According to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data”. And for Edwin Friedman (see: Ambrose, & Gullatte, 2011: p. 1), “Leadership can be thought of as a capacity to define oneself to others in a way that clarifies and expands a vision of the future”.
This is cited by Hughes et al. (2012) as well, as they agree, and quote this purposefully in order to note that: “Care must be taken when one practices leadership activities” (e.g. Murphy, & Southey, 2003; Popper, 2005; Brandl et al., 2008; Pichler, et al., 2008).
This is definitely the case in decision making, as is seen with Vroom & Yetton (1973), with the normative decision model (Fig. 2.1). No one is to make any decision hastily, and he/she should never take any decision without having all the “data” related to it, thus restating Conan Doyle.
However, according to Seth Godin (in Trends, 2012), “Playing it safe and not taking a risk is probably the most dangerous thing you could do in today’s rapidly changing and highly competitive business environment.” We assumed the leadership-business relationship part from Blais-David, & Hall (2005).
And, based on this, leaders are aware of the three personal benefits of risk-taking that will enhance their capabilities. They are increased awareness, expanded knowledge, and broadened excitement.
For instance, Carlos Ghosn as a leader is a very good leader, as a transcultural sense. He was able to transform Nissan Co. from a defaulting firm in to a successful one. He recently stepped down of the company. He was known for adopting the laisser-aller style. Ghosn and Ries (2003), Langley (2006), and DuBrin (2009) show such arguments on his style.
The skills approaches to leadership (see R. Katz) involves the technical, human and conceptual elements of leadership (which can be related in risk reducing exercises). Needless to say that a good leader needs all three, those holding only technical skills are best described as regular employees, whereas, those holding human skills are typically at the managerial level. Finally, executives, holding conceptual skills, tend to work with concepts and idea rather than facts.
Many authors describe the behavioral model of leadership (involving employee centered leaders versus production centered leaders; refer to LPC measures) and the concept of leadership as identified by the Ohio State Studies (showing the difference between considerate leaders versus those showing intimidating leadership means) before actually discussion about leadership. Note that, by intimidating, we refer to coercive power sources that leaders use, sometimes in order to influence their followers. (c.f. Hughes, et al., 2012)
Wren (2013: p. 147) discusses the Blake & Mouton (1964, 1985) figure which Hughes et al. (2012) present as well. This figure will be presented later in the chapter as well (see: Figure 2.2) and basically shows the difference in management practices in leadership situations (e.g. Murphy, & Southey, 2003; Popper, 2005; Brandl et al., 2008; Luna, & Jolly, 2008; Pichler, et al., 2008). This is related to the contingency model of leadership, which identifies key factors in leadership, and how they interact and in order to find the best approaches in leadership activities (Tosi, Jr., & Slocum, Jr., 1984). The managerial grid model is a leadership style model developed by Robert R. Blake and Jane Mouton (1964). This model originally identified five different leadership styles based on the concern for people and the concern for production. The optimal leadership style in this model is based on Theory Y.
Contingency, as discussed within the scope of this research, involves the structural approaches that were introduced (refer to Figure 1.1 and 1.2 briefly in Chapter 1) by Hughes et al. (2012), as they were explaining about the structural approach in leadership through their argumentation (see also: Blanchard, 1980; Tosi, Jr., & Slocum, Jr., 1984).
As we will introduce in Figure 2.3, the model presented by Hughes et al (2012) citing other scholars who were discussing the various approaches in leadership, present the differences between coaching, delegating, directing and supporting (see: D1 to D4 versus S1 to S4). And according to them, the leadership style or trait is based on the situation (as we will show in Figure 2.4) and discussed as the Goal theory of Leadership (see: Evans (1970), and House (1971)), as leadership style must be adapted to the situation (see again Figures 1.1, and 1.2).
After briefly reviewing leadership concepts in an introductory way, we now need to see the sources of power related to leadership activities. It is natural here to present House and Mitchell’s (1974) revised Path-Goal Theory (see figure 2.5), Fielder’s (1964; and 1967) Contingency Model (see: Figure 2.6, and Tosi, & Slocum, 1984), and Hersey and Blanchard’s (1977) Situational Leadership Model (see: figure 2.7, and Blanchard et al., 2016). Gender, managerial levels and TSL styles are discussed by Manning (2002). Both Manning & Robertson (2011) and Culbertson et al. (2013) raise the 360-degree performance review of leadership according to the situation (see: Luna, & Jolly, 2008).
Another good source to review is P.G. Northouse’s (2007) book on “Leadership Theory and Practice”, from Sage Publishers. Also, consider referring Yukl’s (1996) “Leadership Book” and Kerr & Jermier’s (1978) article for more information.
2.1 Definition of Leadership
Leadership is the process of directing and coordinating the work of group members. It is the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal, and is seeing and creating a brighter and better future (Stogdill, 1948). It “may be considered as the process (act) of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement” (Stogdill, 1950, p.3). And, it “is the initiation and maintenance of structure in expectation and interaction” (Stogdill 1974, p.411). Stogdill (1959, 1965) also add important issues to look into.
Fig. 2.1: Vroom and Yetton’s Leadership Decision Tree (Hughes et al., 2012)
Stogdill (1950, 1974) believes that leaders have five main traits, and that this role is expressed by them, which is related to the skills approaches of leadership (as is discussed above, we won’t go over it again, but kindly refer to Figure 2.8). So, this role is to invent, innovate, create, build, improve, and transform education, healthcare, business, government, technology, and every other aspect of our lives and the world we live in (Hughes et al., 2012). We assumed the leadership-business relationship part from Blais-David, & Hall (2005).
Fig. 2.2: The Blake & Mouton (1964, 1985) Managerial Grid (adapted from Hughes et al., 2012).
A leader is an individual who selects, equips, trains, and influences subordinates that have abilities and skills to achieve the organization’s mission and objectives (Winston and Patterson, 2006; Sisti, 2014). He/she involves in communicating, inspiring and supervising their followers to accomplish the organization’s goals (Oshagbemi, 2008). True leaders want to see the greater good of their followers by personal development. As they seek personal, spiritual, emotional, and physical growth through the leader-follower interaction (Hughes et al., 2012).
Fig. 2.3: The Situational Leadership Model (Hershey et al., 1996)
As Shakespeare once said, “Some men are born great, and some achieve greatness”. This is applicable to leaders as well. Some are born leaders, and some achieve leadership positions by their hard work and dedication. There are people who seem to be naturally gifted with more leadership abilities than others, for others they can learn to become leaders by improving particular skills. According to researches, one third of leadership is born and the two-third is made. Some people are born having with them qualities like calmness, self-confidence, patience, and charisma which allows them to learn more easily how to be a good leader (Hughes et al., 2012). Popper (2000, 2005) and Popper & Mayeless (2007) discuss about the development of charismatic leaders, their principles and practices and their building blocks.
Fig. 2.4: Schematic showing the Goal theory of leadership (adapted from: Evans, 1970).
Fig. 2.5: House’s (1971) revised Path-Goal Theory (refer to: House and Mitchell, 1974)).
Fig. 2.6: Fiedler et al.’s (1964), and Fiedler’s (1967) Contingency Model. See: (Tosi, Jr., & Slocum, Jr., 1984).
Fig. 2.7: Hersey and Blanchard’s (1977) Situational Leadership Model, similar, but different from Figure 2.3. (c.f. Blanchard et al. 2016).
Fig. 2.8: Leadership traits (Stogdill, 1950, 1974)
Therefore, having noted the above, to understand better what is meant by the word “Leadership” there are several elements that define it clearly (which will be presented below). We would like to refer the below points to the arguments held by several scholars discussing leadership theories, such as: Fielder (1964, 1967), Vroom and Yetton (1973), Hershey and Blanchard (1977), Kerr & Jermier (1978), Yukl (1996), Northouse (2007).
a) Vision: Each person in charge has a objective and shares it with others (e.g. Deb, 2006). Effective leaders focus on building successful teams, guiding them to accomplish and achieve organization’s goals (Pinto, 2010; Hughes et al., 2012). They also challenge their supporters to surpass themselves, and to widen their horizons. An example of this is shown in Raba (2016).
b) Serving: Subordinates must experience the support of their chief. The desired paraphernalia to do their work properly must be accessible to them. They must have appreciation for their hard work and they must know that there is someone overseeing them and providing consideration in order to change bad habits (Hughes et al., 2012).
c) Empathy: Most leaders have emotional intelligence in their leadership styles, as they are able to put themselves in the place of others. They understand their subordinates, empathize with them and appreciate their distress. When supporters feel at ease, understood and liberated, they do their best to achieve the greatest results (Hughes et al., 2012).
d) Creativity: A good leader is able to be invent in building a team that encourages it to develop its skills and ability to achieve the company’s target (Pinto, 2010, 2013, 2014). Moreover, many decisions that a leader will encounter will be unique to the business. Teams will often look to a leader for innovative thinking (Hughes et al., 2012). Again, we assumed the leadership-business relationship part from Blais-David, & Hall (2005).
e) Thoroughness: A good leader is honest, respectful, and a good listener. He/she should listen and communicate with his/her followers to know their needs, and provide them necessary time and resources to work properly (Luthra & Dahiya, 2015). Being honest, having integrity and listening to employees will only help gain their respect, which will pay off when it comes time to exercise decisiveness. The best leaders possess an open mind and flexibility, and are able to adjust to new ways of thinking or alternative methods when necessary (Hughes et al., 2012).
f) Transparency: Good leaders use transparency to assist those in their immediate vicinity to accept alterations. This is done through communication (Figure 2.9), informed debate, shared decision-making, and reaching a consensus. Also, such leaders provide credit to others when success occurs, and take the responsibility for failure (Hughes et al., 2012). Communication is important in both leadership and project management (c.f. Shtub et al., 2005; Meredith et al., 2010; Pinto, 2014).
g) Trust: Today, success is attained by being able to collaborate with someone a leader has no power over in pursuit of common goals (Hughes et al., 2012). In other words, a good leader no longer trusts in power, but places their faith in the power of trust. Additionally, a leader is the trustee in any relationship and in order to be effective, must be trustworthy and willing to take the risk of placing trust in the people around them. Additionally, a leader is the trustee in any relationship and in order to be effective, must be trustworthy and willing to take the risk of placing trust in the people around them (e.g. Hughes et al., 2012).
h) Confidence: A good leader embodies confidence. No one will follow a leader that isn’t self-assured, and people can see through a façade of confidence. A leader who can articulate his/her goals and stand by decisions is far more effective than someone trying to hide his/her insecurities behind a mask of arrogance. Even after failure, a good leader is able to trust his/her intuition and take on any decision (Hughes et al., 2012).
i) Team Building and Improving: A good leader can build teams, and influence the organized groups toward accomplishing its goals (Pinto, 2010; Sisti, 2014). This is as the “good leader” continues to seek continuous improvement. He/she seeks self-improvement by taking responsibility of failures learning from them and not repeating them, and ensures the team stays unified (Pinto, 2010, 2014). In addition, leaders try to improve their followers by training, leading, and serving them, they do their best to improve their follower’s skills to change them in becoming efficient workers (Pinto, 2010; Hughes et al., 2012).
2.2. Gender Difference between Leaders
a) Introduction to the Gender Difference: Gender is a complex concept, it holds certain meanings, which society and individuals assign to it. The word gender refers to the meaning of male and female categories. It’s important to discuss the difference between gender and leadership. By discussing the difference, we will know how the concept of gender affects leaders. During a long period of time, men have been considered to have more characteristics that are better suited to leadership. However, in recent years, as more and more women are moving into leadership, some questions have arisen: Whether women in fact bring a different style of leadership into the organization? Are women’s ways of leading more effective than the traditional “command-and-control” style? Which leadership style is better? For examples on this point, refer to Perschel (2009a, b). In the case of HR being too female, refer to: Churchard (2013).
The gender differences is the fact that male and female are seen different and unique set of people. They differ psychologically in the way they think, act, communicate, take decisions, direct, influence others, take risks, delegate tasks, inspire, motivate, and so on (Sisti, 2014).
b) Types of Leaders: We have three types of leaders: Autocratic, Democratic and Delegative leaders, and authors such as Goleman (2002) and others, like Hasan & Othman (2012), have discussed them. The first type, are autocratic leaders. They create a strict division between the one giving the orders and those expected to follow them. As such, autocratic leaders tend to take decisions independently, which can result in abuse of power and make their followers feel disqualified. Whereas, the second type are democratic leaders. They offer guidance to their team members and seek their efforts on making decisions (Pinto, 2010, 2014). The third type, are delegative leaders. These types of leaders are also known as adopting “laissez-faire” or “laissez-aller” leadership styles (see: Won et al., 2017). For example, Carlos Ghosn was known to have been such a leader (c.f. Langley, 2006). Here, these leaders provide little or no direction and give the followers as much freedom as possible. They give their followers authority and power to determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems on their own. They have no direction with no real output. According to these types of style and to many researches it is found that women tend to be democratic, while men autocratic (e.g. Goleman, 2002; Hasan & Othman, 2012).
c) Leadership styles: Goleman (2002) designed the six-leadership styles and noted that Leaders used one of those at any one time. He and others, like Hasan & Othman (2012), pointed out that for many years the Command and Control Leadership style has dominated businesses (e.g. Blais-David, & Hall, 2005). However, recently a new style has emerged, the Co-Create with Employees and Circumstances style. Command and Control is based on establishing and maintaining power over, and control of, people and organizational processes (e.g. Goleman, 2000, 2002; Oshagbemi , 2008; Hasan & Othman, 2012)
A number of usually unspoken assumptions drive the use of command and control. Leaders know best, leasers should know where they are going (goals, outcomes) and must predetermine the plan for how to get there (process), controlling human behavior and action during implementation—so there is minimal variance from the predetermined plan—is a requirement of success, the environment/marketplace won’t change enough to be a factor during implementation, and if it does, leaders can and must control its influence (Sisti, 2014). On the other hand, Create with Employees and Circumstances style implies working with. It means operating as a team, aligned across hierarchical and functional boundaries in pursuit of what is best for the overall organization (Pinto, 2010). For instance, a leader operating in a co-creative style views employees as strategic partners. (e.g. Goleman, 2002; Oshagbemi, 2008; Hasan & Othman, 2012), which is more a trait for male leaders, as female leaders, according to Nava (2014), are less prone to strategic decisions.
Pragmatically, this means: Asking for and using employee input about the vision or the plan (its intended outcomes), involving employees in the design of what needs to change (the content of the change), putting employees on teams and assuring the communication work division in the team, and giving employees decision authority (Figure 2.9). Men, being the dominant gender in the society are more likely to use the Command and Control Leadership style, whereas women, who are more emotional beings tend to rely on the Create with Employees and Circumstances style (e.g. Goleman, 2002; Hasan & Othman, 2012). Again, this is important in leadership and project management (c.f. Cornelissen, 2004; Shtub et al., 2005; Meredith, 2010; Pinto, 2010, 2014).
d) Communication and Influence: According to Luthra & Dahiya (2015), the communication style between males and females is different. As women view the purpose of conversations differently, as they use communication tool to create relationships between their followers, and enhance the social connection, whereas men use the communication tool to achieve tangible outcomes. Women tend to be more polite while communicating with their followers, more social in their interactions with others, while men value their independence. While interacting with others, women are more emotional with others, they tend to be expressive and tentative while men as opposed to women are unemotional, assertive and power hungry (as TSL type leaders). However, they differ not only in their communication style but also in their influence tactics, how they influence others to follow them (Figure 2.9). Influence is the ability of a leader to motivate his/her follower to change their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Sisti, 2014; Luthra & Dahiya, 2015). Effective leaders influence their followers to accomplish organizational goals. Research has identified two types of influence techniques that leaders can use on their followers, which are to be hard or to be soft (Oshagbemi, 2008; Sisti, 2014). By being hard a leader is hard to exchange with, puts a lot of pressure on his/her followers, and is very assertive (TSL). While the soft tactic implies methods such as personal appeal, consultation, inspirational appeal, ingratiation, and rational persuasion (Luthra & Dahiya, 2015). Many researchers found that male leaders are more likely to use soft tactics with their male followers and hard tactics with their female followers, which means that they rely on emotions to influence other males, but rely more on objectivity for the opposite sex (Sisti, 2014). Whereas, female leaders use soft influence tactics (TFL) for both male and female managers (Sisti, 2014; Luthra & Dahiya, 2015). Again, note the link of this with leadership and project management (c.f. Shtub et al., 2005; Meredith et al., 2010; Pinto, 2014).
e) Decision Making: Decision making means the process of selecting the best choices among various options. For a leader of a team, decision making influence hundreds of their followers’ lives, and can even change the course of their team and projects (Pinto, 2010; Sisti, 2014). The two known Decision Making models are: Rational Decision Making Model and Intuitive Decision Making Model (see: Vroom & Yetton, 1973).
The first model is the Classic Decision-Making Model (or, the Rational Decision-Making Model), which is when leaders use analysis, facts and a step-by-step process to come to a decision. Rational decision making is a precise, analytical process that leaders use to come up with a fact-based decision.
The Rational Decision Making Model (following Carley, & Behrens, 1999) has 6 steps which leaders use to achieve the optimal decision:
1. Define the problem.
2. Identify the decision criteria.
3. Allocate weights to the criteria.
4. Develop the alternatives.
5. Evaluate the alternatives.
6. Select the best alternative.
The second model, which is the decision-making model that is utilized frequently by leaders, is the Intuitive Decision-Making model. At first, this model appears to be based solely on gut feelings, but closer examination reveals that it is in fact a very sophisticated process in which the leader applies their intuition in many ways. Firstly, they intuitively detect a potential problem and use their intuition to investigate its patterns. In this case, intuition means their painstaking years of experience, expertise, education background, insider information and other valuable resources unknown to an average follower. Intuition also helps them to integrate pieces of isolated data, facts and figures to a complete picture of the whole problem. If there is more than one possible solution to the problem, the leader will use their intuition as a check point to eliminate anti-intuitive decision and go with their gut feelings (for instance, one distinctive feature of this decision making model is that acting is a part of the process of defining and analyzing the problems).
Managers usually “know” what to do first before they can explain the justification for their actions, and they use the results from their action to further their understanding about the problems. So, according to Carley & Behrens (1999), males and females use different approaches in decision making. But, it’s a common misconception that male leaders lean towards the traditional the Rational Decision-Making model and as for the female leaders, they lean towards the Intuitive Decision-Making model (Carley, & Behrens, 1999).
Secondly, research suggests that women don’t rely on intuition more often than men. When most people say, “women’s intuition,” they’re suggesting that women make their decisions based on some inexplicable feelings, on some inner hunch (Carley, ; Behrens, 1999). But recent studies demonstrate that women are just as data-driven and analytical as men, if not more so (c.f. Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014).
For instance, in a similar example illustrated by Evans (2008), 12 (of the 32 studies that looked at how men and women thought about a problem or made a decision) found that women adopted an analytical approach more often than men (meaning that women systematically turned to the data), while men were more inclined to go with their gut, hunches, or intuitive reactions.
Whereas, the other 20 studies found no difference between men and women’s thinking styles. Not a single study, found that women tended to be more intuitive in their decision-making styles (c.f. Evans, 2008).
f) Taking Risks: Risk taking is an increasingly critical element of leadership and essential for a leader’s effectiveness. Risk taking can be defined as: “Undertaking a task in which there is a lack of certainty or a fear of failure.” The problem at the core of risk taking is fear; fear of failure, fear of success, fear of looking like a fool, fear of seeming ignorant, fear of seeming too aggressive. Taking risk means confronting the fears/challenges and having the courage to move forward (Piccolo, 2005; Nelson, 2012; Llopis et al. 2013; Alshut, 2014; Stine-Cheyne, 2018).
i. Awareness: One of the greatest personal benefits of risk-taking is that it increases your awareness. By opening your eyes and often your mind. The better you know yourself the wiser you become. If you go through life with a closed mind, you block out opportunities to broaden your leadership and to make a difference.
ii. Knowledge: Knowledge itself has some built-in risks. As it expands, you may learn things about yourself that you don’t like. You may discover areas of your personality that need work. You may have to take action, make changes and grow. Knowledge robs you of the luxury of ignorance. If you’re honest, you can use your new self-perceptions to strengthen your effectiveness as a leader (e.g. Hare et al. 1997, McKee, ; Carlson, 1999).
iii. Excitement: “Thrill seeking” doesn’t always have positive connotations, but without excitement, exaltation, even ecstasy, your existence would be very boring. Being involved with people or organizations that are doing exciting, positive things can be one of life’s greatest pleasures (Oshagbemi, 2008). We all like to be involved with strong teams and systems that make a difference in the world (Pinto, 2010). Making a contribution, receiving recognition, and growing are the kinds of excitement that are the prime benefits of risk-taking (Pinto, 2010, 2014).
2.2.1. Recap: In a 2013 article by Doug Sundheim, in Harvard Business Review, apparently, males are more prone to take risks than females. This was noted by people like Sundheim (2013) because people tend to perceive that women are more risk averse than men. here, women are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting support for risk-taking (Nelson, 2012).
It is found that talented women leaders have several characteristics as opposed to men. First, they place a high value on relationships and judge the success of their organizations. Second, they prefer direct communication (Figure 2.9). Third, they are comfortable with diversity (e.g. Shtub et al., 2005; Chin et al., 2007; Jonsen, et al., 2010; Atewologun, ; Dolder, 2013; Pinto, 2014). Forth, they are unwilling to classify their lives and so draw upon personal experience to bring private area information and insights to their jobs. Fifth, they preferred leading from the center rather than the top and structure their organizations to reflect this (c.f. Oshagbemi, 2008; Patel, 2013).
As for many findings, the female leadership (TFL) style was described as collaborative and caring, as they spent less time on paperwork, but spent more on visiting classrooms, sharing their time with their peers. Their traits were described as emotional, collaborative, sensitive and cooperative (Figure 2.8). They do not use their power over their subordinates rather they perceive power as resource to share with them (e.g. Fleming, ; Spicer, 2014).
There is difference between transactional and transformational leadership style. As transactional leadership style was known as task centered, as top down and hierarchical (e.g. Aldoory, ; Toth, 2004; Piccolo, 2005; Trinidad, ; Normore 2005). It’s a series of transactions between the leaders and their followers. As transformational leadership style was known as follower centered, based on relationships among leaders and their followers (Piccolo,.2005). As a result, to many researchers, it is found that male leaders belong to transactional leadership style being autocratic, task centered, and more serious, whereas women leaders belong to transformational leadership style as being servant to their followers, loyal, sharing respect between their subordinates (see: Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1998; Aldoory, & Toth, 2004; Piccolo, 2005; and Trinidad, & Normore, 2005; Bass & Riggio, 2006)
In leadership research gender has been distinguished as sex, with collection of qualities. Both male and female selects several characteristics, and by them we can know their difference in leadership style. As male characteristics are aggressive, independent, objective, logical, rational, analytical, confident, assertive and impersonal (TSL). As opposed to males, females select several characteristics as being emotional, sensitive, expressive, cooperative, talkative, gentle, intuitive, and warm (e.g. Pounder & Coleman, 2002; Pounder, 2006; Hassan & Silong, 2008; Shanmugam et al, 2008), and show TSL styles (ex. Bass & Avolio, 1990).
A transactional (TSL) leadership style is based on the fact that leaders motivate their followers by a system of reward and punishment (see: Nava (2014: p. 1, 2 and 6), where she cites Bass & Avolio (1990: 21, 22) on discussions related to TSL and coercive techniques). They reward the subordinates for a good performance and punish them for an inadequate performance (Culbertson et al., 2013). Here followers should comply to their leaders’ commands. So, at the end, they must carry out the wishes of their leaders. TSL is also discussed by Aldoory, ; Toth (2004) and Trinidad, ; Normore (2005).
As for females, they tend to use transformational (TFL) leadership style, they tend to be interactive with their subordinates by encouraging them to participate in the decision making (e.g. Bass, ; Steidlmeier, 1998; Piccolo, 2005; Bruch, ; Walter, 2007). Burke ; Collins (2003) believe that female leaders believe that when someone feels comfortable he/she will have an excellent performance. Zheng (2015) agrees, and notes that they let their followers to feel free to act, decide, also they inspire and motivate them by allowing them take some initiative and giving them the power to make some decisions on their own . Also, women rely on reward system, they often motivate employees by serving rewards. This action encourages them to make more effort in their performances. (See: Culbertson (1993), and Nava (2014: p. 1, 2 and 6) citing Bass ; Avolio (1990: 21, 22) on TSL practices).
2.2.2. Contingency Theory of Leadership: Although this theory, which was presented in Hughes et al. (2012), through an entire chapter, and promotes leadership activities following the “contingency model” (see; Fred Edward Fielder’s theories (Fieldler, 1964; 1967; Verkerk, 1990) and http://www.wikipedia.org), we have discussed the model based on most of our Figures earlier in the chapter (see also: (Tosi, Jr., & Slocum, Jr., 1984). We need to raise this issue and discuss that this model lays down leadership activities following the LPC scale and differentiates the low LPC scale (task oriented) leaders, versus the high LPC scale (employee relationship) leaders. This scale is the scale that Ken Blanchard and others developed in the 1980s, which may have been discussed as well in their research, deserves further explanation (c.f. Blanchard et al., 2008).
Several studies have indicated a stereotype of the men and women across groups differing in sex, age, marital status, and education (e.g. Crawford, 2001). Men have perceived as being better leaders than women. These traditional stereotypes are major reason for negative perceptions for female leaders (see: Wood, 1994; Hare et al., 1997; Crawford, 2001). Traditionally, a good leader was being given to males with the impression of masculinity, and believed that men are better leaders than women. This is wrong, as today we know that females are the better leaders.
A stereotype is set of characteristics that a lot of people believe represent a particular type of person or thing. And if someone is stereotyped as something, people form a fixed general idea of them, so they assume they will behave in a particular way. Stereotyping is one of the larger obstacles for women in leadership positions. When someone is perceived as negative, it is hard to change (c.f. McKee, & Carlson, 1999). Masculine characteristics are considered to be more positively valued than feminine characteristics.
Gender stereotypes represent men as effective achievers, active, emotionally stable, independent and rational. Whereas, women perceived the opposite, lacking in those attitudes (e.g. Crawford, 2001).
2.3.1. Perceptions as a function of stereotype: And as for many findings, there as negative perception for women as leaders, they are refused by persons with traditional gender role attitudes, as they preferred women to be housewives and mothers. Thus, men are the only people who should work and be leaders. According to these negative perceptions (which will negatively affect subordinates’ perceptions of female leaders), they would feel uncomfortable while working with female leaders. And, they would rather prefer working with male leaders (Wood, 1994; Hare et al., 1997; Crawford, 2001),
People also perceive men and women leaders as they differ in task orientation. Men were perceived to be lower in task orientation whereas women high in task orientation. Men are more favorable than women, and these results occur even when the task orientation is at the same level for both of them. Another perception by people, as female stereotype results fewer women being in high positions, whereas men being in high positions (e.g. Crawford, 2001).
People perceive women leaders as gentle, friendly, being nice with their subordinates, and the more they use masculine characteristics in their leadership position, the more at odds will be with her stereotype, they will be negatively evaluated by their subordinates (see: Crawford, 2001). Finally, the more women leaders be directive and autocratic with their followers, the more negative she is seen by them (e.g. Eagly ; Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001)
There is another perception of how individuals speak. People who speak hesitantly are evaluated less favorably than those who speak assertively. Women leaders are perceived to speak tentatively, thus they are considered to be less attractive, less intelligent, and knowledgeable than men, who speak assertively (e.g. Eagerly ; Carli, 2003, 2007). Men and women differ in their judgments of problem solving, however it is perceived that women leaders are better problem solvers, whereas men perceived men leaders are better than women.
Employees perceive their leaders differently according to gender. When their leader is female, they expect from her to be more comprehensive and feeling, as they expect the opposite when their leader is male, that expect to be stoic, the one who can endure pain, without showing his feelings, and hold in his emotions. And if men leaders show their emotions it is said to be “in touch with their feminine side.” Employees also perceive their female leaders to be soft, friendly, and caring leaders. And if women adopt a bossy leadership style, they will react negatively. So, they perceive female leaders to take care of them, making them to feel good, rather than driving results. Another perception by employees, as when their leaders are male, they perceive them to be assertive, strong and competitive. Competitive male leaders encourage them to be competitive workers, to compete with their team mates (Pinto, 2010; Reuben et al., 2012) ,and use TFL style.
As we know men and women always been stereotyped, as men are considered to be stronger and bigger, whereas women friendlier and more caring than men (e.g. Crawford, 2001). According to the women leadership stereotype, which has been selected, several qualities as listening, communicating, friendly, encouraging and so on have been attributed to them (e.g. Crawford, 2001). For instance, when women have kids, they take care of them by asking them, listening when they talk, encourage them to improve by doing their bests. But there is important question, like does all women related with these skills? According to men, that have been stereotyped as the ones who protect the family, and take responsibility, also perceived that men being forceful in their leadership style (c.f. Crawford, 2001).
2.4. Barriers to Women’s Leadership
In the business world, women leaders are still a minority. Despite the efforts that women bring in her work, female representation in leadership roles remains unequal. Here, we adopted the leadership-business relationship part from Blais-David, & Hall (2005).
There are many barriers that hinder women’s career development. As for many researchers, one of the main barriers here are (as we mentioned above) stereotypes, i.e. how people perceive male and female leaders. This is, as they believe. male leaders are better than female leaders. This perception prevents female leaders from reaching high positions (e.g. Crawford, 2001). Women are expected to take up more family responsibilities than men, people believed that women should work at home, being housewives and raise their children, whereas men are the only ones who should work, thus being leaders. Women are uncertain to support for themselves or ask for what they want (e.g. Crawford, 2001). Women also face the dilemma of being perceived as too feminine.
The warmer, using less direct communication approach may weaken confidence in their capabilities (Figure 2.9). Relative to men, women may take fewer career risks and participate less not in leadership training and activities. Another barrier in women leadership is the lack of internal and external networks, recognitions, opportunities, and resources. For a variety of reasons, women may have fewer opportunities to develop formal and informal networks. Those reasons include but are not limited to some women’s limited availability to attend professional organization meetings due to family or work commitments (Oshagbemi, 2008). Studies have found that male leaders have greater informal networks, social interactions, and substantive work interactions than do female leader (e.g. Crawford, 2001; Sutub et al., 2005; Pinto, 2014).
The most important barrier, as we mentioned above, is the women’s role as being a mother and a housewife. Many women choose to sacrifice their career to take care of their children. Also, multiple roles that women hold (women’s roles are based around family nurture, production and community involvement) may prevent them to accept a high position. As a result, women have limited time to focus on career development.
According to workplace relationships, there is a barrier in relationship between female leaders and their followers, where most employees tend to bond through similar interests. Many people prefer to have mentors of the same gender because they tend to understand the challenges most commonly faced.
Globalization also has been a barrier in front of women, as to time pressures and relocations of many businesses, top executives have had to move to new towns, cities, and countries (e.g. Blais-David, & Hall, 2005). However, women have difficulty to move to other countries according to their families. However, women could also not adopt to new cultures and norms in new countries, and fail in their in new environment.
Life style choices been another barrier as we mentioned above women choose to be between their families and career, as many women have voluntarily left their jobs due to family decisions.
Cultural barriers are not to be ignored in today’s world, as nowadays, in developing nations such as Lebanon (subject to our research) and Nigeria (a comparable nation having cultural issues against females), many males refuse to admit femeales are the better leaders, as according to some cultures in these countries, women are ooked down upon, hence stereotyped. And this cols reflct somehow in the workpleace as well (e.g. Anim, et al., 2011; Okeke, 2017).
The last barrier in leadership is stereotype, many countries prefer masculine leadership styles rather than feminine styles (e.g. Crawford, 2001). In the past, people believe that a true leader has the qualities and characteristics that male has, today and according to Perschel (2009a, b), it’s no longer the case. These include assertiveness, aggressiveness, and task-oriented leadership abilities. Whereas, women chose quiet, selfless, and nurturing styles (e.g. Crawford, 2001).
2.5. The Trend of Gender Leadership Style
In recent years, the perception of business leadership was dominated to males, whose leadership style was autocratic, tough, and action- oriented. In people’s mind the ideal leaders to be successful should have these characteristics (Blais-David, ; Hall, 2005).
However, generation have been changed, new women generation is bringing to business new leadership styles, being more open, opposite to men democratic and even more caring (Perschel, 2009a, b). People who think that soft leaders are sensitive, caring, supportive, and hard leaders who is more successful in his way of leading tend to be tough and commanding, however hard leaders could be ineffective. Leaders, who are tough, don’t give comfort to their followers, and they could never gain their loyalty, as they rely on TSL leadership style. Many researchers have selected the importance of women in an organization, where they prove the efficient leadership style of females (Oshagbemi, 2008). Women have the ability to deal with complicated problems, being more active in building networks, participative, listeners, build strong teams that work together, giving freedom to them to make decisions, also have the confidence helping the company to grow and reach in international markets (Arnold, & Loughlin, 2013; Pinto, 2014). In the Last few years, companies started to encourage mentoring for women, add them to high positions, board of directors.
As we have analyzed that the women are more likely better than men in leadership, there is a trend that shifts toward having more female leaders in the near future (Hughes, et al., 2012). To address this, we suggest that several causes are at work. Three factors that explain these shifts that are the following: A) Women’s characteristics have changed. B) Organizational practices have changed (e.g. Oshagbemi, 2008). And, C) culture has changed (e.g. Murphy, ; Southey, 2003; Popper, 2005; Brandl et al., 2008; Pichler, et al., 2008).
2.5.1. Women’s Characteristics Have Changed: That’s clear that women attitudes have become similar to men. A number of research studies, including Yukl (2006), found that male and female leaders exhibit similar amount of task oriented and people oriented leadership behaviors. In recent year women tend to be housewife, they believe that they should stay at home and carry house chores and take care of their children. Whereas men should work, control, and be the head of his family . But nowadays, as generations have changed, women developed themselves, empowered their ability to prove themselves able as successful leaders, and to reach top positions as men do (Denmark, 1993). As, a result we see companies are hiring women to be leaders, since they believe women have the ideal characteristics of a leader. People believed that male leaders tend to be more successful in leadership style, and don’t give the chance to females to prove their professionalism, but it’s not depend on gender.
Here Joanne Ciulla stated “Leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relationship between people based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good”(c.f. Ciulla, 2004)
Also, and according to Dr. Susan Madsen, “Leaders are not just born”. Sure, some people are born with strong competencies and strengths for leading in certain situations, but it is very clear that leadership can also be developed. That means: “Everyone can strengthen their skills and abilities to lead and influence” (see: Sisti, 2014; Madsen, 2016).
Women use many styles according to their leadership, as they are affiliative leaders (e.g. Gobaw, 2017). According to Pinto (2010, 2014), this type of leader is well-known for building teams; for putting employees first, and can act as al project manager/leader. Here, in this case, subordinates will get a great deal of compliments for jobs well-done, and constructive criticism (see: Gobaw, 2017).
Whereas, another type of leader (democratic leader), producing a work environment that employees feel comfortable and free in their actions, also exists among female leaders. Democratic leaders ensure subordinates feel themselves more involved in the organization’s objectives (Oshagbemi, 2008; Cherry, 2018). Finally, a coaching leader is one that wants to help others, develop their skills, so they become successful employees. This leader type works best when the employees already understands their weaknesses, and are interested to improvement suggestions or ideas (e.g. Hughes, et al., 2012).
2.5.2. Organizational Practices Have Changed: Gender difference at the organization have been diminished, as well as changes in organizational norms (ex: McKee, & Carlson, 1999). In addition, the culture of many organizations now embraces the benefits of including women and minorities among their leaders. The culture of many organizations benefit from including women among their leaders. Such organizations may support women by encouraging mentoring, networking and establishing more family-friendly policies (c.f. Hughes, et al., 2012)
2.5.3. Culture Has Changed: According to many researchers a number of cultural dimensions – including values and practices relating to gender equality – differ from country to country (e.g. Brandl, et al., 2007; Atewologun & Dolder, 2013). One approach uses labels such as masculine and feminine societies. As masculine societies expect men to be assertive, they expect women to be more tender, and more polite. According to the social role theory, leadership styles between men and women may be influenced by different cultures (Hughes, et al. 2012).
Fig. 2.9: A Conceptual Model for Effective Leadership Communication (Luthra & Dahiya, 2015).
According to Hughes et al. (2012), by the changes in women’s characteristics and changes in organizational practices, female leaders have developed new types of leadership that brings greater effectives and synergy as compared to past leadership style. ?
We now know that female leadership style is growing, and that if we refer back to the 2001 film “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, we gather that the role of women in institutions are much more important than what we traditionally believed to be.
As, traditionally leadership roles were given to males, whose leadership style was tough, action oriented, and autocratic (Refer to TSL types). People also believed that the ideal leaders should be men, having these characteristics. But today, in our generation, these beliefs changed (McKee, ; Carlson, 1999). As, women are bringing to business a different style, like encouraging participation with others, more open and inclusive, are more caring, and friendlier with their followers, as opposed to male leaders (refer to the TFL style). For both issues in business and leadership, refer to Blais-David, ; Hall (2005).
As today’s work force is better-educated, and as nowadays, more and more young professional workers are joining into the organizations (who possess talents and skills that their bosses don’t have), today’s company requires leaders who not only are risk takers, but also are capable of hearing the ideas of others and really give them the power to use some of the ideas in changing business making them successful, which is the idea behind accepting more and more females obtaining decision making and leadership roles (Blais-David, & Hall, 2005; Oshagbemi, 2008; Hughes, et al., 2012). In this case, research methods for skills building purposes can be adopted (see: Sekaran, & Bougie, 2013).
Currently, women have been raised, as they create their own wealth and setting up in business, according to changes there is an increase in self-employment where women are setting up both lifestyle and fast growth companies. Women are well educated, and as many researchers claim, 50 percent of educators are being women, also being talented and effective leaders in their job. Women have an active social life (e.g. Blais-David, & Hall, 2005).
They participate in various socio-economic and political functions. She has been a wife, a mother, a teacher, a leader or a volunteer worker and many more. Women’s role has been changed, they become important in our society, as stereotype of women leaders being less effective have been vanished (e.g. Crawford, 2001). Women play a great role in everyone’s life without which we cannot imagine the success of life. They are highly responsible for the successful continuation of the life.
Today, women’s conditions have been improved a little bit; they have started taking part in the many activities other than family and kids. This development is also the result of women’s education and secularization of social values. Their interest in social and cultural activities is increasing. Women are being professional, responsible for their families. As a mother, her role in the development of the emotional psychological aspect of the newborn child has been also very significant. She was not only the creator and maintainer of her child but an educator and disciplinarian as well (e.g. Crawford, 2001).
As a recap for the review on the leadership models, the following points need to be kept in mind: 1) According to Hughes et al (2012), leaders are more effective when they make their behavior contingent upon situational factors. And 2) it is those factors that shape how leaders behave, as they also influence the consequences of leader behavior.
Fiedler et al.’s (1964), and Fiedler’s (1967) Contingency Theory proposes the best style of leadership is determined by situational factors including leader-member relations, task structure, and position power (Tosi, Jr., & Slocum, Jr., 1984; Betts, 2003). Whereas, the House (1971) Path-Goal Theory of leadership effectiveness specifies the best leadership style based on the characteristics of the group members and the tasks (c.f. Knight et al., 2011). Moreover, Blanchard et al.’s (2008) Situational Leadership Model explains how to match leadership style to the readiness of group members (there are the models we will keep in mind while studying our hypotheses in order to see if the research will validate our objectives or not). Another source also discusses situational leadership, in the military as an example (Yeakey, 2002).
Mwai (2011: 23) noted in a Bachelor Thesis entitled “Creating Effective Leaders Through Situational Leadership Approach”, presented at the Jamik University of Applied Sciences, that: “to be an effective leader, one need to understand there is no single solution to manage followers at work or even one best leadership style to use for all the followers”.
She noted that there is a practical way to understand situational leadership and that this model contains four leadership styles representing different combinations of directive and supportive behavior. Blanchard et al. (2008) provide them as well, and agree that the best style is a function of the degree of difficulty of the task and the development level of the follower doing that task. So, they concur that a leader can use one leadership style when dealing with one follower and use different style when leading a team or another follower and join up Pinto (2010, 2014) in saying that a good leader (project manager, in context) prides him/herself in building tams and maintaining good communication.
To sum up what was said before, we are therefore left with the following four hypotheses, which we will test following the research methodology that we will introduce and discuss in details in the next chapter. The four hypotheses (note that: the first one is the main one), are presented below (with the differences in being good, or bad for female leaders):
H.1: Are women better leaders than their male counterparts? (Good for female leaders)
H.2: Are female leaders weaker than their male counterparts? (Bad for female leaders)
H.3: Are females as leaders growing? (Good for female leaders)
H.4: Are there any gender bases stereotypes such as barriers preventing female leaders from getting executive positions? (Bad for female leaders)
Note for the definitions of Null Hypotheses (H0) and Alternative (H1), which will be discussed in subsequent chapters, we will go with Fisher’s definition