Running head: THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
The Impact of Gender on Leadership: An Adaptive Challenge
Philip W. Holmes
Virginia Commonwealth University EdD Program in Leadership, Cohort 4
1
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
2
The Impact of Gender on Leadership: An Adaptive Challenge
The number of women in management roles grows every year; in some industries, they
already comprise more than half of all managers (Avolio, Mhatre, Norman, & Lester, 2009;
Haber, 2010; Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2011; Levitt, 2010; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011). The
introduction of women into management roles has by itself changed our concept of leadership
and altered how companies and organizations are led (Avolio, Mhatre, Norman, & Lester, 2009;
Haber, 2010; Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2011; Levitt, 2010; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011).
Research has long shown differences in how men and women lead; however, the source,
extent, and impact of these differences are still debated (Avolio, Mhatre, Norman, & Lester,
2009; Christman & McClellan, 2012; Haber, 2010; Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2011; Levitt,
2010; Powell & Butterfield, 2012; Reynolds, 2011; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011). Key to any
debate over how men and women lead is the distinction between gender (which is culturallybound) and sex (which is biologically determined), and the extent to which leaders and followers
are influenced by the concepts of gender and sex in relation to leadership skills and leader
selection (Christman & McClellan, 2012; Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2011; Powell &
Butterfield, 2012; Reynolds, 2011; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011). Though the gender-sex debate is
not settled, we can generally conclude that women tend to be more accommodating and
relationship-related, and men tend to be more direct and task-related (Avolio, Mhatre, Norman,
& Lester, 2009; Christman & McClellan, 2012; Haber, 2010; Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2011;
Levitt, 2010; Powell & Butterfield, 2012; Reynolds, 2011; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011).
Recent research indicates that while the culture generally agrees on which leadership
behaviors are “typically male” and which are “typically female,” this split is not distinct in
practice; male and female leaders often exhibit behaviors that are typically associated with the
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
3
other gender (Christman & McClellan, 2012; Haber, 2010; Levitt, 2010; Powell & Butterfield,
2012; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011). However, the echoes of older notions of gender and leadership
make it difficult for both sexes to behave in non-stereotypical ways (Christman & McClellan,
2012; Haber, 2010; Levitt, 2010; Powell & Butterfield, 2012; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011).
A gender-neutral concept of leadership style such as the relational leadership framework
posited by Drath (2001) can give all leaders a path-forward that both acknowledges the worth of
former ways of leading and maps out future possibilities, without introducing the sometimes
derailing and always evolving notions of gender roles and leadership expectations.
More Women in the Workplace and in Management
Research confirms what our daily experience already tells us: there are more women in
management than ever before. In the fields of health, human resources, social services, and
education, they constitute more than half of all managers (Avolio, Mhatre, Norman, & Lester,
2009); however, the number of women in top management in this country is still less than
expected (Haber, 2010; Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2011; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011).
Though they struggle to reach the upper leadership ranks in many fields and industries,
women are well represented in lower and middle ranks of management. Their different habits,
behaviors, and notions of leadership, management, and optimal ways of living and working have
already deeply impacted the American workplace in general, and concepts of appropriate
leadership in particular (Avolio, Mhatre, Norman, & Lester, 2009; Haber, 2010; Hoobler,
Lemmon, & Wayne, 2011; Levitt, 2010; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011).
Gender and Generalized Leadership Styles
It is likely that the average employer or manager would be unable to state a clear
difference between “gender” and “sex.” But, the difference between these two terms is crucial to
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
4
our discussion here. Gender is an evolving, culturally-manufactured set of behavioral
expectations for males and females, and sex refers simply to the reproductive and biological
classification of male versus female (Christman & McClellan, 2012; Hoobler, Lemmon, &
Wayne, 2011; Powell & Butterfield, 2012; Reynolds, 2011).
This distinction is relevant to our discussion because the set of gender expectations for
female or male leaders is sometimes perceived as being biologically bound – as if those
expectations had been determined by the biological structures and capacities of the leader’s
biological sex, rather than by custom, practice, and cultural history (Christman & McClellan,
2012; Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2011; Powell & Butterfield, 2012; Reynolds, 2011). This
does not mean that good faith and relatively accurate gender-based generalizations about male
and female leadership behaviors cannot still be made. For instance, Levitt (2010) included
“collaborative, transformational, and context-driven leadership styles” as among those tied to
typical notions of female leaders, and styles “driven by authoritarianism and swift decision
making” as those tied to men (p. 70). Habor (2011) found that participants in her study of female
college leaders were strongly focused on the relationships within their organizations, and stressed
team success over the success of any one individual, including themselves.
Evolving Notions of Gender and Leadership
More recent research suggests that these differences may not always be as evident in the
behaviors of current leaders. This evolution may indicate changes in gender expectations, or
simply growth in individual leaders, who are willing to try new and possibly beneficial behaviors
regardless of their connotation as “masculine” or “feminine” (Christman & McClellan, 2012;
Haber, 2010; Levitt, 2010; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011).
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
5
For example, Habor (2010) noted the willingness of some of her female college student
leaders to take on more task-focused behaviors. Other female leaders in Habor’s study admitted
that they needed to work harder to embrace confrontation and accountability (which are
traditionally seen as masculine leadership skills). Christman and McClellan (2012) reported that
the female higher education academic administrators whom they surveyed found it difficult “to
fit their leadership into a neat, dichotomously gendered form” (p. 649). Christman and
McClellan (2012) further reported that some of their male participants “were careful to note what
seemed to us, and sometimes to them [emphasis added], a careful and deliberate foray into a
more feminine way of leading or knowing” (p. 661).
The Resilient Impact of Older Notions of Gender and Leadership
While these studies suggest that our notions of gender are shifting, cultural constructs are
resilient, and outdated gender notions may still guide us – or, as the italicized phrase above
suggests, they may obscure our motives, even to ourselves.
Gender does not only inform how we feel about ourselves as leaders. It also informs how
our followers feel about us, and how they expect us to behave and to lead (Christman &
McClellan, 2012; Haber, 2010; Levitt, 2010; Violanti & Jurczak, 2011). These expectations may
have an impact on leader behaviors. Christman and McClellan (2012) noted, “What people
perceive as their strengths and their ability to overcome difficulties, twistingly enough, may
project a gendered self that is problematic for onlookers [emphasis added]” (p. 651). In
describing the male participants in their study, they further noted, “whereas our [male]
participants wanted to describe themselves in more multidimensional gendered terms, they still
sought masculine labeling. To be perceived otherwise, they suggested, was not valued in the
collective – and was still problematic for themselves [emphasis added]” (p. 663).
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
6
Toward a Non-Gendered Leadership Paradigm
Gender notions of leadership ability are sometimes incorrect and often resistant to
change, and it is not easy to determine how to move beyond their influence. Reynolds (2011)
attempted to build “a theoretical foundation for conceiving servant-leadership as a genderintegrative approach to leadership” (p. 155). Her review of deconstruction feminism, which
quoted Dietz’s call for “dismantling gender’s inhibiting polarities of male and female altogether”
(p. 156), led the author to wonder if the best way to clarify the distinction between gender and
sex – and to align gender-based leadership styles with the aspirations of leaders – would be to
embrace a frame of leadership that largely skirts notions of gender completely. Perhaps the
relational leadership framework posited by Drath (2001) is just such a framework.
The author does not claim a new or unique viewpoint here. Others have also advocated
for androgynous leadership frames of reference. Levitt (2010) noted that “the androgynous
approach is meant to liberate men and women to more freely express themselves and their
masculine and feminine qualities (p. 69). Christman and McClellan (2012) called for a “middle
space” beyond “concepts of gender that were far too binary, even dichotomous, dichotomies that
prescribed one’s gender based on one’s sex” (p. 665). Habor (2010) noted that “androgynous
leadership approaches are associated with greater leadership effectiveness….” (p. 94).
There may also be other frames of leadership reference that fit the androgynous or
gender-neutral need as well or better than the relational leadership frames posited by Drath
(2001); however, his framework is compelling.
Drath’s Leadership Principles and Frame of Relational Leadership
Drath (2001) defined a leadership principle as “the set of ideas, taken for granted as true,
even obvious, that organize and describe the reality behind a definition [of leadership]” (p. 8).
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
7
Drath firmly differentiated leadership principles from leadership styles, stressing that a style may
flow out of a leadership principle, but the principle always comes first. Unlike styles, leadership
principles are “changed only slowly and with difficulty, because people do not easily part with a
way of making sense of something as important as leadership” (p. 11). In much the same way,
many leaders and followers in America today are reluctant to change strongly held beliefs about
how men and women should work, think, and behave.
Drath also differentiated the current (and past) leadership frame of reference, personal
leadership, from the emerging frame of leadership, which he called relational leadership.
Personal leadership focuses primarily on “the character and skill of the [individual] leader,” and
relational leadership focuses primarily on the relations between leaders, followers, and the
organizations and cultures that they all inhabit (p. xv). Though Drath does not suggest it directly,
it is tempting to connect personal leadership with more traditional, perhaps even patriarchal
forms of leadership, and to connect relational leadership with the types of leadership currently
arising in response to the influx of women and female leaders into the workplace.
Drath posited “three leadership knowledge principles available for use today: personal
dominance, interpersonal influence, and relational dialogue” (p. xvii). Personal dominance is
tied to the frame of personal leadership as described above, and interpersonal influence and
relational dialogue are tied to emerging notions of relational leadership.
Personal Dominance
Personal dominance is viewed by Drath as “a way of understanding leadership as the
personal quality or characteristic of a certain kind of person called a leader… [whose] leadership
is assumed to come from within, from an inner quality or characteristic...” (p. 12). Again, Drath
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
8
does not tie this principle to a particular gender, but he notes that it “was useful and worked well
in, say, Edwardian England,” a time of certain masculine dominance (p 12).
Interpersonal Influence
Interpersonal influence, the second leadership knowledge principle, “is a way of
understanding that leadership happens when a group of people agree and disagree, ally and
contend, concur and argue, plan and negotiate until someone emerges as the most influential
person and thus claims the role of leader” (pp. 13-14). This definition does not imply democratic
election of those who inhabit the actual official role of leader. Rather, it entails the intentional
reaching out by those leaders to their followers for information, support, and ideas.
This other-centered leadership process creates a relationship with those followers that
substantiates and confirms the actual office of leadership. Thus, it is also reminiscent of the
trust-building stage posited by Lencioni (2002) – that stage during which members of a team
engage their leader and each other in a free-wheeling exchange of ideas and passionate
arguments, at the end of which an important decision is made (and the primacy of the leader
remains – and is usually enhanced).
While Drath does not link this principle with either gender, this other-centered focus on
the relationship between leaders and their followers is clearly aligned with the relational aspects
of leadership that many researchers agree are intrinsic to female-gendered notions of leadership
(Christman & McClellan, 2012; Haber, 2011; Levitt, 2010; Reynolds, 2011). Many researchers
also agree that men are also using these relationship-building methods, and are thus taking
advantage of the leadership principle of interpersonal influence, even though they may not
recognize it or acknowledge it (Christman & McClellan, 2012; Haber, 2010; Levitt, 2010;
Violanti & Jurczak, 2011).
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
9
Relational Dialogue
The author may be on less firm ground with the third of Drath’s three leadership
principles, relational dialogue. Drath himself notes that it “is less familiar than the first two
principles… because it has just begun to emerge and is not yet fully formed” (p. 15).
The third principle, relational dialogue, is a way of understanding that leadership happens
when people who acknowledge shared work use dialogue and collaborative learning to
create contexts in which that work can be accomplished across the dividing lines of
differing perspectives, values, beliefs, cultures, and more generally what I will refer to as
differing worldviews. (Drath, 2001, pp. 14-15)
It is key to note here that relational dialogue occurs in environments where the differences
between people are both intransigent (I am A; you are B; I cannot make you A; you cannot make
me B) and equal (it is no better for me to be A than for you to be B; both A and B are OK).
Relational dialogue pertains to that place to which we as leaders and the educators of
leaders are ideally headed. It can be a model for the ideal method of handling issues of sex,
gender and leadership, because it posits a process for discovering optimal ways of leading that
does not require the ascendancy of either gender’s notions. It requires only the acceptance of
difference, and a commitment to finding shared leadership goals that are common to participants
despite those differences.
Conclusion: The Applicability of Drath’s Notion of the Adaptive Challenge
Drath (2001) stated that one of the key tasks of a leader is facing an adaptive challenge,
which he described as a challenge that is unforeseen and unprecedented, and which confuses
leaders and their followers so much that they cannot agree on even the most basic aspects of the
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
10
challenge (or even whether the challenge is a challenge at all). Drath also noted that “(f)acing an
adaptive challenge will therefore fundamentally change the community or organization” (p. 22).
Organizations and their leaders have clearly been faced with an adaptive challenge over
the past several decades as they have attempted to determine how to incorporate a massive influx
of creative, hard-working, and ingenious workers and managers (who happen to be female, and
sometimes act the way the culture expects females to act, and sometimes do not).
Regardless of whether men, women, employers, or their leaders recognize it, this influx
has constituted an adaptive challenge, and that challenge still confronts all of us. And, regardless
of some attempts to deny it, this challenge has already fundamentally changed every community
and organization. Women in some industries comprise over half of the population of managers,
and occupy jobs and positions that the average person one hundred years ago would not consider
possible. Their presence has already been felt; their presence has already changed all of us.
In the face of this challenge, there certainly has been confusion. Both women and men
have felt their natural leadership tendencies thwarted, derailed, and mischaracterized, regardless
of whether those tendencies conformed to gender expectations. Drath’s concept of relational
leadership acknowledges that intransigent and unique differences exist among leaders and
followers, and presents a model for proceeding toward leadership in a way that respects those
differences, and harnesses their unavoidable (but fruitful) conflict in the service of leadership.
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
11
References
Avolio, B. J., Mhatre, K., Norman, S. M., & Lester, P. (2009). The moderating effect of gender
on leadership intervention impact: An exploratory review. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 15, 325-341.
Christman, D. E., & McClellan, R. L. (2012). Discovering middle space: Distinctions of sex
and gender in resilient leadership. The Journal of Higher Education, 83, 648-670.
Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Habor, P. (2011). Iron sharpens iron: Exploring the experiences of female college student
leaders. Advancing Women in Leadership, 31, 86-101.
Hoobler, J. M., Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. J. (2011). Women’s underrepresentation in upper
management: New insights on a persistent problem. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 151156.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Levitt, D. H. (2010). Women and leadership: A developmental paradox? Adultspan: Theory,
Research, & Practice, 9, 66-75.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2012). Sex, gender, and aspirations to top management:
Who’s opting out? Who’s opting in? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 30-36.
Reynolds, K. (2011). Servant-leadership as gender-integrative leadership: Paving a path for
more gender-integrative organizations through leadership education. Journal of
Leadership Education, 10, 155-171.
THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON LEADERSHIP
12
Violanti, M. T., & Jurczak, L. P. (2010). The effect of sex and gender on perceptions of leaders:
Does situation make a difference? Advancing Women in Leadership, 31, 45-56.