FEATURE

The Effect of Gender Role, Attitude Toward Leadership, and Self-confidence on Leader Emergence: Implications for Leadership Development
Judith A. Kolb
Although research has indicated no substantial dqferenccs between the behaviors of male and female leaders, dlfferences exist in perceptions of these behaviors. Leadership continues to be described in stereotypically masculine terms, although some evidence exists that a n androgynous leadership style f leadership. This study examined whether also may be related to perceptions o self-perceptions of masculine gender role characteristics would predict individuals who were perceived by others as leaders on a team project and gother self-report measures might be used instead to predict leadership. Results indicate that both attitude toward leadership and leadership experience were stronger predictors of leader emergence than masculine gender role. After two decades of research on differences in the leadership behaviors of males and females, the consensus appears to be that there are few, if any, differences (Powell, 1990; Shimanoff and Jenkins, 1991). Powell, for example, reported no significant differences between male and female managers in taskoriented behavior, people-oriented behavior, effectiveness ratings of managers, and subordinates responses to managers. Shimanoff and Jenkins concurred. After reviewing research on sex differences in leadership, they stated, Research has demonstrated that there are far more similarities than differences in the leadership behaviors of women and men, and they are equally effective (1991, p. 504). They concluded, however, that this same literature reflected a
Note 1 would like to thank Dennis Gouran and Grant Henning for their comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript Portions of this article were presented at the 1997 convention of the Association for Business Cominunication Other data collected on this sample were included in an article that appeared in the 1998 conference proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development
HUMAN RESOL~RCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERL!. vol. 10, no 4, Winrer 1999 0Jossey-Bass Publishers

305

306

Kolb

difference in perceptions of leadership: Women are less likely to be preselected as leaders, and the same leadership behanor is often evaluated more positively when attributed to a male than a female (p. 504). Males who exhibit the same behaviors as females are often rated more positively (Butler and Geis, 1990; Nieva and Gutek, 1980; Seifert and Miller, 1988). Males also are judged less harshly than women when they fail to be responsive to the needs of others (Faranda, 1981: Helgesen, 1990; Russell, Rush, and Herd, 1988). Perceptions of leadership are the crucial component of emergent leadership. In contrast to official leaders, who hold titles and the position power inherent in those titles, emergent leaders have no titles and no official power. They are leaders only if others view them as such. Emergent leaders in teams or groups are defined as members who exert significant influence over other group members even though no formal authority has been vested in them (Schneier and Goktepe, 1983). Such leaders emerge as others in the group agree that one [or more] individual [ s] could s e n e the group more usefully in attaining group goals than the other members (Bass, 1981, p. 13). Much has been written about the importance and effects of participatory leadership in todays organizations [see, for example, Bettenhausen, 199 1; Cotton, Collrath, Lengnick-Hall, and Froggatt, 1990; Leana, Locke, and Schweiger, 1990). One effect of a participatory or teamwork culture is that individuals who are not in official leadership positions have opportunities to demonstrate their leadership capabilities. These opportunities may he especially important for xvomen. As suggested by Hitt and Barr [ 1989) and Haberwomen may be passed over for promotion simply because they feld (1992), have not been exposed to the same opportunities and experiences as men. This is one explanation of the often-cited glass ceiling effect and the fact that only 4.8 percent of senior executives in a Fortune sample were women (Fisher, 1992). TeamLvork offers opportunities for women and others to emerge as leaders; individuals who emerge as leaders may move more easily into positions of appointed leadership (Goktepe and Schneier, 1989). Studies-such as the one reported in this article-that describe the characteristics of emergent leaders pro\ride useful information, especially if perceptions that affect the way male and female leaders are vien-ed are esamined. Uncovering such perceptions is a first step toward identifying strategies that allow people of both sexes to develop their leadership potential. One of the purposes of this study was to determine if stereotypically masculine characteristics and behaviors, linked to leadership in past studies, are still valid in the late 1990s to predict leadership emergence. Even if iiiasculine gender scales, traditionally used to measure masculinity, do predict leadership, holvever, the use of such scales may s e n e to perpetuate the sex-based stereotypes they measure (Canary and Hause, 1993). Thus, another purpose of this study was to identify other characteristics, and other scales, that might be used in lieu of masculine gender scales to predict emergent leadership.

Leader Emergencc

307

A Review of the Literature

This section reviews some of the pertinent gender role literature. Gender Role Orientation. The term gender in this article is not used to refer to biological sex. Rather, gender role is used to describe an individuals scores on self-reported measures of stereotypically masculine and feminine characteristics and behaviors (Beni, 1974). The set of traits and behaviors labeled as masculine includes the following: is self-reliant, independent, and assertive, has leadership abilities, is willing to take risks, makes decisions easily, is dominant, is willing to take a stand, acts like a leader, and is athletic, ambitious, and self-sufficient. The set of traits and behaviors labeled as feminine include these: is affectionate, compassionate, and cheerful, does not use harsh language, is loyal, sensitive to the needs of others, sympathetic, gentle, and understanding, loves children, and is tender and warm. Although some of the characteristics on these lists tend to support either a task (masculine) or relationship (feminine) focus, other characteristics such as is athletic on the masculine list and loves children on the feminine list reflect characteristics that go beyond task and relationship orientations. Individuals who score above the mean on the masculinity scale and below the mean on the femininity scale are classified as masculine in gender. Those who score above the mean on both scales are classified as androgynous, or reflecting a high degree of both masculine and feminine characteristics. Feminine individuals score above the mean on the femininity scale and below the mean on masculinity; undifferentiated individuals score below the mean on both scales. Stereotyped perceptions of gender roles appear to have ramifications for perceptions of leadership. Kruse and Wintermantels (1986) study of German students revealed that ratings by males of the concept of man correlated at .90 with ratings of the concept of manager and at .80 with the concept of leadership. Ratings of the concept of woman correlated negatively both with ratings for the concept of manager (.40) and the concept of leadership ( . S O ) . The results for ratings by females were essentially the same. Brenner, Tomkiewicz, and Schein (1989) found that female managers did not stereotype the managerial job as masculine but that male middle managers did describe managers in stereotypically masculine terms. Chusmir and Koberg (1991) observed that both female and male managers reported higher acceptance of masculine attributes. McGlasham, Wright, and McCormick (1995) concur: Most managerial jobs have been attributed masculine characteristics, that is, they have been male sex-typed or gender-typed (p. 673). Recent studies by Kent and Moss (1994) and Kolb (1996) support findings by earlier researchers (Goktepe and Schneier, 1989; Powell and Butterfield, 1979) that a masculine gender identity is strongly related to leadership emergence. Scores on masculinity and femininity scales are not necessarily correlates of biological sex (Bem, 1974). Fagenson (1990) reported that women who

308

Kolb

were highly placed in an organizational hierarchy scored significantly higher on measures of masculinity than did lower-level workers. Given societal changes in the perceptions of the roles of men and women, it may be that women today, particularly young women, view themselves and are viewed by others as possessing more characteristics that are traditionally, and stereotypically, described as masculine. Powell and Butterheids (1979) study supports this view. They noted that female graduate students in business rated themselves higher in masculinity than in femininity Kolb (1996) reported a similar finding in a recent undergraduate sample: four of the six masculinity scores above 6.0 on a 7.0 scale belonged to females. Masculine gender role characteristics, rather than biological sex, then, may be the crucial aspect of gender that is related to leader emergence. The preceding data provided the basis for the following hypothesis:

HvPnTHEsrs 1 Scorc,s on muwul1nqy will cot relute positively with assessmcnts (f leudci cmcrgence
Some studies have shonn that female managers describe the successful middle manager ds possessing both stereotypically masculine and feminine characteristics (Brenner, Tomkiewcz, and Schein, 1989), that an androgynous leadership style (one thit reflects high levels of both masculine and feminine characteristics) may help women overcome stereotypes that have prevented them from being viewed as leaders in the past (Korabik, 19901, that the more frequently managers of either sex are able to call on a variety of masculine and feminine behaviors, the more self-confident they are (Chusmtr and Koberg, 1991), and that indi\iduals classified as either masculine or androgynous stand d better chance of emerging A S leaders than individuals classified as feminine or androgynous (Kent and Moss, 1994, Kolb, 1996) Hence, the following hypotheses

HYPCXHESIS 2: Individuals classlfird as muscuhnr ot- atidrogywus w i l l score sign$icantly higher on measures .f leadrt- eniugence than will individuals class!fied us feminine ui- undgferentiated. HYPOTHESIS 3 : A higher percentugc qf those chosen as preJerrcd group leadus will be individuals class!fit-d as tnusculine or undrogvnous us opposed to,funinine or undijJerentiated.

Leadership Attitude and Experience. Use of the term masculine to refer to characteristics that today are possessed by individuals of both sexes is misleading, inay perpetuate sex-based stereotypes, and may cause problems for companies that choose to use such measures. Attitude toward leadership and leadership experience hold promise as alternative characteristics and behaviors that might predict leader emergence.

Leader Emergence

309

The desire to be a leader is one of the key traits that distinguishes leaders from nonleaders (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991; Miner, 1978). Kolb (1997) reported a positive relationship between leadership attitude and leader emergence, as well as a positive relationship between leadership experience and leader emergence. In addition, she found attitude toward leadership to be a stronger predictor than masculinity for group-reported leader emergence. Both these findings will be tested in this study Thus, the following hypotheses were advanced:
HYPOTHESIS 4: Masculine and androgynous individuals will score significantly higher- than feminine and und$ewntiated individuals on scales measuring leadership attitude and experience.
HYPOTHESIS 5: Attitude toward leadership will be emergence than will masculinity.
LZ

stronger predictor qf leader

Self-Confidence. Self-confidence, the degree of perceived probability of success at a task (McClelland, 19851, has been linked to gender role identity (Chusmer and Koberg, 1991; Chusmer, Koberg, and Stecher, 1992). In the latter study, individuals classified as androgynous on Bems (1974) scale scored highest on a measure of self-confidence, followed in order by those with a masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated orientation. No significant differences in self-confidence between male and female managers were found when gender role identity was held constant. These findings were consistent with results reported by other researchers (for example, Sleeper and Nigro, 1987; Zuckerman, 1985) showing that situational influences moderate the differences in self-confidence seemingly attributable to biological sex. A persons gender role may significantly affect the comfort level felt with any given task. Thus, the following hypothesis was advanced: HYPOTHESIS 6: Androgynous and masculine individuals will score sign$cantly higher than those classified asfeminine or undifferentiated on a measure of self-confidencc.

Self-confidence is another characteristic that shows promise as a predictor of leader emergence. Although aspects of self-confidence are indirectly contained in the masculinity scale (for example, assertiveness, self-reliance, willingness to take a stand), these descriptors do not fully capture the construct of self-confidence. Indeed, there is some controversy concerning what is meant by the term self-confidence (see, for example, Owens, 1993). Despite difficulties in conceptualizing self-confidence, several studies have linked selfconfidence with leadership (for example, Bray, Campbell, and Grant, 1974; Howard and Bray, 1988; Mowday, 1979). Recent research reported by Sapp, Harrod. and Zhao (1996) uncovered no significant relationship between self-confidence and leader emergence.

310

KOlb

However the task used in the study was a discussion lasting an average of seventeen minutes, on the topic of food irradiation None of the participants had a special interest in this topic beyond what would be expected of any reasonable person concerned about food safety It is likely that a positive relationship between self-confidence and leader emergence would surface if groups worhed for a longer period of time on a task in which the members had iiiore invested in the outcome Thus, the follosing hypothesis was posed
HYPOTHESIS 7: Scores on u mcusut-e ilf usscssntents of Icndet cmetgcnce

wlf-confidence will ion-elate positively with

Masculinity has been linked to leader emergence in several studies. The use of masculinity scales to predict leader emergcnce, however, poses several problems for companies. among them the potential perpetuation of sex-based stereotypes and the need for careful explanation and justification for the use of such scales. Identification of other characteristics linked to emergent leadership would allow companies to avoid the potential problems associated with the use of gender scales. Attitude toward leadership, leadership experience, and self-confidence are three variables that might predict leader emergence as well as masculine gender role. Thus, the following research question was posed:
RESEARCHQUESTION 1 : Among t h c \at-iables of niusculinity, uttitudr toward lruder-ship. leadet-ship c-ypet-itncf, a n d sey-confidence, which is the s t n q e s t predictor of leccder trnergctice?

Method
The sample, measures. and procedure used in the study were as follows. Sample. Participants in this study were 123 undergraduate students (64female, 59 male) enrolled in four sections of an upper-division applied organizational communication class at a large eastern university. Forty-seven percent of the sample [Link] business majors. 39 percent were liberal arts majors, and the remaining 14 percent majored in einwonmental resource management. The average age was twenty-one. Measures. The characteristics described in the first section of this article were measured as follows. Gender Role Onentiition. h,lascuhne and feminine scale scores and genderrole categories were determined by means of the Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bern, 1974). BSRI is an instrument that treats masculinity and femininity as t\vo independent dimensions rather than as opposite ends of a single dimension; in so doing, it allows an individual to say that he or she is both masculine and feminine (Bem, 1977, p. 83). Individuals rate themselves on a scale ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 7 on the extent to which they believe each

Leader Emergence

311

of sixty characteristics is self-descriptive. Forty of the items are those rated by a sample of both males and females as being significantly more desirable in American society for one sex than for the other (Bem, 1974). These items make up the masculine and feminine scales. Another twenty characteristics, which serve as filler items, describe characteristics rated by Bems sample as neutral (for example, truthful, happy, conceited, unsystematic). This scale was one of several completed by participants in this study; participants did not know that gender role was being measured until after the study was completed. To arrive at gender role classifications, scores on masculinity and femininity scales were first calculated for each participant. Next, median scores for this sample were calculated. Each individuals score was then compared with the median scores, and individuals were assigned to one of the four gender-role categories: masculine, androgynous, feminine, and undifferentiated. For this sample, the median cutoffs for masculinity and femininity scores were 5.00 and 4.80, respectively, on a 7-point scale. These are similar to medians of 5.15 and 4.65 reported by Kolb (1997) and those of 5.3 and 4.7 reported by Kent and Moss (1994). Reliability coefficients (Cronbachs alphas) in this study were .84 for the masculinity scale and .80 for the femininity scale. Kolb (1997) reported Cronbachs alphas of .85 for masculinity and .79 for femininity Leader Emergence. Leader emergence was measured in two ways. First, leader perceptions were assessed using Kent and Mosss (1990) three-item Likerttype leader emergence scale. Each group member completed a measure of leader emergence for each other group member. Instructions were worded as follows: Please rate the extent to which each member of your group (a) assumed a leadership role, (b) led the conversation, and (c) influenced group goals and decisions (1 = never, 7 = always). Leader emergence scores were obtained by combining the average rating of the three items into a composite of the responses of all group members. In this study, Cronbachs alpha was .94 for the leader emergence measure. In previous studies, Kolb (1997) and Kent and Moss (1994) reported Cronbachs alphas of .93 and .94, respectively. For a second measure of leader emergence, members were asked to respond to the following question: If you could choose just one person from your group to serve as the leader for another similar group project, who would that person be? A forced-choice measure of leader emergence was included to acquire additional information about the group of individuals identified as preferred leaders. Socionietric choice of the leader by peer assessment and secret ballot has been used repeatedly in the leadership literature and has demonstrated strong predictive validity (Bass, 1981; Goktepe and Schneier, 1989). Individuals who were identified as preferred leaders by at least two group members other than themselves were labeled the preferred leader group. Leadership Attitude and Experience. Kolbs (1997) 5-point measure of leadership attitude and 4-point measure of leadership experience were used. Cronbachs alpha for the leadership attitude scale was 30, the same as reported

312

Kolb

in my previous study (Kolb, 1997). Items for the leadership attitude measure were as follows: I enjoy taking a leadership role in a small group, I dont like to be in charge but I am a good group member (reverse), 1 am usually one of the first ones to begin organizing the group task, Being a leader requires more time than Im willing to give (reverse), and I am comfortable in a leadership role. The leadership experience scale required respondents to check the one best response (ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 4) that described their level of experience, thus no reliability score was calculated. The lowest response level ~vas, .Rarely find myself in a leadership position. The highest was. If I am in a small group or a student-volunteer organization, 1 am almost always one of the leaders. Sel/-Confidcnce. After the self-confidence scale that 1 developed for this study &as administered to the first half of the sample, it was determined that the Cronbach alpha was too low to be acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). The scale was redesigned and administered to the second half of the sample. The Cronbachs alpha for this redesigned scale was .75, which was considered acceptable. Because of the initial problem with the self-confidence scale. all statistical calculations reported in this article that involve the use of the selfconfidence scores were calculated on a reduced sample of sixty-seven. The questions on this 5-point Likert-type scale were as follows: If someone challenges my opinion, I defend my beliefs. I have confidence in my own decisions, 1 am able to articulate my beliefs as well as most people, confidence in my ability to handle most tasks, and I have what it takes to succeed 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 were assigned to mixed-sex groups of four or five members each. Each group completed t\vo projects over a period of two months. The first was a human resource task inirolving the hiring and development of an employee. The second was a problem solving-decision making demonstration involving a realistic business situation and the methodology each group would use to solve the problem or make a choice. Participants completed the first questionnaire containing demographic information, the BSRI scale, leadership attitude and leadership experience scales, and the self-confidence scale during the second week of class. At the end of the course, they completed the second questionnaire containing leader emergence scales and the preferred leader question.

Results
N o significant differences attributable to biological sex were found in leader emergence. Means and standard deviations for male [Link] on the leader emergence scale were 4.12 (1.22); for females, scores were 4.33 (0.98).

Leader Emergence

313

Of the thirty-one individuals identified as preferred leaders, sixteen were male and fifteen were female. Twenty-seven percent of the males in the overall sample and 23 percent of the females were identified as preferred leaders. The only significant difference between males and females on any of the measures reported in this article was on the femininity scale ( t = 6.21, df = 121, p = .OOO;female M = 5.02 1.491, male M = 4.45 [.541). Mean scores for all measures were as follows: leader emergence M = 4.23 (1.11); masculinity M = 5.04 (.65); femininity M = 4.75 (.59); attitude toward leadership M = 3.68 ( . 6 9 ) ; experience in leadership M = 2.63 (.96); and selfconfidence M = 4.42 (.45). Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 stated that scores on masculinity would correlate positively with leader emergence. Data reported in Table 1 supports this hypothesis. Masculinity was significantly correlated with leader emergence ( r = .22). Femininity was not significantly related to leader emergence ( r = 11). Attitude toward leadership ( r = .33) and experience in leadership (Y = .31) correlated significantly with perceived leadership. Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 stated that individuals classified as masculine or androgynous would score significantly higher on measures of leader emergence than would individuals classified as feminine or undifferentiated. Limited support was found for this hypothesis. Because the percentage of male and female group members has been found in past studies to affect leader emergence, all analyses in this study controlled for the percentages of women in the groups. A two-by-four analysis of covariance (ANCOVA),in which the percentage of women in each group was a covariate and sex and gender role were independent variables, was conducted, with leader emergence as
Table 1. Correlation Matrix for Leader Emergence, Sex, Gender, Leadership Attitude, and Leadership Experience [ N = 1231
VLI riablc

1. Leader emergence 2. Sex 3. Masculine gender role

- 10

.22**
(.25)
(-.

-.13

4. Feminine gender role 5 . Leadership attitude 6. Leadership experience

-.11 12) .33***

.48
.10

(.37)
.3l*** .07

-.13 (-.l6) .50*** (.63)

.39***

-.06

(-.08)

-.02

.53***

Notc: Point hi-serial correlations ai-e reported for the sex variable. Pearson T correlations are reported for all other variables. Numbers in parentheses are corrected for attenuation. * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p< ,001

the dependent variable. The ANCOVA indicated a significant gender role effect (F = 2.65, clf = 3/111,p = .03).Although Schefftk post hoc test did not indicate any significant differences among pairs of means, the test is very conservatilve. Sample differences bet\veen masculine (hl = 4.66) and feminine (M = 3.93) classifications existed. In addition, the means for masculine and androgynous gender groups were higher than those for undifferentiated and feminine groups. Biological sex differences were not significant. Means were higher for masculine and androgynous groups, but differences between either of these groups and feminine and undifferentiated groups were not statistically significant. Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3, uhich stated that a higher percentage of those chosen as preferred leaders n-ould be individuals classified as masculine or androgynous as opposed to feminine or undifferentiated, was supported. Individuals classified as masculine (fourteen, or 45 percent) and androgynous (seven, or 23 percent) \\ere selected more than the other two other classifications-undifferentiated (five. or 16 percent) and feminine (five, or 16 percent). Of the total sample. 41 percent of masculine. 25 percent of androgynous, 20 percent of undifferentiated, m d 14 percent of feminine individuals were identified as preferred leaders. Hypotheses 4 and 6. The follo\f-ing data support Hypothesis i f . Masculine and androgynous individuals scored higher than feminine and undifferentiated individuals on scales of leadership attitude and experience. Analyses of \.ariance (L4biOVAsl \vere conducted, with sex and gender role classifications as the independent variables and attitude toward leadership, experience in leadership, and self-confidence as the dependent lzariables. All indicated significant geiidrr role effects: attilude toward leadership (F = 9.05, df = 3/118. p = .0001), leadership experience (F = 7.16, ~ (= f 3/118, p = OOOl), and self-confidence [ F = 9.78,df = 3/62, p = .0001). Scheffe tests indicated significant differences (11 < .05>for four sets of means on the nieasure of attitude [masculine iind undifferentiated, masculine and feminine, androgynous and feminine, and androgynous and undifferentiated), among three sets of means on the measure of leader cxperience (masculine and undifferentiated, masculine and feminine. and ;mdrog>mous and undifferentiated), and between two sets of means for self-confidence (masculine and undifferentiated, and masculine and feminine). Data did not support Hypothesis 6. Androgynous and masculine individuals did not scoi-e significantly higher than those classified as feminine or undifferentiated on a measure of self-conlidence. Masculine individuals scored significantly higher, but androgynous indi\iduals did not. Although androgynous scores \{we higher than those for feminine and undifferentiated groups. the differences were not statistically significant. Hypothesis 5. H>pothesis5 \vas supported. Attitude toward leadership was a stronger predictor of leader emergence than was masculinity. A stepwse regression analysis was conducted lvith attitude toward leadership, masculinity, and experience in leadership as predictor variables and leader emergence as the

Leader Emergence

315

dependent variable. Results were significant (F = 5.57, p < . O l > . The total amount of the variance explained by the stepwise regression model was 14 percent. Attitude at the first step was significant and accounted for 11 percent of the variance. Experience at the second step was marginally significant and added 3 percent to the explained variance. Masculinity at the third step did not account for any additional variance. It should be noted that although this model was statistically significant, only 14 percent of the variability of the data was explained. Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 7 was supported. Scores on a measure of selfconfidence were correlated with assessments of leader emergence. A correlation matrix for the reduced sample of sixty, those who completed the revised self-confidence measure, appears in Table 2. Self-confidence correlated significantly with leader emergence (r = .28). Self-confidence correlated more highly with masculinity than did any other variable (r = .67). Research Question 1. Research Question 1 asked which of the variables of masculinity, attitude toward leadership, leadership experience, and selfconfidence was the strongest predictor of leader emergence. To answer this question, a regression model with self-confidence, attitude, experience, and masculinity as predictor variables and leader emergence as the dependent variable was conducted and found significant (F = 4.02, p < .01). The total amount of the variance explained by the regression model was 21 percentconsiderably greater than the 14 percent explained by the model without self-confidence. Experience was the strongest correlate, accounting for 13 percent of the variance. Other variables did not add significantly to the explained variance. Collectively, however, they added 8 percent. Because the predictor variables are all correlated, the exact order of the contributions after the first step is less important than the fact that the regression model for leader emergence accounted for 21 percent of the variability in the data.

Table 2 . Pearson r Correlations for Leader Emergence, Masculinity,Leadership Attitude, Leadership Experience, and Self-confidence [ N = 671
Vuriuble
1. Leader

emergence 2. Masculinity

3. Leadership attitude 4. Leadership experience 5. Selfconfidence

.25* (.28) .36**

44***

C41)
.36"*
.28** (.33)

(.53)
.36**

.62***
.28** L36)

,67'.X*
(.84)

.12

316

Kolb

Discussion and Implications for Leadership Development

In terms of gender role, it is worth noting that there was no difference between males and females on scores on the masculinity scale. Apparently, traits and behaviors identified as masculine in Bems 1974 study have been adopted by both sexes, at least by the college students in this study. This finding could be used to justify the use of the gender scale because it does not discriminate between the sexes. The use of the term niasculinc, however, gives the perception of discrimination and might, if used in leadership studies or leadership development efforts, perpetuate the idea that leadership is a male activity. At the very least, the use of this scale and this term requires careful explanation. Attitude toward leadership was a stronger predictor of leader emergence than was masculinity. which reinforces Kolbs (1997) findings. Leadership experience also was a significant predictor. I t can be said with some degree of confidence, then. that self-reported leadership attitude and leadership experience can be used to predict those indi\iduals who are likely to emerge as leaders. No differences should be espected between males and females in these dimensions. Because of the smaller N used in the regression model that included selfconfidence, caution should be exercised in accepting Self-confidence as a predictor of leader emergence. Additional research is needed to determine whether the results of this study are replicable. It is interesting, however, that the addition of self-confidence to the regression model for leadership emergence substantially improved its predictive abilit): The results suggest that self-report measures of attitude and experience, in particular, might be used to identify individuals of both sexes who would be interested in and benefit from leadership or management training. (It should be noted that no distinctions are made in this article between the terms lrudriship and management although I acknowledge that differences exist.) People who indicate an interest in leadership can be targeted for leadership or management development programs and given the chance to develop their skills. The results related to the experience measure justify the importance of giving people opportunities to experience the leadership role. Otherwise, those who have limited experience with leadership might believe they have no skills in this area. In this sense, i t is important that universities and organizations allow students and employees opportunities to work with others on team projects so that they can tr). out the leadership role. Indiiiduals who enjoy this role and seem suited to it could then be encouraged to take advantage of leadership development programs. The findings pertaining to the gender identity of the group of preferred leaders are of theoretical and practical interest to HRD professionals. As hypothesized, individuals with masculine and androgynous classifications were more likely to be identified as preferred leaders than individuals with

Leader Emergence

317

undifferentiated or feminine scores. It is important to note, however, that almost half of the preferred leaders (45 percent) were classified as masculine. Androgynous leaders, as Lraditionally defined, only slightly outnumbered individuals from the other two gender groups. If the definition of androgyny is expanded, however, to include those who had equal (but low) scores on both the masculinity and femininity scales (that is, the undifferentiated category), then this new category contains 45 percent of the leaders, exactly that of the masculine group. It is interesting to reflect on what results related to androgyny might mean. Stereotypical masculine behaviors are still considered important for leadership. Individuals who reported that they exhibited these behaviors without the accompanyng more supportive (feminine) behaviors were viewed as leaders in a higher percentage than any other category as originally defined. However, in terms of androgynous behaviors, it may be that a balance of behaviors, rather than a high amount of both behaviors, is what is important. More research is needed to see whether this is indeed the case in the corporate environment. Students who are immersed in an environment in which everyone has equal position status may perhaps view supportive behaviors in leaders differently than those who work in an environment in which job titles and informal position power are facts of life. Also, the low amount of directive behavior reported by undifferentiated leaders simply may not get the job done for todays employees working under conditions of deadline pressure and limited time. Professionals involved in developing and executing leadership and management training programs should be careful not to overemphasize the importance of supportive behaviors at the expense of more directive, task-oriented efforts. Above-the-mean masculine behaviors were reported by 68 percent of the preferred leaders (those in the masculine and original androgynous categories). Hawkins (1995), reporting on a study related to this one, noted that although the notion that individuals who engaged in both task and social maintenance behaviors would emerge as leaders was intuitively attractive, her data did not support this conclusion. She further observed that regardless of the sex of the candidate for leadership, only task-related communication was related to perceptions of emerged leadership. An earlier study by Stein and Heller (1979) reported a weak relationship between maintenance role behaviors and emergent leadership. Although results of this study are somewhat encouraging about the importance of supportive behaviors, potential leaders should be cautioned not to neglect the more traditional directive approach. Women may be in a double bind when it comes to exhibiting stereotypically masculine behaviors. Research on the effect of such behaviors is contradictory. Linimon, Barron, and Falbo (1984) and Cahn and Siegfried (1990) reported that women who emulate traditionally defined masculine behavior in task-oriented groups were evaluated more favorably; however, Ridgeway and Diekema (1989) and Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsky (1992) found that female

emulation of masculine beha\ior can have a negative effect on subsequent evaluations as leaders. Androgynous behavior may be the answer for females who aspire to leadership positions-a directive, task-oriented approach softened by caring, supportive behavior. Males too may benefit from this approach, although eiidence shows that they have more leeway in their choice of behaviors. Variables such as organizational culture, the nature of the work, and the nature of the employees working with and for a leader all influence the necessity for and the expectation of certain leadership behaliors. Van Nostrand ( 1 993) has cautioned that the traditional task-oriented authoritarian concept of leadership does not necessarily equate to effective leadership. Sapp. Harrod, and Zhao (1996) share this concern and suggest a need to "facilitate changing norms that more strongly reinforce the social aspects of leadership'' (p. 77). This may be difficult to do, however, given organizational reward systems that value task behaviors over social maintenance behaviors.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Gender role was used as a categorical variable in portions of the data described in this study, Although this is a common practice, it should be kept in mind that this practice limits variability in the data that might help to explain results. For instance, tlvo indi\,iduals Lvho score close to the mean on the masculinity scale may have very similar scores but be placed in different categories. Subsequent discussion Ivould treat these indi\iduals as more different than the data warrant. Also. although the use of scales measuring stereotypical masculine and feminine characteristics and behaior are useful in identifymg the existence of such sterrotypes and in exploring ways in which to lessen the effects of these stereotypes, nondiscriniinate use of these scales may serve to perpetuate sexist perceptions. Care should be taken to explain carefully to subjects the purpose of research using such instiuments. Measures of attitude. experience. and self-confidence should continue to be examined for their predictive value in ltader emergence. These scales appear to be inore predicti\,e than masculinity of leader emergence and have the advantage of not relylng on gender stereotypes. HoLvever, because the variables of concern in this study accounted for less than one-fourth of the variability of the data in explaining leader emergence. a search for other related factors is necessary.

Lcader Emergence

319

Bray, D. W , Campbell, P. L., &Grant, D. L. (1974) Fonnati~cycars in business A long-trrtn AT&T study of manager-ial lives New York Wiley. Brenner, 0. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. (1989). The relationship between sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Managcment Journid. 32, 662-669. Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders. Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48-59. Cahn, A , , Q Siegfried. W. D. (1990). Gender stereotypes and dimensions of effective leader behavior. sex Roles, 23, 413-419. Canary, D. J . , & Hause, K S. (1993) Is there any reason to research sex diffeiences in communication? Communication Quartetly, 41, 129-144 Chusniii-, L. H., & Koberg, C. S (1991). Relationship between self-confidence and sex role identity among managerial women and men. Journal o f Social Psychologv, 131, 781-790. Chusmir, L. H., Koberg, C. S., & Stecher, M. D. (1992) Self-confidence of managers in work and 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 of participation does matter-A rebuttal to Leana, Locke, and Schweiger. Academy of Management Review, 15, 147-153. Eagly. A. H , Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders. A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 11 1, 3-22. Fagenson, E. A. (1990). Perceived masculine and feminine attributes examined as a function of individuals sex and level in the organizational power hierarchy: A test of four theorctical perspectives Journal of Applied Psycholoa, 75, 204-2 11 Faranda,J . A. (1981). The influence of sex-role stereotypes on the evaluations of male and female leaders. Dissertation Abstracts, 42 (5B), 2128. Fisher, A B (1992,June) When will women get to the top? Fortictic. 196, 44-50 Gokrepe, J. R., & Schneier. C. E. (1989). Role of sex, gender roles, and attraction in predicting emergent [Link] ofApplied Psychologv, 74, 165-167. Haherfeld, Y. (1992). Employment discrimination: An organizational model. Academy o( hlanagcrnentJournal, 35, 16 1-180. Hawkins, K. W. (1995). Effects of gender and communication content on leadership emergencc in small task-oriented groups. Small Group Research, 26, 234-249 Helgesen. 5 (1990). ThcfeinaIc advantage. Womens w q s u f Icudcrship. New York Doubleday Hitt, M. A , Sr Barr, 5. H (1989). Management selection decision models Examination of configural cue processing. Journal clf Applied Psychologv, 74, 53-6 1 Howard, A,, Q Bray, D. W (1988). Managerial livcs in tramilion: Advancing age and changing titncs. New York: Guilforcl Press. Kent, R. L., 6:Moss, S. E (1990). Self-momtoring as a predictor of leader emergence Psychological Reports, 66, 875-881. Kent, R L., Q Moss, S.E. (1994) Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence Acadcniv L ~ M u ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ 37, P ~1335-1 I I ~ 346. o u ~ ~ ~ I , Kirkpatrick, S. A , & Locke. E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy ofMancigctncnt Exccutive, 5 (2), 48-60. Koh. J . A (1996, November) The clfect 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 o f leadership. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Business Communication, Chicago. Kolb, J . A. (1997). Are we still stereotyping leadership?A look at gender and othcr pi-cthc~oi-s oi leader emergence. Small Group Rcscarch, 28, 370-393. Korahik, K. (1990). Androgyny and leadership style. joutnal of Business Ethics, 9, 283-292 Kruse, L., & Wintermantel, M. (1986). Leadership Ms-qualified: The gender bias in everyday and scientific thinking. In E. F. Graumann & [Link] (Eds.), Changing c~onizptionso/ leadership (pp 283-2921, New York: Springer-Verlag.

320
,

Kolb

Leana, C R Lockc. E .A . &I Schnngcr. D \I (1990) F'ict and fiction in analyzing research on pariicipati\.e decision making A critique of Coiton. Vollrath. Froggait, Lengnick-Hall. and Jennings i \ L d t y \ if , ~ ~ ~ 7 t i [ ~ ~ ~ [ , t R 7 ittw , tti, ~ r i , 15. 137-146 Linimon. D . Darron, \V L . 111. &I Falbo. T (1984).Gender differences in perceptions of leadership St,\ R o l z , 1 1 . 1075-1089 h1cClelland. D. C (1985) H t i t i i ~ t i nioiiwritvi GlrnvieLv. 1L. Scott, Foresman. hlcGlasham, K.E , \i'right, P t\l . &J \lcCormick. B (1995) Preferential selection and stei-ecit y p e Eltecis on evaluatinii of female leadei- pel formancc. suborclinak goal commitment, and task performance. St,u Rlilt-.;. 3 3 , 669-686 Miner, J , B ( 1 978) Tnenry >-earsof research on i-ole-mutivation thenry of managerial effectiveness Pctsonnt.f Psycholop, 31, 739-7611. [Link]. R T (1979) Leader characteristics. self-confidence. and methods of upward influence i n organizational drcisian sitiicitiiin~. .-\~[Link] ti) ~ l ~ i t i q Jout ~ ~ tn i di 22. ~ ~ 709-725 Nieva. \ ' C ; , 6- Gutrk. B A (1980) Sex c l i e c t s o n evaluation .4c-dtwis ofhl~iti~igcttictit Rr\ww, 5 , 2h7-276 Nunnally. J C (19781. P j ~ c h t v ~ i t ~[Jim:\ t ~ i c (2nd ed 1 Neiv Y-ork-hlcGraw-Hill. Owens, T J 19931 Accentuatc the positiw and the negative Rethinking 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) Onc more t i m e D a female 'ind male managers differ? Acadctnv o/ hlaiitigcnicn[ [Link]\,L,,t (3), 68-75 Powell. G.N , 6- Butterhcld, D A (10791 The ..good manager": Masculine or androgynous? Aiudctii~I)\ ,\icinag'~[Link]. 22,395-303 kdge\va)-. C., 6- Diekema. D [ 1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in mdle and female task groups Attict-icciti Sociologid R R~issell. J t h , R L I ~\t. , C , isT Herd. A 11, (1988) An exploration of wornens expectations of effective male m d female leadership 5t,\ R d c j , 19, 13-28 Sapp. 5 G., Harrod. \'I., J . Sr Zhao, L (1996) Lccidership eiiicrgcnce in iask groups with egalitarian gcnder-role eupectations SCY R o h , 34. hi-80 Schneier. C E , isT Gnktepe. J . R (1983) Issues in emergent leadership: The contingency model of leadership. leader sex. leadcr behavior In H H Blumberg. A P Hare. [Link]. and M. F. Da\ries (Eds Sniull cyttitipx citiri soiitil itltrmrioti (1'011. pp. 413-421). New York Wiley Seifert, C , 0Aliller, C E i1988) Subordinates' perceptions of leaders in task-performing dyads Effects on sex of leader and subordinate. method of leader selection, and pel-foi-mancefeedhack Sr\- RolrA, 19, 13-28 Shimanoff. S B , 6-Jenkins. Xt 11. (1991'1 Leadership and gender- Challenging assumptions and recogni;ing resources In R 5 . Carhcart Sr L A Samovar (Eds 1. Small group communication: A r d c r ( 6 ~ rd h . pp. 5@4-522! Dubuque, I;\ \V C Bro\vn. Slerper, L. A , & Nigro G 5 i1987) It's not who you are but \\rho you're tviih Self-confidence in achievement settings 3c.x Rolt,s, I h . 57-69 Stein, R T . &J Heller. T (1979). An empirical analysis of the correlations between leadership status and participation rairs reported in the literature Journal q/ Pwsonaliry und Social Psythofop, 3;. 1993-2002 Van Nostrand. C H. (1993) C~fid~~r-rc.;[ltltiji~l~ I c d ~ t h i p Dctri[itiS . ailvanrage,implemenring intcrvzntions Thousand Oaks, C 4 Sage Zuckermnn. D M i1985) Confidencc and aspirations Self-esteem and self-concepts as prediciors of student life goals. J t v d t - t i d of Pcrstitirili~~ , 53, 543-560
)3