Does Gender Matter in Leadership - Literature review Example

Does gender matter in leadership? Introduction David, James, & Alfred, (2004) defines gender is a form of social inequality where females and males are defined as being different in ways that are socially significant and tries to justify inequality based on these differences. Gender differences have been perceived to be pervasive in interaction. In addition, studies show that individuals with equal status and power show very little gender differences in their behaviour (Eagly, 2005). Furthermore, interactions between men and women take place in structural context status or roles relations which are not equal. It has been argued that power and status differences make men and women to recreate gender systems. Leadership is a social aspect that has attracted major debates from time immemorial Cecilia, & Lynn 1999 A leader is a person in charge of a certain team or group. A leader has power over some people in addition to having authority of making decisions on behalf of the group (Kahn, 1994). Leadership is a social influence process whereby a single individual is able to enlist the support and aid of other people to accomplish a common task (Eagly, 2005). Even though the term leadership has evolved from dictatorial forms of leadership to participatory forms, leaders still command some power and authority over the group led in terms of decision making. In early times leadership was all about physical strength (Steven, Lynda & Joanne, 2003). This changed with time to force of personality where one strived to get at the top notch of group’s hierarchy (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). Today’s society is moving toward leaders endowed with content, that is, ability to generate new and better ideas. In spite these transitions in leadership; debate about whether leaders are born or made has been ongoing for many years (Kahn, 1994). Many theories have been developed over time to support these two conflicting ideologies. Some of these theories include Great man theories, Trait theories, Contingency theories, Situational theories, Behavioural theories, Participative theories, Management theories and Relationship theories (Kahn, 1994). This paper explores critically on whether gender matter in leadership. To better discuss this effectively it is imperative that we explore theories that have been devised to provide explanation on leadership. This will provide a firm basis for discussing on whether gender matter in leadership. Great Man Theory Prior to mid twentieth century, it was widely accepted that leaders are born and not made based on the Great Man Theory (Eagly, 2005). It was widely believed that people in a society had varied degrees of energy, intelligence and moral force and masses were always led by few individuals who were superior. Thus it was argued that innate abilities propel individuals to leadership positions and cannot be acquired (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). It is widely accepted that leaders differ from other people. Thus it is argued that an individual matters in the realm of leadership. Aristotle argued that women are by nature inferior to men and that superior power of virtue implied determines ranks. The virtues in this case include wisdom, knowledge, talent, competence and ability which Aristotle argues inborn (Kahn, 1994). These virtues have been found (in life sciences studies) to be connected to biological characteristics of an individual. These studies indicate that leaders have higher levels of serotonin in comparison to their followers (Eagly, 2005). In spite this; opponents of this view argue that increased serotonin could be a consequence of leadership itself and not the cause. As a debate on the cause-effect relationship continues, it is becoming evident that leadership is determined by psychological and biological forces innate in individuals (Cawthon, 1996) The argument that leaders are born and not made has been strengthened by the fact that leaders differ from manager (Kahn, 1994). It is argued that unlike managers who strive to maintain status quo, leaders work hard to change what is into what ought to be (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). What is termed as transformational leadership has strengthened this view in that successful transformational leaders are characterized by their charisma which cannot be acquired but rather is innate. However, proponents of great man theory agree that even with innate talents, there is need for timely situational forces to compel such individuals to become leaders. The failure or success of leaders is thus determined by prevailing situations some of which are beyond their control (Cawthon, 1996) Trait theory Just like great man theory, trait theory assumes that leaders are born and not made. The theory points out personality traits that seem to characterize successful leaders (Eagly, 2005). The theory assumes that leaders have innate qualities which make them unique from their followers (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). It argues that leaders have certain behavioural and personality characteristics which make them unique and different from their followers. Behavioural theories These theories emphasize the style and behaviour that a leader adopts as a determinant to his/her success. Conclusion made by these theorists is that leaders who adopt participative or democratic styles of leadership are more successful (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). Thus these theories main aim was identifying the best way of leading (Kahn, 1994). However, behavioural theories have been criticized for undermining the role played by situational factors in determination of how effective an individual can be as a leader. This limitation led to emergence of situational and contingency theories. Situational and contingency theories These theories emphasize that successful leaders are context sensitive in spite of the way they lead (Eagly, 2005). Conclusion made from various studies which support these theories indicate that the success of a leader is based on his/her ability to diagnose and understand prevailing situational factors and consequently adopting appropriate style to address the prevailing circumstances (Kahn, 1994). Gender and leadership Studies on leadership indicate both presence and absence of differences in leadership between the sexes. Organizational studies indicate that both men and women can lead in either interpersonally oriented style or task oriented style (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). However, studies indicate that women tend to adopt lead democratically while men tend to adopt autocratic kind of leadership (Kahn, 1994). From the behavioural theories as seen above, the style and behaviour that a leader adopts is a determinant to his/her success. From the conclusions made from theses theories that leaders who adopt participative or democratic styles of leadership are more successful, we expect that women leaders are more successful as leaders than men (Eagly, 2005). However, the world has witnessed many successful men leaders. This implies that the success of leaders is not based on the kind of leadership he/she adopts. Given that studies indicate that women have successful adopted these democratic styles of leaderships to steer their firms to success, it is apparent that the gender of an individual does not matter when it comes to leadership (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Many authors have argued that there exist sex differences in leadership style (Kahn, 1994). For instance, some authors have been of the view that there is a masculine mode of management which is characterized by qualities such as hierarchical authority, competitiveness, high control for the leader and analytic and unemotional problem solving. This is argued to characterize male leaders (Eagly, 2005). On other hand it has been argued that women tend to lead using feminine leadership which is characterized by collaboration and cooperation among the firm’s employees, both those at managerial and lower cadres (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). Thus it has been argued that leaders in firms behave stereotypically based on their gender. In spite these arguments, social scientists have maintained that there are no differences in leadership of men and women. Massive evidence indicates that male and female leaders tend to behave in same ways. This argument is typical of what trait theory proposes that leaders have personality traits that seem to characterize successful leaders. This implies that leaders have innate qualities which make them unique from their followers. It can be unrealistic to state that nature can only endow male with such innate characteristics to lead and deny women such abilities or vice versa (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). Thus, on the basis of trait theory it can be argued that both male and female individuals can be endowed with distinguishing characteristics that can make them to be successful leaders. Given that studies indicate that both male and female leaders behave to some extend similarly we can argue that leadership is not based on gender but inherent characteristics of an individual based on trait theories (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Most of leadership studies have been carried out in organization setting (Eagly, 2005). Under such settings leaders often interact with many people on short time basis and thus it is expected that leaders do not carry out familial roles most of the time. Thus, it is often practical that leaders will react in gender stereotypic behaviour based on gender roles which are usually rules about how one ought to behave as either a female or male (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). Based on situational theories, successful leaders are context sensitive in spite of the way they lead. It would thus be a failure for a leader to ignore the prevailing factors (gender roles) and adopt appropriate style to address the prevailing circumstances (Kahn, 1994). By behaving in a gender stereotypic manner, a leader is just trying to adapt to prevailing situation to address it appropriately. Such action enables the leader to successful deal with the situation at hand and hence cannot be the basis or arguing that gender matters in leadership (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). A woman would use her feminine characteristics to handle the situation effectively and so will a man try to use his masculine characteristics to handle the situation effectively. It is inappropriate to argue that gender matters in leadership based on the way one handles the situation at hand. What matters is whether the means adopted effectively resolves the problem at hand (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Studies have shown that leadership perceptions are formed to some extend by masculinity-femininity (Eagly, 2005). Moreover, studies have indicated that women leaders have more idealized influence, are individually considerate and are more inspirational than men. These traits have been argued to vital for success of a leader (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). On the other hand studies indicate that many have adopted leadership styles which have been touted to be less effective. Furthermore, it has been found that women have characteristics of transformational leadership such as nurturance, pragmatism and other feminine attributes such as individualized consideration (Kahn, 1994). Thus, many studies have indicated that women rate higher as transformational leaders as opposed to men (David, James, & Alfred, 2004). Based on the great man theory which asserts that leaders are born and not made, transformational strive to change what is into what ought to be. They tend to emphasize the need to be competitive, innovative and competitive. Thus they encourage development of new ideas in a firm (Eagly, 2005). Given that these characteristics are mainly supported by female leaders, it can be argued that the qualities are inherent in their biological make up. The charisma that characterizes transformational leaders cannot be acquired rather they are innate in an individual. Based on the fact that both women and men can have the charisma to bring about changes in the society and in an organization it can be argued that gender does not matter in leadership (Eagly, 2005). Based on great man theory, so long as an individual has the innate abilities to propel him/her to leadership positions he/she can be a leader. This is not withstanding prevailing situation as theorized by situational theories which can allow emergence of these abilities (Kahn, 1994). Conclusion Even though a debate on leadership has been ongoing for long, it has been mainly on the basis of whether it is innate or acquired. It is apparent however that even individuals with the inherent qualities of leadership cannot be leaders without situations which can allow expression of such leadership abilities. The question of whether gender matters in leadership has also attracted the attention of many authors. From the discussion above, whether leadership is inborn or acquired it does not limit on who is born with such abilities or who can acquire them. The discussion indicates that leadership styles adopted by men and women are significantly similar. Even though there are some differences in leadership styles adopted in certain situations, the fact is that both men and women emerge successful in spite the style they adopt to address the prevailing situation. Thus we conclude that gender does not matter in leadership but what matters is the capability of the leader whether inborn or acquired to diagnose, understand and react to the prevailing situation that determines his/her success as a leader. Reference Cawthon, DL. (1996). Leadership: The Great Man Theory Revisited. Business Horizons, May-June, pp. 1-4. Cecilia R., & Lynn, S. (1999). The Gender System and Interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25:191-216 David, D., James J. H., & Alfred, R. (2004). Leader succession: does gender matter? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 25, no. 8, pp.678 – 690 Eagly, A. & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A Meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 233-256. Eagly, A. 2005. Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 459-474 Kahn, K. 1994. Does gender make a difference? An experimental examination of sex stereotypes and press patterns in Statewide campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 162-195 Steven H. A., Lynda, A., & Joanne, C. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp.43 – 51 Read More