7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

1/16

F E A T U R E

The Effect of Gender Role,Attitude Toward Leadership,and Self-confidence on LeaderEmergence: Implications forLeadership DevelopmentJudith A. Kolb

Although research has indicated no substantia l dqferenccs between the behav-iors of male an d female leaders, dlfferences exist in perceptions of thesebehaviors. Leadership continues to be described in stereotypically masculineterms, although some evidence exists tha t a n an drogyn ous leadership stylealso may be related to perceptions of leadership. This study examined whetherself-perceptions of masculine gender role characteris tics would predict indi-viduals who were perceived by others as leaders on a team project and g ot he rself-report measures might be used instead to predict leadership. Results indi-cate that both at titude toward leadership an d leadership experience werestronger predictors of leader emergence than masculine gend er role.

After two decades of research on differences in the leadership behaviors ofmales and females, the consensus appe ars to be that there are few, if any, dif-ferences (Powell, 1990;Shimanoff a nd Jen kin s, 1991). Powell, for exam ple,reported no significant differences between male an d female managers in task-oriented behavior, people-oriented behavior, effectiveness ratings of m anagers,and subordinates responses to manag ers. Shimanoff and Jenkin s con cur red .After reviewing research on sex differences in leadership, they stated, Researchhas demonstrated that there are far more similarities than differences inthe leadership behaviors of women an d m en , an d they are equally effective(1991, p . 504). They conc luded , however, that this same literature reflected aNote 1would like to thank Dennis Gou ran and Grant Henning for their comm ents on an earlier draftof this manuscript Portions of this article were presente d a t the 1997 convention of the Associationfor Business Co minu nication Oth er data collected on this sample were included in an article thatappe ared in the 1998 conference proceedings of the Academy of Hu man Resource DevelopmentHUMANESOL~RCEEVELOPMENT QUARTERL!. vo l . 10, no 4, Winrer 1999 0 ossey-Bass Publishers 305

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

2/16

306 Kolbdifference in perceptions of leadersh ip: W omen are less likely to be preselectedas leaders, and the same leadership be ha no r is often evaluated more positivelywhen attributed to a male than a female (p . 504 ). Males wh o exhibit the samebehaviors as females are often rated more positively (Butler and Geis, 1990;Nieva and G ute k, 19 80 ; Seifert and Miller, 1 98 8). Males also are judg ed lessharshly than women when they fail to be responsive to the needs of others(Faranda, 1981: Helgesen, 19 90 ; Russell, Ru sh, an d H erd, 1988).Perceptions of leadership are the crucial component of emergent leader-ship. In contrast to official leaders, who hold titles and the position powerinherent in those titles, emergent leaders have no titles and no officialpower. They are leaders only if othe rs view them as su ch . Emergent leaders inteams or groups are defined as members who exert significant influence overother group m emb ers even though no formal authority has been vested inthem (Schneier and Gok tepe, 1 983 ). Such leaders emerge as o thers in thegroup agree that on e [or mo re] individual [s] could s e n e the group more use-fully in attaining grou p goals than the oth er mem bers (Bass, 19 81 , p. 13).Much has been written about the importance and effects of participatoryleadership in todays organizations [see, for exam ple, Bettenhausen , 19 9 1;Co tton , Collrath, Lengnick-Hall, an d Frogg att, 1 99 0; Leana, Locke, an dSchweiger, 19 90 ). On e effect of a participatory or teamwork culture is thatindividuals who are not in official leadership positions have opportunities todem ons trate their leadership capabilities. These opp or tun itie s may he espe-cially imp ort an t for xvomen. As suggested by Hitt an d Barr [1989) and Haber-feld (1992),women may be passed over for promotion simply because theyhave not been exposed to the same opp ortunities an d experiences as men . Thisis one explanation of the often-cited glass ceiling effect and the fact that only4 . 8 percent of senio r executives in a Fortune sample were women (Fisher,1992).TeamLvork offers oppo rtu niti es for wom en an d o the rs to emerge as lead-ers; individuals w ho emerge as leaders may m ove m ore easily into positions ofappointed leadership (Gok tepe an d Schneier, 19 89 ). Studies-such as the onereported in this article-that describe the cha racter istics of em ergent leaderspro\ride useful inf orm atio n, especially if perceptions that affect the way malean d female leaders are vien-ed are esam ine d. Uncovering su ch perceptions isa first step toward identifying strategies that allow people of both sexes todevelop their leadership potential.One of the purposes of this study was to determine if stereotypically mas-culine characteristics and b ehaviors, linke d to leadership in past stud ies, arestill valid in the late 19 90 s to predict leadership eme rgence. Even i f iiiasculinegender scales, traditionally used to measure masculinity, do predict leadership,holvever, the use of such scales may sene to perpetuate the sex-based stereo-types they measure (Canary and H ause, 1 99 3). Th us , ano ther pur pos e of thisstudy was to identify other characteristics, an d o the r scales, that might be usedin lieu of masculine gender scales to predict emergent leadership.

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

3/16

Leader Emergencc 307

A Review of the LiteratureThis section reviews som e of the p ertinent gender role literature.

Gender Role Orientation. The term gender in this article is not used torefer to biological sex. Rather, gender role is used to describe an individualsscores on self-reported measures of stereotypically masculine and femininecharacteristics an d behaviors (Beni, 19 74 ). The set of traits an d behaviorslabeled as masculine include s the following: is self-reliant, inde pe nd en t, an dassertive, has leadership abilities, is willing to take risks, makes decisions eas-ily, is dominan t , is willing to take a sta nd , acts like a leader, an d is athletic,ambitious, and self-sufficient. The set of traits and behaviors labeled as femi-nine include these: is affectionate, compassionate, and cheerful, does not useharsh language, is loyal, sensitive to the needs o f others, sympathetic, gentle,and understanding, loves children , and is tender and warm. Although some ofthe characteristics on these lists tend to support either a task (masculine) orrelationship (feminine) focus, other characteristics such as is athletic on themasculine list an d loves children on the feminine list reflect characteristicsthat go beyond task and relationship o rientations.Individuals who score above the m ean o n the masculinity scale and belowthe mean o n the femininity scale are classified as masculine in gender. Thosewh o score above the mean on bo th scales are classified as and rog yn ou s, orreflecting a high degree of both masculine and feminine characteristics. Fem-inine individuals score above the mean on the fem ininity scale and below theme an o n masculinity; undifferentiated individuals score below the mean o nboth scales.Stereotyped perce ptions of gender roles appea r to have ramifications forperceptions of leadership. Kruse an d Wintermantels (1986 ) stu dy of Germanstudents revealed that ratings by males of the concep t of man co rrelated at .9 0with ratings of the concept of manager and at .80 with the concept of leader-ship. Ratings of the concept of woman correlated negatively both with ratingsfor the concept of manager (.40) and the concept of leadership ( . S O ) . Theresults for ratings by females were essentially the sam e. Brenner, Tomkiewicz,and Schein (1989) found that female managers did not stereotype the man-agerial jo b as masculine bu t that male middle managers did describe managersin stereotypically masculine terms. C husm ir and Koberg (19 91 ) observed thatboth female and male managers reported higher acceptance of masculineattributes. McGlasham, Wright, and McCormick (1995) concur: Most man-agerial job s have been attributed masculine characteristics, that is, they havebeen male sex-typedor gender-typed (p . 673 ). Recent studies by Kent andMoss (1994) and Kolb (1996) su pp or t findings by earlier researchers (Goktepean d Schneier, 19 89 ; Powell an d Butterfield, 19 79 ) that a masculine genderidentity is strongly related to leadership em ergence.Scores on masculinity an d femininity scales are not necessarily correlatesof biological sex (Bem, 1974). Fagenson (1990) reported that women who

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

4/16

308 Kolbwere highly placed in an organizational hierarchy scored significantly higheron measures of masculinity than did lower-level workers. Given societalchanges in the perceptions of the roles of men and women, i t may be thatwom en today, particularly you ng wo m en , view themselves an d are viewed byothers as possessing more characteristics that are traditionally, and stereotyp-ically, described as masculine. Powell and Butterheids (1979) study supportsthis view. They noted that female graduate students in business ratedthemselves higher in masculinity tha n in femininity Kolb (1996) reported asimilar finding in a recent undergraduate sample: four of the six masculinityscores above 6.0 o n a 7.0 scale belonged to females. Masculine gender rolecharacteristics, rather than biological sex, then, may be the crucial aspect ofgender that is related to leader emergence. The preceding data provided thebasis for the following hypothesis:HvPnTHEsrs 1 Scorc,s on muwul1nqy will cot relute positively wi th assessmcnts (f

leudci cmcrgenceSome studies have s h o n n that female managers describe the successfulmiddle manager ds possessing both stereotypically masculine and femininecharacteristics (Brenner, T om kie w cz , and S chein, 1989), hat an androgynousleadership style (one thit reflects high levels of both masculine and feminine

characteristics) may help women overcome stereotypes that have preventedthem from being viewed as leaders in the past (Korabik, 19901, that the morefrequently managers of either sex are able to call o n a variety of masculine an dfeminine behaviors, the more self-confident they are (Chusmtr and Koberg,1991),and that indi\iduals classified as either masculine o r androgyno us standd better chance of emerging A S leaders than individuals classified as feminineor androgy nous (Kent and Moss, 1994, Kolb, 1996) Hence, the followinghypothesesHYPCXHESIS 2 : Individuals classlfird as muscuhnr ot- atidrogywuswillscore sign$-icantly higher on measures .f eadrt- eniugence than will individuals class!fied us

feminine ui- undgferentiated.HYPOTHESIS : A higher percentugc qf those chosen as preJerrcd group l e a d u s will

be individuals class!fit-d a s tnusculine o r undrogvnous us opposed to,funinine orundijJerentiated.Leadership Attitude and Experience. Use of the term masculine to refer

to characteristics that today are possessed by individuals of bo th sexes is mis-leading, inay perpetuate sex-based stereotypes, and may cause problems forcompan ies that choose to use such m easures. Attitude toward leadership andleadership experience hold promise as alternative characteristics and behav-iors that might predict leader emergence.

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

5/16

Leader Emergence 309The desire to be a leader is one of the key traits that distinguishes leadersfrom non leaders (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1 99 1; Miner, 19 78 ). Kolb (19 97)reported a positive relationship between leadership attitude a nd leader emer-

gence, as well as a positive relationship between leadership experience andleader emergence. In addition, she found attitude toward leadership to be astronger predictor than masculinity for group-reported leader emergence. Boththese findings will be tested in this stu dy Thus, the following hypo theses wereadvanced:HYPOTHESIS: Masculine an d androgynous individuals will score significantlyhigher- than femin ine an d und$ewntiated individuals on scales measuring leader-ship attitude a nd experience.HYPOTHESIS: Attitude toward le adershi p will be LZ stronger predictor qf leaderemergence than will masculinity.

Self-Confidence. Self-confidence, the degree of perceived probability ofsuccess at a task (M cClelland, 19851, has been linked to gender role identity(Chusmer and Koberg, 1991; Chusmer, Koberg, and Stecher, 1992) . In the lat-ter study, individuals classified as androgynous on Bems (1 97 4) scale scoredhighest on a measure of self-confidence, followed in order by those with a mas-culine, feminine, and undifferentiated orientation. N o significant differencesin self-confidence between male and female managers were found whengen der role identity was held con stan t. These findings were consistent withresults reported by other researchers (for example, Sleeper and Nigro, 19 87 ;Zuckerman, 198 5) show ing that situational influences moderate the differencesin self-confidence seemingly attributab le to biological sex. A persons genderrole may significantly affect the comfort level felt with any given task. Thus ,the following hypothesis w as advanced:HYPOTHESIS: Androgynous and masculine individuals will score sign$cantly higherthan those classified asfeminine o r undifferentiated on a measure of self-confidencc.

Self-confidence is another characteristic that shows promise as a predic-tor of leader emergence. Although aspects of self-confidence are indirectlycontained in the masculinity scale (for example, assertiveness, self-reliance,willingness to take a stand ), these descriptors do not fully capture the constructof self-confidence. Indeed, there is some controversy concerning what ismeant by the term self-confidence (see, for exa mp le, Ow ens, 19 93 ). Despitedifficulties in conceptualizing self-confidence, several studies have linked self-confidence with leadership (for example, Bray, Cam pbell, and G ran t, 19 74 ;How ard and Bray, 1 98 8; Mowday, 19 79 ).Recent research reported by Sa pp , H arro d. and Zhao (1 99 6) uncoveredno significant relationship between self-confidence and leader emergence.

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

6/16

310 KOlbHowever the task used in the stud y was a discussion lasting an average of sev-enteen minutes , on the topic of food irradia tion No ne of the participants hada special interest in this topic beyond what would be expected of any reason-able person con cerned about food safety I t is likely that a positive relationshipbetween self-confidence and leader emergence would surface if groups worhedfor a longer period of time on a task in which the m emb ers ha d iiiore investedin the outcome Thu s, the fo llosin g hypothesis was posedHYPOTHESIS: Scores on u mcusut-e ilf wlf-confidence wil l ion-elatepositively with

usscssntents of Icndet cmetgcnceMasculinity has been linke d to leader emergence in several studies. The

use of masculinity scales to predict leader emergcnce, however, poses severalproblems for companies. am ong them the potential perpetuation of sex-basedstereotypes an d the need for careful explanation an d justification for the useof such scales. Identification of other characteristics linked to emergent lead-ership would allow companies to avoid the potential problems associated withthe use of gender scales. Attitude toward leadership, leadership exp erience,and self-confidence are three variables that might predict leader emergence aswell as masculine gender role. Thus, the following research question wasposed:RESEARCHQUESTI ON 1 : Among t h c \at-iablesof niusculinity, uttitudr toward lrud-er-ship. leadet-ship c-ypet-itncf, a n d sey-confidence, which is the s t n q e s t predictorof leccder trnergctice?

MethodThe sam ple, measures. and procedure used in the st ud y were as follows.Sample. Participants in this study were 123 undergradua te s tudents(64female , 59 male) enrolled in four sections of an u pper-div ision appliedorganizational com m unic ation class at a large eastern university. Forty-sevenpercent of the sample u.ere business majors. 39 percent were liberal artsmajors, and the remaining 14 percent majored in einwonmental resource man-agem ent. The average age was twenty-one.Measures. The characteristics described in the first section of this articlewere measured as follows.Gender Role Onentiition. h,lascuhne an d fem inine scale scores an d gend er-role categories were determined by means of the Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI)(Bern, 1974). BSRI is an in str um en t that treats masculinity an d femininity ast\vo independen t d imens ions rather than as opposite end s of a single dimen-sion; in so doing, i t allows an individual to say that he or she is both mascu-line and feminine (Bem, 1977, p. 83). Individuals rate themselves o n a scaleranging from a low of 1 to a high of 7 n the extent to which they believe each

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

7/16

Leader Em ergence 311of sixty characteristics is self-descriptive. Forty of the item s are those rated bya sample of bo th males and females as being significantly mo re d esirable inAmerican society for one sex than for the other (Bem, 1974). These items makeu p the masculine a nd feminine scales. Another twenty characteristics, whichserve as filler item s, describe charac teristics rated by Bems samp le as neu tral(for example, truthfu l, happy, conceited, unsystematic).This scale was one of several completed by par ticipants in this stud y; par-ticipants did not know that gender role was being measured until after the studywas co m plete d. To arrive at gender role classifications, scores on masculinityan d fem ininity scales were first calculated for each pa rticipant. Next, med ianscores for this samp le were calculated. Each individuals score was then co m -pared with the median scores, an d individuals were assigned to one of the fourgender-role categories: masculine, androgynous, feminine, and undifferentiated.For this samp le, the med ian c utoffs for masculinity an d femininity scores were5. 00 and 4. 80 , respectively, on a 7 -point scale. These are similar to m edians of5.15 an d 4. 6 5 reported by Kolb (199 7) and those of 5.3 and 4 .7 reported byKent and Moss (199 4) . Reliability coefficients (Cronbac hs alphas) i n this studywere .8 4 for the masculinity scale an d .80 for the femininity scale. Kolb (1 99 7)reported Cronbachs alphas of .85 for masculinity and .7 9 for femininityLeader Emergence. Leader emergence was measured in two ways. First,leader perceptions were assessed using Kent and Mosss (1990) three-item Likert-type leader emergence scale. Each group member com pleted a measure of leaderemergence for each other group mem ber. Instructions were worded as follows:Please rate the extent to which each m ember of your group (a) assumed a lead-ership role, (b) led the conversation, and (c) influenc ed group goals and deci-sions (1 = never, 7 =always). Leader emergence scores were obtained bycombining the average rating of the three items into a composite of the responsesof all group members. In this study, Cronbachs alpha was .94 for the leaderemergence measure. In previous studies, Kolb (1997) and Kent and Moss (1994)reported Cronbachs alphas o f . 93 and .94 , respectively.

For a second m easure of leader emergence, mem bers were asked t orespond to the following question: If you could choose just one person fromyour group to serve as the leader for another similar group project, wh o wouldthat person be?A forced-choice measure of leader emergence was include d to acquireadditional information ab ou t the group of individuals identified as preferredleaders. Socionietric choice of the leader by peer assessment and secret ballothas been used repeatedly in the leadership literature and has dem onstrate dstrong predictive validity (Bass, 1981;Goktepe and Schneier, 19 89) . Individ-

uals who were identified as preferred leaders by at least two group membersother tha n themselves were labeled the preferred leader group.Leadership Attitude and Experience. Kolbs (1997) 5-point measure ofleadership attitude and 4-point measure of leadership experience were used.Cronbachs alpha for the leadership attitude scale was 30, the same as reported

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

8/16

312 Kolbin my previous study (Kolb, 1997). Items for the leadership attitude measurewere as follows: I enjoy tak ing a leadership role in a small gro up , I dontlike to be in charge but I am a good gro up m embe r (reverse), 1 am usuallyone of the first on es to begin organizing the gr ou p tas k, Being a leaderrequires more time than Im willing to give (reverse), an d I am comfortablein a leadership role.The lea dership experience scale required resp ond ents to check the onebest response (ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 4) that described their levelof experience , thus no reliability score w as calculated. The lowest responselevel ~vas,.Rarely find myself in a leadership position. The highest was. I f Iam in a small gro up or a student-volu nteer organization, 1 am almost alwaysone of the leaders.

Sel/-Confidcnce. After the self-confidence scale that 1 developed for thisstudy &as admin istered to the first half of the sam ple , i t was determ ined thatthe Cronbach alpha was too low to be acceptable (Nunnally, 1978).The scalewas redesigned an d adm inistered to the secon d half of the sa mp le. TheCronbachs alph a for this redesigned scale was .75, which was consideredacceptable. Because of the initial prob lem with the self-confidence scale. allstatistical calculations reported in th is article that involve the use of the self-confidence scores were calculated on a reduced sample of sixty-seven.The questions on this 5-po int Likert-type scale were as follows: If som e-one challenges my opinion, I defend my beliefs. I have confidence in my ow ndecisions, 1 am able to articulate my beliefs as well as most people,confidence in my abili ty to handle most tasks, and I have what i t takes tosucceed in my chosen career. Response choices ranged from 1 (definitely false)to 5 (definitely true).Procedure. A t the beginning of the eighth week, participants wereassigned to mixed-sex groups of four or five m em be rs each. Each group com-pleted t\vo projects over a period of two months. The first was a humanresource task inirolving the hiring an d developm ent of an em ployee. The sec-on d was a problem solving-decision making dem on stra tion involving a real-istic business situation and the methodology each group would use to solvethe problem or make a choice.Participants co mpleted the first questionna ire containing d emog raphicinform ation, the BSRI scale, leadership attitude and leadership experiencescales, an d the self-confidence scale du rin g the sec ond week of class. At theend of the cou rse , they completed the second questionnaire containing leaderemergence scales and the preferred leader question.ResultsN o significant differences attributable to biological sex were found in leaderemergence. Means and standard deviations for male sub.jects on theleader emergence scale were 4.12 (1 .22) ; for females, scores were 4.33 (0.98).

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

9/16

Leader Em ergence 313Of the thirty-one ind ividuals identified as preferred leaders, sixteen were maleand fifteen were female. Twenty-seven percent of the males in the overallsam ple and 23 percent of the females were identified as preferred leaders.

The only significant difference between males and females on any of themeasures reported in this article was on the femininity scale ( t = 6.21 ,df = 1 2 1 , p = . OOO; emale M = 5. 02 1.491, male M = 4. 45 [.541). Meanscores for all measures w ere as follows: leader em ergence M = 4 . 2 3 (1.11);masculinity M = 5.04 (.65 ); femininity M =4.7 5 (.59 ); attitude toward lead-ership M = 3.68 (.69); xperience in leadership M = 2.63 (.96);nd self-confidence M =4.42 (.45).Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 stated that scores on masculinity wouldcorrelate positively with leader emergence. Data reported in Table 1 sup-ports this hypothesis. Masculinity was significantly correlated with leaderemergence ( r = .22) . Femininity was not significantly related to leader emer-gence ( r = 11). Attitude toward leadership ( r = .33) and experience inleadership ( Y = .31)correlated significantly with perceived leadership.Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 stated that individuals classified as masculineor androgy nous w ould score significantly higher on measures of leader emer-gence than would individuals classified as feminine or undifferentiated. Lim-ited support was found for this hypothesis. Because the percentage of male andfemale group mem bers has been fo un d in past studies to affect leaderemergence, all analyses in this study controlled for the percentages of wom enin the groups. A two-by-four analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), in which thepercentage of w omen in each group was a covariate and sex and gender rolewere indepen dent variables, was co nd uc ted , with leader emergence as

Table 1 . Correlation Matrix for Leader Emergence, Sex, Gender,Leadership Attitude, and Leadership Experience [ N =1231

VLIiablc 1 2 3 J 5 61. Leader2. Sex - 03. Masculine . 22** -.13

emergence

gender ro le ( . 2 5 )gender role (-. 1 2 ) ( - . l 6 )4. Feminine -.11 .48 -.13

5 . Leadership . 33*** .10 . 5 0 * * * -.066. Leadership

attitude (.37) (.63) (- . 08)experience .3 l*** .07 .39*** - . 02 . 5 3 * * *

Notc: Point hi-serial correlations ai-e reported for the sex varia ble. Pearson T correlations are reportedfor all othe r variables. N um bers in parentheses are corrected for attenuation.* p

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

10/16

the de pen den t variable. The ANCOVA indicated a significant ge nd er role effect(F =2 . 6 5 , lf = 3 / 1 1 1 , p = . 03).Although Schefftk post hoc test did not indi-cate a ny significant differences am on g pa irs of mea ns, the test is very conser-vatilve. Sample differences bet\veen masculine (hl = 4 . 6 6 ) a n d f em i ni ne(M = 3.9 3) classifications existed. In a dditio n, the m ean s for masculine an dandrogynous gender groups were higher than those for undifferent iatedan d feminine g rou ps . Biological sex differences were n ot significant. Mean swere higher for masculine and andro gyno us gro up s, but differences betweenei ther of these groups a nd feminine and un different iated gro up s were notstatistically sign ifican t.

Hypothes is 3. Hypothes is 3 , uh ic h s ta ted tha t a higher percentage ofthose chosen as preferred leaders n-ould be ind ividu als classified as masculineor androgyn ous as oppo sed to feminine or undifferentiated, was suppo rted.Ind ividu als classified as masculine (fourteen , or 45 percent) and androgyn ous(seven, or 2 3 percent) \ \ere selected mo re than the other tw o other classifica-tions-undifferentiated (five. o r 16 percent) an d feminine (five, o r 16 percent).Of the total sample. 41 percent of masculine. 2 5 percent of androgynous,20 percent of und ifferentiated, m d 14 percen t of feminine individu als wereidentified as preferred leaders.Hypotheses 4 and 6. The follo\f-ing data s up po rt H ypothesis i f . Masculinean d androgyn ous individuals scored h igher than feminine and undifferent i-ated individ uals on scales of leadersh ip attitude an d exp erience.Analyses of \.ariance (L4biOVAslvere cond ucte d, with sex and gender roleclassifications as the inde pend ent var iables an d a t t i tude toward leadership ,experience in leade rship, an d self-confidence as the dependent lzariables. Allind icated significant geiid rr role effects: attilud e toward lead ersh ip (F=9.05,d f = 3/118. p = .0 00 1) , l eadership exper ience (F = 7.16, ~ ( f 3/118,p = OOOl),and self-confidence [ F =9.78,df= 3/62, p =.0001). Scheffe testsindicated significant differences (11< .05> or four sets of m ea ns o n the niea-sure of at t i tude [m ascul ine iind undifferentiated, mascul ine a nd feminine,androgynou s and feminine , an d an drogynous an d undi f ferentia ted) , am ongthree sets of me ans on the measure of leader cxperience (masculine and undif-ferentiated, masculine a nd feminine. and ;mdrog>mous and undifferentiated),an d between two sets of m eans for self-confidence (masc uline and undiffer-ent iated, and mascul ine and feminine) .Data did not support Hypothesis 6. Androgyn ous and m asculine individ-uals did not scoi-e significantly higher than those classified as feminine orundifferentiated on a measure of self-co nlide nce . Masculine ind ividu als scoredsignificantly higher, bu t an drogy nou s indi\idu als did n ot. Although androgy-nou s scores \{we higher than those for feminine a nd un differentiated group s.the differences w ere n ot statistically significant.Hypothesis 5. H>pothesis5 \vas sup por ted. Attitude toward leadership wasa stronger predictor of leader emergence than was masculinity. A ste p w se regres-sion analysis was con duc ted lvith attitud e toward le ade rship , masculinity, an dexperience in leadership as predictor var iables and leader emergence as the

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

11/16

Leader Emergence 315de pe nd en t variable. Results were significant (F = 5 .57 , p < O l > . The totalam oun t of the variance explained by the stepwise regression mo del was 14 per-cen t. Attitude at th e first step was significant an d accoun ted for 11percen t ofthe variance. Experience a t the second step was marginally significant and added3 percent to the explained variance. Masculinity at the third step did not accountfor any additional variance. I t should be noted that although this model was sta-tistically significant, on ly 14 percen t of the variability of the data was explained.Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 was supp orte d. Scores on a measure of self-confidence were correlated with assessments of leader emergence. A correla-tion matrix for the reduced sample o f sixty, those wh o com pleted the revisedself-confidence measure, appears in Table 2. Self-confidence correlated signif-icantly with leader emergence (r = .28) .Self-confidence correlated more highlywith masculinity than did any o ther variable (r = .67) .Research Question 1 . Research Question 1 asked which of the variablesof masculinity, attitu de toward leadership, leadership experience, an d self-confidence was the strongest predictor of leader emergence. To answer thisquestion, a regression model w ith self-confidence, atti tud e, experience, an dmasculinity as predicto r variables and leader emergence as the dependent vari-able was conducted and found significant (F = 4.02, p < .01). The totalamount of the variance explained by the regression model was 21 percent-considerably greater than the 14 percent explained by the model withoutself-confidence. Experience was the strongest correlate, accounting for 13per-cent of the variance. Other variables did not add significantly to the explainedvariance. C ollectively, however, they ad de d 8 percent. Because the predictorvariables are all correlated, the exact order of the contributions after the firststep is less impo rtant than the fact that the regression m odel for leader emer-gence accounted for 2 1 percent of the variability in the data.

Table 2 . Pearsonr Correlations for Leader Emergence,Masculinity, Leadership Attitude, Leadership Experience,

and Self-confidence [ N =671Vuriuble 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Leader2 . Masculinity .25*

( .28)

emergence

3. Leadership .36** 44***attitude C41) ( . 53)4. Leadership . 36"* .36** . 62***

5. Self- . 28 * * ,67'.X* .28** .1 2experienceconfidence (.33) (.84) L36)

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

12/16

316 KolbDiscussion and Implications forLeadership DevelopmentIn terms of gender role, i t is worth noting that there was no difference betweenmales and females on scores on the masculinity scale. Apparently, traits andbehaviors identified as masculine in Bems 1974 stud y have been adopted byboth sexes, at least by the college stud en ts in this study. This finding cou ld beused to justify th e use of the ge nd er scale because i t does not discriminatebetween the sexes. The use of the term niasculinc, however, gives the perce p-tion of discrimination and m ight, if used in leadership stud ies or leadershipdevelopment efforts, perpetuate the idea that leadership is a male activity. Atthe very least, the use of this scale and this term requires careful explanation.

Attitude toward leadership was a stronger predictor of leader emergencethan was masculinity. which reinforces Kolbs (1997) findings. Leadershipexperience also was a significant predictor. I t can be said with so m e degree ofconfidence, then. that self-reported leadership attitude and leadership experi-ence can be used to predict those ind i\id ua ls w ho are likely to emerge as lead-ers. No differences shou ld be es pec ted betw een m ales and females in thesedimensions.Because of the smaller N used in the regression model that included self-confidence , caution s ho uld be exercised in accepting Self-confidence as a pre-dictor of leader emergence. Additional research is needed to determine whetherthe results of this stud y are replicable. I t is interesting, however, that the addi-tion of self-confidence to the regression model for leadership emergence sub-stantially improved its predictive abilit):The results suggest that self-report m easures of attitude an d experience , inparticular, mig ht be used to identify individ uals of bot h sexes w h o wou ld beinterested in and benefit from leadersh ip or managem ent training. ( I t shouldbe noted that no distinctions are made in this article between the terms lrudrishipan d management although I acknow ledge that differences exist.) People w hoindicate an interest in leadership c an be targeted for leadership or managementdevelopment programs an d given the c han ce to develop their skills.The results related to the experience measure justify the im por tance of giv-ing people opp ortu nities to experience the leadership role. Otherw ise, thosewho have limited experience w ith leadership might believe they have n o skillsin this area. In this sense, i t is important that universities and organizationsallow students and employees opportun ities to work w ith others on team proj-ects so that they can tr). out the leadership role. Indiiiduals who enjoy this roleand seem suited to i t could then be encouraged to take advantage of leader-ship development programs.The findings pertaining to the gender identity of the group of preferredleaders are of theoretical and practical interest to HRD professionals. Ashypothesized, individuals with masculine and androgynous classificationswere more likely to be identified as preferred leade rs tha n ind ivid uals with

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

13/16

Leader Emergence 317undifferentiated or feminine scores. I t is important to note, however, thatalmost half of the preferred leaders (45 percent) were classified as masculine.Androgynous leaders, as Lraditionally defined , only slightly ou tnumb ered indi-viduals from the other two ge nder grou ps. I f the definition of androgyny isexp and ed, however, to include those wh o had equal (b ut low) scores on b oththe masculinity and femininity scales (that is, the undifferentiated catego ry),the n this new category contain s 45 percent o f the leaders, exactly that of themasculine g roup.

It is interesting to reflect on w hat results related to androgyny m ight mean.Stereotypical masculine behav iors are still considered important for leadersh ip.Individuals who reported that they exhibited these behaviors withoutthe ac com pa ny ng more supportive (feminine) behaviors were viewed as lead-ers in a higher percentage than any other category as originally defined.However, in terms of androgynous behaviors, i t may be that a balance ofbehaviors, rather than a high am ou nt o f bo th behaviors, is what is important.More research is needed to see whether this is indeed the case in the corporateenvironment. Studen ts wh o are immersed in a n environment i n which every-one has equal position status may perhaps view supportive behaviors in leadersdifferently than those who work in an environment in which job titles andinformal position power are facts of life. Also, the low amount of directivebehavior reported by undifferentiated leaders simply may not get the job d on efor todays employees working under conditions of deadline pressure andlimited time.Professionals involved in developing and executing leadership an d m an-agement training programs should be careful not to overemphasize the impo r-tance of supportive behaviors at the expense of more directive, task-orientedefforts. Above-the-mean masculine behaviors were reported by 68 percent ofthe preferred leaders (those in the masculine and original androgynous cate-gories). Hawkins (1 99 5), reporting on a stud y related to this on e, noted thatalthough the notion that individuals who engaged in both task and socialmaintenance behaviors would emerge as leaders was intuitively attractive,her data did not s up po rt this conclusion . She further observed that regardlessof the sex of the candidate for leadership, only task-related communicationwas related to perceptions of emerged leadership. An earlier study by Stein andHeller (1979) repo rted a weak relationship between m aintenance role behav-iors and emergent leadership. Although results of this study are somewhatencouraging abou t the importance of supportive behaviors, potential leadersshou ld be cautioned not to neglect the more traditional directive appro ach.Women may be in a double bind when it comes to exhibiting stereotypi-cally masculine behaviors. Research o n the effect of such behaviors is contra-dictory. Linimon, Barron, and Falbo (1984) and Cahn and Siegfried (1990)reported that women who emulate traditionally defined masculine behavior intask-oriented g roups were evaluated m ore favorably; however, Ridgeway andDiekema (1989) an d Eagly, Makhijani, an d Klonsky (1992) found that female

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

14/16

emulation of masculine b eh a\ io r can have a negative effect o n sub seq uen t eval-uations as leaders. Androgy nous behav ior may be the ans wer for females w hoaspire to lead ersh ip positions-a directive, task -orie nted app roac h softened bycaring, support ive behavior . Males too may benefi t f rom this approach,althoug h eiid en ce sho ws that they have more leeway in their choice of behav-iors. Variables su ch as organizational cultu re, the na ture of the w or k, an d thenature of the em ployee s wo rkin g with a nd for a leader all influence the neces-sity for an d the ex pectation of certain leadersh ip beh alio rs.Van Nostrand ( 1993) has caut ioned that the t radi t ional task-orientedauthoritarian concept of leadership do es not necessarily equ ate to effective lead-ership. Sapp. Harrod, and Zhao (1996) share this conce rn an d suggest a needto "facilitate chan gin g no rm s that m ore strongly reinforce the social aspec ts ofleadership'' (p . 77) . This m ay be difficult to d o , howeve r, given organizationalreward systems that value task beha viors over social maintenan ce b ehav iors.Limitations and Suggestions for Future ResearchGen der role was used as a categorical variable in portions of the data describedin this study, Although this is a comm on prac t ice , i t should be kept in mindthat this practice limits variability in the data that might help to explain results.For ins tan ce , tlvo in di\ ,id ua ls Lvho score close to the m ea n o n th e m asculinityscale may have very similar scores bu t be placed in different catego ries. Su b-seque nt discussion Ivould t reat these ind i \ idua ls as more different than thedata warran t. Also. altho ug h the use of scales measu ring stereotypica l masc u-line an d feminine characterist ics and b e h a io r are useful in identifymg the exis-tence of su ch sterr otyp es an d in exploring ways in whic h to lessen the effectsof these stereo types, nondiscriniinate use of these scales may serve to perpet-uate sexist perceptions. Care should be taken to explain carefully to subjectsthe purpose of research using such instiu m ents .Measures of att i tude. exp erience. and self-confidence sho uld con tinu e tobe exa mine d for their predictive value in lta de r emerg ence. These scales app earto be inore predicti\,e than masculinity of leader emergence an d have the advan -tage of not relylng on g en de r stereotypes. HoLvever, because the variables of con -cern in this study ac cou nted for less than one -fou rth of the variability of the d atain explaining leader emergen ce. a search for othe r related factors is necessary.

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

15/16

Lcader Emergence 319Bray, D. W ,Campbell, P. L., & G r a n t , D. L. (1974) Fonna t i ~cyca r sn business A long-trrtn AT&Tstudy of manager-ial lives New York Wiley.Brenner, 0.C. , Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. (1989). The relationship between sex-role stereo-types and requisite man agem ent characteristics revisited .Academy of Managcment Journid. 32 ,

662-669.Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (19 90) . Nonverbal affect responses to m ale and female leade rs. Imp li-cations for lead ership evaluations. Journal of Personality an d Social Psychology,58, 48-59.C a h n , A , , Q Siegfried. W . D . (1990). Gender stereotypes and dimensions of effective leade rbehavior. sex Roles, 23, 413-419.Canary, D. J . ,& Hause, K S. (1993) Is there an y reason to research sex diffeiences in commu-nication? Communication Quartetly, 41, 129-144Chusniii-, L. H., & Koberg, C . S (19 91) . Relationship between self-confidence and sex role iden-tity among managerial women and men. Journal of Social Psychologv, 131, 781-790.Chusmir , L. H ., Koberg, C. S .,& Stecher, M . D . (1992) Self-confidence of man age rs in workand social situations: A look at gender differences. Sex Roles. 26, 497-512.Cotton,J . L. , Vollrath, D. A., Lengnick-Hall, M . L . , & Froggatt, K . L (1990) Fact: The form ofparticipa tion doe s matter-A rebutta l to Leana, Locke, an d Schw eiger. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 15, 147-153.Eagly. A. H , Makhijani, M. G . , & Klonsky, B. G . (1992).Gen der and the evaluation of leaders.A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.Fagenson, E. A. (19 90 ). Perceived masculine an d feminine attribute s examined as a functio n ofindividuals sex and level in the o rganizational power h ierarchy: A test of four theorcticalperspectives Journal of Applied Psycholoa, 75, 204-2 11Faranda,J . A. (198 1). The influence of sex-role stereotypes o n the ev aluations of m ale and femaleleaders. Dissertation Abstracts, 4 2 (5B), 2128.Fisher, A B (1992 ,Jun e) Wh en will women get to the top? Fortictic. 196, 44-50Gokrepe,J . R. , & Schneier. C. E. (19 89 ). Role of sex, gender roles, and attraction in p redicting

Haherfeld, Y . (19 92 ). Emp loyment discrimination: An organizational mo del. Academy o( hlan-Hawkins, K. W. (1995 ). Effects of g ender and comm unication content on leadership emergenccHelgesen. 5 (1990). ThcfeinaIc advantage. Womens w q s uf Icudcrship. New York D oubledayHi t t , M . A , Sr Barr, 5. H (198 9). Management selection decision models Examination ofHoward, A ,, Q Bray, D. W (19 88 ). Managerial livcs in tramilion: Advancing age an d changing titncs.Kent, R. L., 6:Moss, S. E (1990). Self-momtoring as a p redictor of leader emergence Psycho-Kent, R L. , Q Moss,S.E. (1994) Effects of sex and gend er role on leader emergence AcadcnivKirkpatrick, S. A ,& Locke. E. A. (19 91 ). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy ofMancigctncnt

Exccutive, 5 (2) , 48-60.K o h . J . A (1996, November) The c l fec t o J s r v and gettdet role on self- and gtoup-t-epot tzd c i ~ s c h b -m n t s and descriptions of leadership. Paper presented at the an nual conven tion of the Associa-tion for Business Co mm unica tion, Chicago.Kolb, J . A. (1997).Are we still stereotypin g leade rship? A look at gender and othcr pi-cthc~oi-sileader emergence. Small Group Rcscarch, 28 , 370-393.Korahik, K. (1990).Androgyny a nd leadership style. outnal of Business Ethics, 9, 283-292Kruse, L . , & Wintermantel, M. (19 86 ). Leadership Ms-qualified: T he gen der bias in everydayand scientific th inking . In E . F. Graumann & S. Moscovici (E ds .), Changing c~onizpt ionso/leadership (pp 283-2921, New York: Springer-Verlag.

emergent leaders.journal ofApplied Psychologv, 74, 165-167.agcrnentJournal, 35, 16 1-180.in small task-oriented grou ps. Small Group Research, 26 , 234-249

configural cue processing. Journal c l f Applied Psychologv, 74, 53-6 1

New York: Guilforcl Press.logical Reports, 66, 875-881.L ~ M u ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ I I ~ o u ~ ~ ~ I ,7, 1335-1 346.

7/29/2019 3920100403_ftp

16/16

320 KolbLeana, C R , Lockc. E .A .&I S c h n n g c r . D \ I ( 1990) F'ict and fiction in analyzing research o n

pari icipati \ .e decision making A c r i t ique of Co iton. Vol lrath. Froggai t , Lengnick-Hall . andJennings i \ L d t y \ if , ~ ~ ~ 7 t i [ ~ ~ ~ [ , t 7 i t , t i ~tw t , r i , 15. 137-146Linimon. D .Darron, \V L . 111.&I Falbo. T (1984).Ge nde r differences in perceptions of lead-ership St,\ R o l z , 1 1 . 1075-1089h1cClelland. D. (1985) H t i t i i ~ t i ioiiwritvi GlrnvieLv. 1L. Scot t , Foresman.hlcGlasham, K. , \ i ' r igh t , P t\l . & \ l cCormick . B (1995) Preferential selection and stei-eci-t y p e Eltecis on evaluatinii of female leadei- pel formancc. suborclinak goal com mitm ent, andtask performance. St,u Rlilt-.;. 3 3 , 669-686Miner, J , B ( 1 97 8) Tnenry >-earsof research on i-ole-mutivation thenry of managerial effective-ness Pctsonnt.f Psycholop, 31, 739-7611.Moa.day. R T (1979) Leader characteristics. self-confidence. and me thod s of upward influencei n organizational drcisian sit i icit i i in~.- \ ~d i . n i yi) ~ l ~ i t i q ~ ~ t i i ~ ~out n d 22. 709-725

N i e v a . \ ' C ,6-G u t r k . B A (1980) Sex cliects o n evaluation .4c-dtwis ofhl~i t i~igct t ic t i tr \ww,5 , 2h7-276

Nunnally. J C (19781. P j ~ c h t v ~ i t ~ t ~ i cJim:\( 2nd ed 1 Neiv Y-ork-hlcGraw-Hill .Owens , T J 19931 Accentuatc the positiw and the negative Reth inking the use of self-esteem,self-deprec'ition. and self-confidence Sot i d Ps\.c hologv Quai-tcrly, 56 , 288-299.Pon.el1. G . N (1990) On c m ore t i m e Da female 'ind male managers differ? Acadctnv o/ hlai i -

tigcnicn[ E.ucciiii\,L,,t (3), 68-75Powell. G. , 6- But te rhc ld , D A (10791 The ..good manager" : Masculine or androg ynous?Ai u d c t i i ~ )\ ,\icinag'~it.titJotirtiaI. 22, 95-303

kdge\va)-. C.,- Diekema. D [1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in mdle andfemale task grou ps Attict-icciti Sociologid RR~issel l . t h , R L I ~ ,t. C , i sT Her d . A 11, (1988) An exploration of wornens expectat ions of

effective male md emale leadership 5t,\ R d c j , 19, 13-28Sapp . 5 G. , ar rod . \'I., J . Sr Zhao , L (1996) Lccidership eiiicrgcnce in iask grou ps with egal i-tarian gcnder-role eupectations SCY R o h , 34. hi-80Schneier. C E , i sT Gnktepe . J . R (1983) Issues in emergent leadership: The contingency modelof leadership. leader sex. leadcr behavior In H H Blumberg. A P Hare. V. Kent. and M . F.Da\ries (Eds ) 3 Sniull cyttitipx i t i r i soiitil i t l t rmr io t i (1'011. p p . 413-42 1) . N ew York Wiley

Seifert, C ,0 liller, C E i 988) Subordinates' perceptions of leaders in task-performing dyadsEffects on se x of leader and subordinate . methodof leader selection, and pel-foi-mance eed-hack Sr\- RolrA, 19, 13-28Shimanoff. S B , 6- enkins. X t 11. (1991'1 Leadership an d g end er- Challenging assumptions andrecogni;ing resources In R 5 . Carhcart Sr L A Samovar (Eds 1. Small group communication:

A r d c r ( 6 ~ hd .p p . 5@4-522! Dubuque, ;\ \V C Bro\vn.Slerper, L . A ,& Ni gr o G 5 i 987) It's not w h o you are but \\rho you're tviih Self-confidencein achievement settings 3c.x Rolt , s , I h . 57-69Stein, R T .& Heller. T (1 97 9) . An empir ical analysis of the correlations between leadershipstatu s and participation rairs reporte d in the literature Journal q/ Pwsonaliry und Social Psy-t h o f o p , 3;. 1993-2002

Van Nostrand. C H . (1993) C ~ f i d ~ ~ r - r c . ; [ l t l t i j i ~ l ~c d ~ t h i p . ctri[itiS ailvanrage, mplemenring intcr-vzntions Thousand Oaks, C4 SageZuckermnn. D M i 985) Confidencc an d aspirations Self-esteem and self-concepts as predic-iors of s tudent life goals. J tvd t - t i d of Pcrs t i t i r i l i~~53 , 543-560