management journal, 39(6), 1538-1567. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster. Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of business and psychology, 17(3), 387-404. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1996). Shatter the glass ceiling: Women may make better managers. Human resource management, 33(4), 549-560. Hall, V. (1997). Dusting Off the Phoenix Gender and Educational Leadership Revisited. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 25(3), 309-324. Magno, C., & Silova, I. (2007). Teaching in transition: Examining school-based gender inequities in central/southeastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(6), 647-660. Cubillo, L., & Brown, M. (2003). Women into educational leadership and management: international differences?. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 278-291. Blackmore, J. (1989). Educational leadership: A feminist critique and reconstruction. Critical perspectives on educational leadership, 93-129. Tack, M. W., & Patitu, C. L. (1992). Faculty Job Satisfaction: Women and Minorities in Peril. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1992. Publications Department, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, The George Washington University. Amey, M. J., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2002). Career paths for community college leaders. AACC/Leadership Series, (3), 1-16. Blount, J. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency, 1873-1995. SUNY Press. Hall, V. (1996). Dancing on the ceiling: A study of women managers in education. SAGE. Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73-91. Denmark, F. L. (1993). Women, leadership, and empowerment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17(3), 343-356. Kanter, R. M. (1976). The impact of hierarchical structures on the work behavior of women and men. Social Problems, 415-430. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 62. Druskat .F (1994). Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1), 43-51. Yammarino et al. (1997). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration. Group Dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 4(1), 27. Powell, G. N. (1990). One more time: Do female and male managers differ?. The Executive, 4(3), 68-75. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1995). Leaders (pp. 219-220). New York: Harper & Row. Champy, J., & Cohen, L. (1995). Reengineering management. New York, NY: Harper Business. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (1996). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over‐represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81-90. Brass, D. J. (1995). Men's and women's networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 327-343. Terborg, J. R. (1997). Women in management: A research review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(6), 647. Tedrow, B., & Rhoads, R. A. (1999). A qualitative study of women's experiences in community college leadership positions. Community College Review, 27(3), 1-18. Adkison, J. A. (1991). Women in school administration: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 311-343. Ledwith, S., & Manfredi, S. (2000). Balancing Gender in Higher Education A Study of the Experience of Senior Women in aNew'UK University. European journal of women's studies, 7(1), 7-33. Still, L. V. (1994). Where to from here? Women in management: the cultural dilemma. Women in Management Review, 9(4), 03-10. Bone, J. (1997). Women and the ethics of leadership in higher education. Women as leaders and managers in higher education, 17-27. Read More