Transformational Leadership: Gender Differences - Case Study Example

Transformational Leadership: A Comparative Review of Gender Differences in Leadership Behaviors _______________________ Student __________________________ Course __________________________ Instructor _______________ Date Introduction A leader in any organizational setting such as business, school or politics is considered effective if he/she succeeds in aligning the attitudes, behaviors and opinions of the followers toward his/her desired ends. This is how leadership is communicated to the target group, which uses what psychologists call “influence tactics.” According to the literature on the qualities of leadership, there are two types of leadership styles commonly employed to influence such a change in the mindset of followers – the transactional and transformational methods. The transactional style basically hinges on the laissez-faire concept, which promises reward for good behavior and punishment for poor performance. This is also described as the autocratic, direct control or task-oriented style of leadership. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, is the more subtle and interpersonal approach that communicates leadership through idealized influence, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. It aims to inspire followers and raise their levels of motivation and morality. In effect, transactional leadership uses power while transformational leadership uses persuasion. This paper reviews the growing body of literature that favors transformational leadership over the transactional style as the more effective way for leaders to attain their organizational goals. In the process, we extrapolate on the influence of gender in communicating leadership behaviors. Specifically, the questions we want to address are: What are the differences or similarities in the way men and women communicate transformational leadership, which is conceded to be the more ideal leadership style? Do women make better leaders than men? These particular questions are relevant to perceptions that the influence tactics characterized by the autocratic approach are identified with men while the interpersonal style is attributed to women leaders. If women and men are to be valued equally as leaders, there is a need to understand such differences that may occur either as a result of gender or as a result of workers’ reactions to leaders based on gender (Luther, 1996). Literature Review The idea that leadership behavior differs between the transactional and transformational styles was first introduced by Burns (1978), who then indicated his preference for the latter method. Under the transactional style, leadership is perceived as a means of controlling the behaviors of followers and eliminating problems through the use of corrective transactions between leader and subordinate (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1998). As noted earlier, transactional leadership uses the laissez-faire approach, which relies on rewards and punishment to keep followers in line. Thus, leadership is communicated through autocratic and other means of direct control. In contrast, transformational leadership is communicated through a collective vision and inspires followers to look beyond their self-interest for the good of the group. According to Burns (1978), the basic difference between transformational and transactional leadership is what leaders and followers offer one another. While transactional leaders manage by corrective actions and contingent rewards, transformational leaders communicate leadership through four dimensions: idealized influence or charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration (Barbuto & Matkin, 2007; Avolio, et al., 1999). Transformational leaders offer a purpose that emphasizes long-term goals and focuses on higher intrinsic needs (Molero, et al., 2007), which means that transactional leaders are focused more on short-term goals and immediate needs. Through transformational leadership, the leader achieves important changes in the values and attitudes of the followers, as well as a notable improvement in their performance (Groves, 2005). Transactional leadership, in contrast, is based on the exchange of rewards between the leader and the followers. At the theoretical level, this distinction between transformational leadership and transactional leadership is the essence of Bass’ theory. It will be noted that until the 1980s, the notion of exchange-based leadership based was predominant within social and organizational psychology. This view assumed that when the leaders or supervisors were able to provide their subordinates with adequate rewards, the subordinates would, in turn, give them their support and carry out their work. However, for Bass, the theories and studies based on exchange were missing something when explaining “high-level leadership”, that is, leadership capable of achieving really important changes, both in the followers and in the organization. This kind of leadership, also called charismatic leadership, had not been addressed by social and organizational psychology because it was considered an exceptional phenomenon, and, consequently, impossible to measure by questionnaires or to manipulate in experimental studies (Groves, 2005). However, Bass considers that “transformational leadership is not a rare phenomenon, limited to a few extraordinary leaders, but, on the contrary, it can be found in various degrees in all kinds of groups and organizations.” In accordance with this idea, Bass and colleagues designed an instrument capable of measuring transformational leadership, thus achieving the important goal of incorporating its customary study into the area of social and organizational psychology. Before transformational leadership gained its well-deserved attention, the transactional leader was seen as operating within the existing system or culture, had preference for risk avoidance, paid attention to time constraints and efficiency, and generally preferred process over substance as a means for maintaining control. The skilful transactional leader was likely to be effective in a stable and predictable environment where charting activity against previous performance is the most successful strategy. This leader prototype was consistent with an equitable leader-member exchange relationship where the leader fulfilled the needs of followers in exchange for performance meeting basic expectation (Gutek, 1985). Bass (1998) believed that transformational leaders seek new ways of working, find opportunities in the face of risk, prefer effective over efficient answers and are less likely to support the status quo. As for transformational leaders, they do not only react to environmental circumstances but also attempt to shape and create them. Transformational leaders exhibit the following: Idealised Influence - They display conviction, emphasize trust, take stands on difficult issues, present their most important values, and the importance of purpose, commitment, and the ethical consequences of decision. Inspirational Motivation - They articulate an appealing vision of the future, challenge followers with high standards, talks optimistically and with enthusiasm, and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done. Intellectual Stimulation - They question old assumptions, traditions and beliefs, stimulate in others new perspectives and ways of doing things, and encourage the expression of ideas and reasons. Individualised Consideration – They deal with others as individuals, consider their individual needs, abilities and aspirations, listen attentively, further their development, advise, and coach (Bass, 1998). Leaders who display the four behaviors of transformational leadership are believed capable of realigning their followers’ values and norms, promote both personal and organizational changes, and exceed their initial performance expectations (Kuhnert, et al., 1995). They also go beyond exchanging contractual agreements for desired performance by actively engaging their followers’ personal value systems and providing ideological explanations that link followers’ identities to the collective identity of their organization, thereby increasing followers’ intrinsic motivation (rather than extrinsic motivation) to perform their job; articulating an important vision and mission for the organization, so increasing followers’ understanding of the importance and values associated with desired outcomes, and raising the performance expectations of followers so increasing their willingness to transcend their self-interests for the sake of the collective entity. Avolio, et al., 1999 and Bass (1988) suggest that by providing intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders encourage followers to adopt a generative and explorative thinking process. They stimulate their followers to think about old problems in new ways and encourage them to challenge their own values, traditions, and beliefs. By showing high expectations and confidence in their followers’ capabilities, they help to develop their followers’ commitment to long term goals, missions and vision thereby shifting their focus from short term and immediate solutions and objectives to long-term and fundamental solutions and objectives (Kark, et al., 2003). The advantage of transformational leadership over transactional leadership is sharply demonstrated in sports, where administrators are responsible for empowering subordinates to establish goals and or motivating members towards achieving these goals and visions. The goal of transformational leadership is precisely to “transform” people and organizations so that they undergo a change in mind and heart, enlarge their vision, clarify purposes, make behavior congruent with beliefs, principles or values; and bring about changes that are permanent, self perpetuating, and momentum building. It requires vision, initiative, patience, respect, persistence, courage and faith to be a transformational leader (Ipinmoroti, 2006). This study suggests a six-stage process that sport managers need to adopt if they are to function as transformational leaders: (1) creating and communicating the need for change, 2) overcoming resistance to change, 3) making personal commitment and sacrifices for change, 4) articulating a vision, 5) generating commitment to the vision, and 6) institutionalizing the vision. In all, transformational leadership is strongly and positively correlated with perceived effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort, and is strongly and negatively correlated with the intention to quit. Such high correlations could have been because of both leadership behaviors and effects being as­sessed in the same questionnaire (Avolio, et al., 1999). In this study however, value system congruence was measured in­dependently of the leadership questionnaire. Transformational leadership is positively correlated to terminal value system congruence, which again is positively correlated to satisfaction. Thus, the findings of this study provide greater support to the validity of the relationship between transformational leadership and satisfaction. Communicating the Vision Transformational leaders are described as those who can inspire people to follow them because of a vision and passion to achieve great things and the way they infuse enthusiasm and energy into their jobs. They also communicate leadership by showing that they care about their followers and want them to succeed. Since this type of leaders put passion and energy into everything, working for them is seen as a wonderful and uplifting experience (Krishnan, 2005). Transformational Leadership starts with the development of a vision, or a view of the future that will excite and convert potential followers. This vision may be developed by the leader, by the senior team or may emerge from a broad series of discussions. The important thing is the leader buys into it wholeheartedly (Kark, et al., 2003; Barling, et al., 2000). Once they have the vision, the transformational leader then sells the idea to potential followers, which may take all his energy and commitment especially if the vision is a radical one. In this activity, they sell not only the vision but themselves as well because people tend to follow only leaders that they respect and trust (Hartog, et al., 1997). During the selling process, transformational leaders always make themselves visible, standing up to be counted rather than hide behind the troops. They show by their attitudes and actions how everyone else should behave and also make continued efforts to motivate and rally their followers, constantly doing the rounds, listening, soothing and enthusing (Turner, et al., 2002; Kuhnert, et al., 1995). It is their unswerving commitment as much as anything else that keeps people going, particularly through the darker times when some may question whether the vision can ever be achieved. If the people do not believe that they can succeed, then their efforts will flag. The transformational leader seeks to infect and re-infect their followers with a high level of commitment to the vision. In sustaining the vision, the transformational leader uses ceremonies, rituals and other cultural symbolisms for the purpose of inspirational motivation. Leaders challenge followers with high standards, communicate optimism about future goals, and provide meaning for the task at hand. In order to motivate followers to act, they need to have a strong sense of purpose, which provides the energy that drives a group forward. It is also important that this visionary aspect of leadership be supported by communication skills that allow the leader to articulate his or her vision with precision and power in a compelling and persuasive way (Krishnan, 2005). Influence Tactics Transformational leadership communicates the vision for an organizational team through inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized attention, and idealized influence or charisma. These are the influence tactics used by leaders to command a following by changing the attitudes, opinions, or behaviors of a target (Barbuto & Matkin, 2007). By inspirational motivation, the leader creates a new sense of vision and purpose for the organization, which is measured by the degree to which the leader challenges assumptions, takes risks and solicits followers ideas. Leaders with this trait in turn stimulate and encourage creativity in their followers. As for individualized attention, this relates to the way a leader attends to the needs of each follower, acts as mentor or coach to the follower and listens to the follower’s problems. This also encompasses the need to respect and celebrate the individual contribution that each follower can make to the team since it is the diversity of a team that gives it its true strength (Eagley & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). On idealized influence or charisma, this attribute is inseparable with transformational leadership theory. Transformational leaders are often charismatic but are not as narcissistic as the purely charismatic type of leaders who succeed through a belief in themselves rather than a belief in others (Bass, 1998). Charismatic leadership had not been addressed by social and organizational psychology because it was considered an exceptional phenomenon, and, consequently, impossible to measure by questionnaires or to manipulate in experimental studies. However, Bass (1998) considers that “transformational leadership is not a rare phenomenon, limited to a few extraordinary leaders, but, on the contrary, it can be found in various degrees in all kinds of groups and organizations.” Thus, Bass and colleagues designed an instrument capable of measuring transformational leadership to achieve the important goal of incorporating its customary study into the area of social and organizational psychology. With this instrument, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Bass (1998) and Avolio, et al., (1999) found that transformational leadership is made up of the five factors identified above as the influence tactics used by leaders to communicate their vision for the target. Idealized influence is the factor that indicates to what extent followers trust and respect the leaders; and to what extent the leaders perform behaviors that reflect their values, beliefs and sense of a mission. Inspirational motivation is equated with the way in which the leaders are capable of transmitting and expressing their project or vision, while intellectual stimulation indicates to what extent the leaders promote the growth and intellectual independence of their followers. As for individualized consideration, this has to do with the behaviors of socio-emotional support to followers, as well as their individual acknowledgement. The MLQ also measures transactional leadership based on three factors: contingent reward, active direction by exception and passive direction by exception. Contingent reward indicates to what extent the leader is capable of acknowledging and rewarding a job well done, while active direction by exception concerns the behaviors aimed at foreseeing and solving mistakes and failures. The final element refers to leaders who act only when there is an error (Bass, 1998). Flora (2003) analyzed 45 leadership studies and found that the best leaders are those who inspire and encourage followers to develop their abilities and creatively change their organizations. This behavior fits the transformational leadership style, in which managers act more like good teachers than traditional bosses. For this reason, the study advocates for transformational leadership especially in firms that rely on innovation for their competitiveness, with women leaders more likely to enact this leadership style than men. Transformational leadership suits women because it includes nurturing aspects, which is a woman’s domain. It was found that if women leaders use the tough command-and-control style the way men leaders do, this generates resistance and suspicion from employees. Gender Differences For every study that says there is a difference in leadership behaviors between men and women, another study would say there is no difference at all. However, the popular notion is that men are more likely than women to use autocratic, or direct, controlling styles (Gilligan, 1982; Gutek, 1985). Barbuto, et al. (2007) surveyed 56 leaders with 234 followers from various organization to examine the relationships of gender, age, and education to leadership styles and influence tactics. The result showed that gender produced a small direct effect on leadership behaviors, while the interaction of gender and education produced consistent differences in leadership behaviors. Other researchers studied gender and transformational leadership from a variety of perspectives, from which Carli (1999) suggests that transformational leader ship may be a more feminine style of leading. A significant correlation between perceived gender characteristics and some transformational leadership behaviors was also found by Carli (1999), Jaffe & Hyde (2000) and Radecki & Jacurd (1996). However, leaders who displayed both high masculine and high feminine characteristics scored higher on transformational leadership factors, which indicate that transformational leadership behaviors require a gender balance. Another study of perceptions of transformational leadership behavior (Carless, 1998) showed that superiors rated female managers as more transformational than male managers. Female managers agreed, rating themselves as more transformational than male managers rated themselves. Subordinates, however, evaluated the transformational behaviors of male and female managers and gave equal ratings. In other studies women have been evaluated by subordinates as more transformational in both an organizational context (Bass, 1998; Avolio, et al., 1999) and a nontraditional setting (Lewis, 1998). Eagley & Johanessen-Schmidt (2001) found that both male and female students rated their instructors high in transformational behaviors, but male students were more likely than female students to view instructors as utilizing transactional leadership behaviors. The meta-analysis conducted by Eagley & Johanessen-Schmidt (2001) showed women to be more transformational than men, thus concluding that women may favor a transformational leader style because it provides them “with a means of overcoming the dilemma of role incongruity – that is, that conforming to their gender role can impede their ability to meet the requirements of their leadership role.” Gender has been studied in its relationship to the perceived use of influence tactics but such studies have produced mixed findings. Although most researchers have noted that men and women use different influence tactics (Carli, 1999; Groves, 2005), many also reported that differences in circumstances correspond to the expectations of normative influence behaviors for men and women (Carli, 1999; Jenkins, 2000). For example, Eagley & Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) found women to be less effective than men when leading directly. Another study (Itzhaky & York, 2000) showed that participants were more persuaded by men who used a direct and aggressive influence strategy than by women who used the same strategy. Porter, et al., (1983) found that men who employed stronger upward influence tactics received higher performance ratings and more career-related mentoring than women who employed the same tactics. The consistent finding then is that gender as a distinct variable does not significantly predict leadership behaviors or the use of influence tactics, although older and more experienced women are perceived to be more transformational in leadership style. Although women were found to have a more interpersonal style in experimental and assessment studies, they did not differ from men in formal organizational settings (Eagley & Johannesen, 1991). This finding contrasts with gender-stereotypic expectations that women embrace more interpersonal leadership styles, whereas men are more task-oriented. A subsequent meta-analysis of 58 studies of the emergence of leaders in groups initially without leaders showed that men emerged as leaders more often than women did (Radecki & Jacurd, 1996). However, women emerged slightly more often than men in the role of a “social leader” or facilitator, who contributes to morale and good interpersonal relations. Men’s leadership tended to emerge in the more task-oriented aspects of interaction. The researchers found that women and men became more equal in their leadership contributions overall in groups that had existed for longer periods of time. One clear problem in the study of gender and leadership is that leadership has traditionally been studied using masculine norms as the standards for behaviors (Carli, 1999). Thus, men are often viewed as better leaders, and women often adopt masculine behaviors to fit into male-dominated hierarchical structures and systems (Gutek, 1985). An additional complication is that women are expected simultaneously to behave like leaders who are authoritative and confident but also to be feminine at the same time, which means being friendly, kind and considerate toward others. The more women violate the standards for their gender, the more they may be penalized by prejudiced reactions that would not be directed toward their male counterparts (Eagley & Johannesen, 2001). Barbuto & Matkin (2007) examined 56 leaders and 234 of their followers from various organizational settings to test behavioral differences in leadership based on gender, age and education. The results showed that gender produced a small direct effect on leadership behaviors found significant effects of gender on ratings of transactional and/or transformational leadership behaviors. Gender also determines many of a leader’s behaviors, such as effectiveness, decision making, productivity, participation, conflict style, success and power. The influence tactics used by both men and women leaders in the study to change attitudes, opinions and behaviors were legitimizing, rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, consultation, exchange, personal appeals, ingratiation, pressure and coalition. These tactics were differentiated as “hard” or “soft” depending on the perceived level of resistance from the target followers. The hard methods were those that involved legitimizing, exchange, pressure and coalition, while the soft tactics consisted of personal persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, ingratiation and personal appeals. Indeed, it was shown that men leaders were prone to the hard approach while women used the soft tactics on an interpersonal basis. However, the main effects of gender on influence tactics were significant, with women rated as using significantly more pressure tactics than men. Educational level and gender together affected followers’ perceptions of both leadership style and influence tactics, with significant differences noted for management by exception, transformational, idealized influence, individualized consideration, extra effort, and effectiveness. The biggest differences were found in leaders at the high school level, where followers rated women as significantly more likely than men to favor management by exception behaviors. Men at this level were rated by followers as significantly more likely than women to favor transformational, inspirational appeal, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration behaviors. Men were rated by followers significantly higher than women on extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction. The only influence tactic on which the ratings of men and women differed significantly was pressure. Women with no more than a high school education were perceived as using more pressure tactics than men at the same educational level. In all cases, the differences diminished as educational levels increased. Overall, the combination of age and gender did not produce an overall main effect on leadership styles or influence tactics (Barbuto & Matkin, 2007). Bass ((199*) and Avolio, et al. (1999) found that men are more likely to display transactional leadership than women, while women tend to perform transformational leadership behaviors. This validates the hypothesis that women leaders are rated higher on charismatic leadership than their male counterparts. There is enough support for the theory that women leaders demonstrate greater social and emotional abilities than men, which qualities are strongly associated with transformational leadership. In fact, Flora (2003) and Gilligan (1982) describe transformational leadership as the management of emotion, outline several aspects of emotional intelligence that contribute to transformational leadership behavior in organizations. In an effort to measure the influence of gender, social and emotional skills and charisma on leadership, Ipinmoroti (2006) surveyed a total of 433 respondents, both managers and their direct followers, which consisted of 67 females and 41 males. The study validated the theory that women leaders have superior skills in social and emotional competencies compared to their male counterparts. It is also confirmed the mediating effects of social and emotional skills on the relationships between a leader’s gender and charismatic leadership. These findings suggest key implications for organizational selection, promotion, and placement processes even as they emphasize the need for organizations to improve the social and interpersonal skills of their executives, be they men or women.. Finally, the finding that women’s exceptional social and emotional competencies facilitate charismatic leadership behaviors has important implications for the advancement of women in leadership roles (Groves, 2005). In the study of Eagley & Johannesen-Schmidt (2003), a wide gap exists between men and women in the use of a democratic or participatory style of leadership. The study found that both men and women leaders were likely to use the same autocratic or direct controlling styles in a formal setting, but in experimental or assessment settings, the women employ these tactics on a more interpersonal style. All in all, the studies on the influence of gender in leadership behaviors agree that men are more task-oriented, while women impose the same tasks on an interpersonal manner. In fact, women always emerge as social leaders or facilitators who build morale and good interpersonal relation in groups that are led by men. Conclusion Research has found substantial empirical support for the transformational and transactional dimensions in organizations, although studies using a range of samples and contexts have produced a number of different factor structures. With transactions at the root of leadership, which consist of exchange, reciprocity and expectancy, a leader that communicates high levels of transformational leadership behaviors does not forego transactional leadership behaviors but rather augments or builds on these transactions with transformational behaviors, thus supporting the augmentation hypothesis set by Avolio, et al., (1999) and Bass (1998). In this sense, transformational leadership and transactional leadership do not form a single behavioral continuum but rather represent different types of leadership behaviors. In line with the moral development theory described earlier, leaders with more complex moral reasoning will be able to draw on more sophisticated conceptualizations of interpersonal situations, are more likely to think about problems in different ways, and are cognizant of a larger number of behavioral options. As such, leaders with more complex moral reasoning are more likely to value goals that go beyond immediate self-interest and to foresee the benefits of actions that serve the collective good. In contrast, it is believed that leaders who see interactions with subordinates as having primarily instrumental ends are less likely to exhibit such transformational leadership behaviors. This study gathered hat gender alone does not affect transactional and transformational leadership, but there are gender-influenced differences at the lowest level of education such as high school. Although noteworthy, this difference was found with small cell sizes, which require confirmatory replication to generalize. Although we did find gender differences in the perceived use of pressure tactics – women were perceived to use pressure more often than men – it is not clear if this finding indicates a higher perceived use of pressure tactics or differences in the perception of tactics used by women and men, as a woman, in the words of Eagley & Johannesen (2001), is “sometimes penalized by prejudiced reactions that would not be directed toward her male counterparts.” . The independent variable of “life experiences” may help to explain the interaction effects of education and gender and of education and age. In both cases the greatest differences were found in some organizational settings, with these differences diminishing in some settings. For example, Baruto & Matkin (2007) found that men leaders are more likely to use autocratic or direct controlling styles in all kinds of settings, whereas women do so only in formal settings. In other settings, women communicate transformational leadership through interpersonal styles. As noted by Flora (2003), the interpersonal leadership style comes naturally to women because of their nurturing instincts. Nonetheless, they can use the tougher command-and-control style of men if there is a perceived resistance and suspicion from followers. Because women are considered the weaker sex, they also try to meet the higher standards of leadership expected of men to assert gender equality. In sum, our findings reinforce the importance of studying the contextual nature of gender differences in leadership. If the contextual nature of gender differences had not been a focus of the present study, we would have concluded inaccurately that no gender difference existed and thus missed the effect of gender on ratings of transformational leader ship behavior. Previous work that showed no gender difference in behaviors may have provided similar patterns had the contextual nature been examined. We strongly encourage future researchers to consider the contextual nature of gender, and we encourage re-analysis of prior studies to assess the contextual nature of gender differences. If women and men are to be valued equally as leaders, it is imperative that we understand the differences that may occur either as a result of gender or as a result of workers’ reactions to leaders based on gender. Future studies, as well as the re examination of previous studies, may eventually help us come closer to answering the “age-old” question: Are leaders made or born? Bibliography 1) Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. & Jung, D.I. (1999). “Reexamining the Components of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 2. 2) Barbuto Jr., J.E. & Matkin, G.S. (2007). “Effects of Gender, Education and Age on Leaders’ Use of Influence tactics and Full Range Leadership Behaviors.” University of Nebraska- Lincoln. 3) Barling, J., Slater, F. & Kalloway, E.K. (2000). “Transformational leadership and Emotional Intelligence: An Exploratory Study.” Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 21. 4) Bass, B.M. (1998). “Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military and Educational Impact.” Hillside NJ: Erlbaum. 5) Burgoon, M., Dillard, J.P. & Doran, N.E. (1983). “Friendly or Unfriendly Persuasion: The Effects of Violations by Males and Females.” Human Communication Research 10. 6) Burns, J. M. (1978). “Leadership.” New York: Harper & Row 7) Carless, S.A. (1998). “Gender Differences in Transformational Leadership: An Examination of Superior Leader and Subordinate Perspectives.” Sex Roles 39. 8) Carli, L.L. (1999). “Gender, Interpersonal Power and Social Influence.” Journal of Social Issues 55. 9) Eagley, A.H. & Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2001). “The Leadership Styles of Women and Men.” Journal of Social Issues 57. 10) Flora, C. (2003). “Women Make Better Leaders.” Psychology Today, September-October 2003. 11) Gilligan, C. (1982). “In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 12) Groves, K.S. (2005). “Gender Differences in Social and Emotional Skills and Charismatic Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2. 13) Gutek, B.A. (1985). “Sex and the Workplace.” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 14) Hartog, D.N., van Muijen, J.J. & Koopman, P.L. (1997). “Transactional versus Transformational Leadership: An Analysis of the MLQ.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70. 15) Ipinmoroti, O.A. (2006). “Exhibition of Transformational Leadership Behavior by Nigerian College Coaches: Effects on Athletes’ Satisfaction on Individual Performance.” Department of Human Kinetics and Health Education, Tai Solarin University, Nigeria. 16) Itzhaky, H. & York, A.S. (2000). “Empowerment and Community Participation: Does Gender Make a Difference?” Social Work Research 24. 17) Jaffe, S. & Hyde, J.S. (2000). “Gender Differences in Moral Orientation: A Meta Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 12 (6). 18) Jenkins, S.R. (2000). “Defining Gender Relationships of Power.” Sex Roles 42. 19) Kark, R., Shamir, B. & Chen, G. (2003). “The Two Faces of Transformational Leadership: Empowerment and Dependency.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 1. 20) Krishnan, V.R. (2005). “Leader-Member Exchange, Transformational Leadership and Value System.” EJBO Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1. Webpage design (online) retrieved 2 November 2008 from: http://ejbo.jyu.fi/ 21) Kuhnert, K.W., Smith, B.A. & Tobert, W.R. (1995). “Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A Constructive-Development Analysis.” Academy of Management Journal 12. 22) Lewis, A.E. (1998). “The Influence of Gender and Organization Level of Perceptions of Leadership Behaviors: A Self and Supervisor Comparison.” Sex Roles 39. 23) Luther, H.K. (1996). “Gender Differences in Evaluation of Performance and Leadership Ability: Autocratic versus Democratic Managers.” Sex Roles 35. 24) Molero, F., Cuadrado, I., Navas, M. & Morales, J.F. (2007). “Relations and Effects of Transformational Leadership: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional Leadership Styles.” The Spanish Journal of Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 2. 25) Radecki, C.M. & Jacurd, J. (1996). “Gender Role Differences in Decision Making Orientations and Decision Making Skills.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26. 26) Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitopaki, O., Butcher, V. & Milner, C. (2002). “Transformational Leadership and Moral Reasoning.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 2. Read More