GENDER STEREOTYPE AND INSTRUCTORS LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR: TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP

FRED OCHIENG WALUMBWA University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations E.mail: walumbwa@uiuc.edu LUCY A. OJODE Indiana University Kokomo Division of Business & Economics

Abstract We adopt the Full Range Leadership (FRL) model to explore male and female students' perception of instructor leadership behaviors. The model uses the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) instrument to measure the transactional and transformational leadership styles as perceived by followers. A sample of 429 students from a large Midwest university (57% female and 43% male) and 21 faculty members participated in the study. The data were collected in a period of two semesters based on faculty willingness to participate in the study. The results indicate certain gender differences in instructor leadership rating by students. Although the studys context is instructional setting, the results provide indications that may be contrary to the adoption of universal organizational practices to optimize on the efficiency of human capital.

GENDER STEREOTYPE AND INSTRUCTORS LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR: TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP

Research (e.g., Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Jacobs & McClelland, 1994) identify that a leader's gender moderates subordinates perception of leadership style and effectiveness. However, we have limited understanding of the impact of subordinates' gender on their perception of leadership behavior. The leadership-gender research remains focused on the leader despite the evidence that subordinates' responses to the leadership styles of managers may depend on the gender of both the manager and the subordinate (Futrell, 1984). Similarly, the extensive research on subordinate attributes moderating effects is silent on demographics such as gender (e.g., House & Mitchell, 1974; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Fetter, 1993). This gap in leadership research is particularly pronounced at the instructional levels where investigation has been confined to stereotypical male executive retrospective reports of leadership molding experiences in high schools and colleges (Bass, 1998). In this paper we address this gap by exploring the relationship between student stereotypes and perceived instructor leadership behavior. We adopt Bernstein, Roy, Srull, & Wickens (1988) definition of stereotype as an impression or schema of an entire group of people. Most stereotypes focus on observable attributes such as age, education, race, and gender. For example, the notion that older individuals are more positive self-descriptors than younger people (Chiroboga & Thurner, 1975), or the belief that people with limited formal education and those that are highly educated find difficulty working together (Barnard, 1938). In this study we seek to evaluate gender stereotypical effects on student rating of instructors with a focus on instructors leadership style. Assuming that leadership models may be applied in instructor-student relationships, we adopt the Full Range Leadership (FRL) model to examine the impact of male and female students perception of instructor leadership style. Although Bass et al (1996) examined FRL model and gender consideration, they focused on non-academic setting and investigated the effect of the leaders' gender. In a similar study, Comer, Jolson, Dubinsky, and Yammarino (1995) compared male and female subordinates' responses to a manager's leadership style. For a triad of a female sales manager and two subordinate salespersons (one male), Comer et al (1995) designed a questionnaire instrument for the subordinates to assess the managers' leadership style, the salespersons' satisfaction with supervision and the salespersons' selling performance. They found salesmen to be most responsive to leaders displaying individualized consideration and transactional leadership styles (contingent rewards or management-by-exception). The saleswomen on the other hand preferred charismatic leaders and those that adopted intellectually stimulating methods. Our study mirrors Bass et al (1996) on the aspect of gender and Comer et al (1995) with regard to subordinates, but our focus on instructional setting distinguishes our approach from these studies. As the provision of worker training services spreads outside the traditional training institutions (Business Week, October 18, 1999:76), it becomes necessary to have a better understanding of the instructional clientele and their expectations in order for these institutions to maintain the provision of value added. It is therefore important that we understand students
2

needs in relation to one of the distinguishing features of the traditional training institutionsthe instructor. Our study seeks to address one of these needs by employing the FRL model to explore gender differences in students perception of instructor leadership behavior. A secondary motivation for this study is to evaluate the robustness of the FRL model. A large number of studies have adopted the FRL framework to model gender differences in a variety of settings (Bass, 1998) with consistent empirical evidence for the theory (Bass & Avolio, 1997). However, we are unaware of any study that investigates gender differences in students perception of instructor leadership behavior. The Full Range Leadership Theoretical Framework The Full Range Leadership model proposes that certain characteristic outcome variables result from transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. We omitted the third component of the FRL modelthe laissez-faire leadership because its single leadership dimension makes it inappropriate for the instructional setting. Outcomes from transformational and transactional leadership behaviors include the degree to which the leader might elicit extra effort from his/her followers, leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leader. Transformational leadership style comprises charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Leaders who demonstrate transformational leadership behaviors provoke emotional response in followers (Druscat, 1994). They stimulate followers to change their beliefs, values, capabilities, and motives in order to raise performance beyond self-interest for the good of the organization (Bass, 1985, 1990; Burns, 1978; Tichy & Devenna; Burke, 1986). Transactional leadership consists of contingent reward, active management-by-exception (MBE-A), and passive management-by-exception (MBE-P). This leadership style focuses on follower motivation through (extrinsic) rewards or discipline. Consequently, leaders who adopt this style of leadership clarify kinds of rewards and punishment that followers expect for various behaviors (Bass, 1998). Leaders may actively monitor deviations from standards to identify mistakes and errorsMBE-A, or they may wait (passively) for subordinates to err before initiating corrective actionMBE-P (Bass, 1985). Several studies have addressed the relationship of subordinate satisfaction and leader effectiveness to transformational and transactional leadership styles. These studies demonstrate that transformational leadership is associated more with followers satisfaction and willingness to exert extra effort to achieve organizational goals (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993, 1995; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). There is no evidence from these studies however that indicates that transformational and transactional leadership styles are mutually exclusive, neither is any normative claim made for the superiority of a given behavior. Rather, the FRL research reveals that transactional leadership style is equally important and sometimes constitutes a necessary counterpart to transformational leadership style (Druscat, 1994). The transactional leadership style may even be preferable in some cases such as in stable organizations or during times of economic stability (Bass & Avolio1990). Gender and Social Behavior Behavioral gender differences may be viewed in terms of Agentic and Communal qualities (Eagly, 1987). Agentic qualities involve assertiveness, control, and drive or
3

purposefulness and are characterized by aggressiveness, ambition, dominance, independence, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and decisiveness. Communal qualities on the other hand represent concern with the welfare of other people. These qualities include ability to devote self to others, caring, affectionate, emotional expressiveness, empathy, helpfulness, and sympathy among others. Empirical evidence indicates that males in general exhibit agentic characterized while females tend to exhibit communal characteristics (Bem, 1974; Rosener, 1990; Ruble, 1983). Since agentic qualities appeared to be more critical for survival outside the home in paid employment where men traditionally outnumbered women (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991), males may have been culturally institutionalized to exhibit agentic tendecies (Williams & Best, 1982). Similarly, females disproportionate domestic assignments may have institutionalized them to exhibit communal tendencies (Williams & Best, 1982). Cultural environmental imposition and biological role mental context provide a framework for experience internalization that could lead males to identify with, emphasize, and perceive agentically-inclined leadership behaviors and styles while females identify with, emphasize, and perceive communally-inclined behaviors and styles. Empirical evidence indicates that male and female leaders exhibit aspects of behavioral qualities that are consistent with the agentic-communal characterization. In an investigation of leadership behaviors from four continents for instance, Rosener (1990) distinguished male and female leaders according to agentic and communal qualities. In their self-reports male leaders tended to describe their job performances as a series of 'transactions' in which subordinates were rewarded or penalized according to their performance or lack thereof. Female leaders on the other hand advocated participation, power sharing, and self-worth enhancement. Similarly, Davidson and Ferrario (1992) found evidence from a sample of UK leaders indicating that men rated higher on structuring in consistency with transactional leadership style. On the other hand, women rated higher on supportive and considerate behavior in consistency with transformational leadership style. Eagly and Johnson (1990) also observed a "tendency for women to adopt a more democratic or participative style and for men to adopt a more autocratic or directive style. Ninety-two percent of the available comparisons went in the direction of more democratic behavior for women than men" (p. 255). This observation is consistent with female leaders higher scores on all components of transformation leadership style that Bass et al (1996) also observed. Instructor Leadership Style and Students Gender Transformational Leadership Style and Gender We use the link between leadership style and gender to explore the relationship between students and their perception of instructor leadership styles. Throughout the investigation we recognize that other mediating factors could influence students perception of the instructor leadership style. For example, students may rate instructors who award good grades as exhibiting characteristics consistent with transformational leadership behaviors because they like them. However, we believe it is less likely that students will pick the related items consistently since they are unaware of the item groupings.

While both transactional and transformational instructors would attempt to sense students felt needs, transformational instructors may be more likely to probe deeper to identify and arouse students current and long-term considerations including the dormant or higher order needs. Capable transformational instructor would have the ability to convert the student's latent desires into current needs. Such instructors could broaden the scope and magnify the strength of students' wants, desires, aspirations, and needs. The result is a transfer of energies and motivational climate that encourages students to surpass their own expectations and personal objectives to realize instructional goals. Such a supportive or communal and nurturing dimension of leadership behavior that is concerned with people and the development of their capabilities and maintenance of relationships conform to stereotypical female behavior (Davidson & Ferrario, 1992; Rosener, 1990). Thus women, in comparison to men are more likely to be democratic, interpersonally oriented, and less task oriented in certain situations (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990)behaviors consistent with transformational leadership style. We therefore propose that since female students are more likely to exhibit characteristics that are consistent with transformational leadership behavior, these students will be more likely to perceive and rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership attributes. H1: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as displaying transformational leadership style. Charisma. In a study of male and female leaders' subordinates responses, Bass et al (1996) suggest that women are more likely to temper criticism with positive feedback and are more likely to be described as charismatic. Consistent with Rosener (1990), these results render support to the anecdotal evidence that women leaders are more likely to be charismatic (Bass, 1985). Females may therefore be expected to perceive factors associated with charisma such as feelings of esteem, affection, admiration, respect, and trust than their male counterparts. Further, due to communal behavioral qualities, women may be conditioned to suppress negativity, ambition, dynamism, and willingness to take risks, feelings that may promote self doubt (Heinen, McGlauchlin, Legeros, & Freeman, 1975). As a result of this conditioning, female students in contrast to their male counterparts may be 'crisis prone' and may tend to 'feel needy of intervention' (Comer & Jolson, 1991). Such needs may draw female students to view instructors as leader figures thus increasing the likelihood of accrediting instructors with charisma. Female students may therefore be expected to be more likely than their male counterparts to perceive and rate instructors with charisma. H1a: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as charismatic. Inspirational Motivation. Inspirational leaders arouse follower enthusiasm by appealing to "faith" rather than "reason" and to "emotions" rather than "intelligence" (Yukl, 1981). Inspirational leaders also tend to eschew gradual step-by-step approaches and prefer "quantum leaps." The higher emotional sensitivity of females as a result of their greater skills at encoding and decoding emotional messages may render females more susceptible to approaches that rely on emotions. For instance, female students may ascribe concerns that result from lack of ability or faulty techniques to imagination and emotions. According to Licht and Dweck (1984) for example, feedback given to female students leads them to think of themselves as incompetent, whereas male students tend to conclude that any failure is the result of lack of
5

effort or some other situational factors. Females were found to be much more likely than males to attribute failure, especially in school-related tasks to lack of ability, even in the face of objective evidence that they performed better academically than their male counterparts (Dweck & Gillard, 1975). We therefore hypothesize that female students higher emotional sensitivity may predispose them to ascribe instructor attendance and feedback to inspirational motivation. H1b: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as providing inspirational motivation. Intellectual Stimulation. In contrast to inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation enhances performance through the mind rather than emotions. Intellectually stimulating leaders challenge their followers to reject conformity and guide them into novel approaches. Intellectual stimulation within instructional setting thus entails the encouragement of students to work "smarter" rather than "harder" (Sujan, 1986). The instructor guides students in structuring their thoughts to work "smarter." Eagly and Johnson (1990) found male students to be more likely to employ rational linear thinking while their female counterparts tended to rely on intuition and to employ non-traditional approaches to solving problems. Research also indicates that unlike their male counterparts, females who are highly motivated to achieve (such as college students) do not always establish traditional goals for themselves and they do not always persist on predictable molds when confronted with failure (Dweck, 1986). Such right-brained approaches may require more instructor guidance to fit into the traditional institutional structures that may mean that female students have more opportunity to attribute instructor actions to intellectual stimulation. H1c: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as providing intellectual stimulation. Individualized Consideration. Leaders who use individualized consideration tend to personalize interaction with followers in order to remain responsive to each follower's individual needs (Bass 1985). As a behavioral attribute, individualized consideration is consistent with the culturally ascribed female communal characteristics (Rosener 1990). Consequently, females may be expected to perceive and acknowledge such behaviors more than the males. For instance, Lee and Alvares (1977) found that female subordinates were more likely than their male counterparts to describe their leaders as exhibiting individually considerate behaviors. Therefore, we hypothesize that female students are more likely than their male counterparts to evaluate their instructors as engaging in individualized considerate behaviors. H1d: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as individually considerate. Transactional Leadership Style and Gender Transactional leadership behavior emphasizes task structuring and its accomplishment and focuses on the exchange that takes place between a leader and followers (Bass, 1998). The 'transactions' or relationship between the leader and follower are enhanced by a sequence of bargains (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997) and involves the use of incentives to influence effort as well as clarification of the work needed to obtain rewards (Bass, 1985).
6

Previous research identifies association between components of transactional leadership, gender and resultant outcomes (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990). For instance, due to their agentic stereotypical inclination, males tend to respond to the task structure and identify more with the transactional components of leadership situation (Davidson & Ferrario, 1992). The transactional leadership style is based on a rational model that is compatible with the expectancy theory that underlies traditional thinking (Comer et al., 1995). Such rational approaches are more consistent with agentic rather than communal characteristics. Female students are therefore predicted to be less likely to identify with transactional qualities and may be less likely to rate instructors as displaying transactional leadership behaviors. H2: Female students are less likely to rate their instructors as displaying transactional leadership style. Contingent Reward. The contingent reward or reinforcement dimension of transactional leadership is based on the assumption that reward is the overriding principle for effective performance. Follower needs are identified and then linked to both what the leader wants to achieve and the rewards associated with the effort of the follower. Instructional setting is ideal for investigating whether student perception of instructor's use of contingent reinforcement varies by gender. Most instructors specify the benefits that students receive if a predetermined short-term performance is reached. Goals for students can include the contribution of the course to grades and overall GPA that determines student competitiveness, job prospects, and 'quality.' The instructor can reward successful performance with good grade, praise, commendation, etc., while penalizing poor performance by withholding reward. Few gender differences have been noticed in the way people respond to penalty or "punishment" that is "contingent" on performance (Comer et al., 1995). However, scanty literature indicates that women may be more concerned than men with "punishment" that is perceived as arbitrary or unmerited (Shul, Remington, & Berl, 1990). Because of their communal behavioral inclination and non-linear approaches to tasks, female students may be less likely to view instructors as incorporating all their inputs in considering the reward. This may further mean that female students are less likely to perceive a stronger linkage between their efforts and their achievements (expectancy). Given the above argument, it is unlikely that female students will perceive instructors as users of contingent reward. H2a: Female students are less likely to rate instructors as employing contingent reward. Management-By-Exception. Management-by-exception (MBE) provides for little or no contact between followers and their leaders. Leaders take action only when things go wrong (active) or when standards are unmet (passive). Active MBE represents a style where leaders take an active role by continuously monitoring followers performance to avoid any possible error that might emerge while passive MBE characterizes leaders who intervene and take action only after the occurrence of a problem (Yammarino, Spanger, & Bass, 1993). Although MBE may provide opportunity for student initiative and pro-action, the emphasis on correction that focuses on negative variance or error may be counteractive. Research indicates that male leaders are more likely to practice MBE (Bass, 1985) and that males are generally more responsive to leaders displaying individualized consideration and those that use contingent reward or management-by-exception (Comer et al., 1995). Female subordinates on the other hand prefer
7

contingent reward and those capable of intellectually stimulating them (Comer et al., 1995). If female students in contrast to their male counterparts are more needy of instructor attention and intervention as argued earlier, then female students may tend to view instructor intervention as normal. Consequently, female students are less likely to perceive instructors as managing-byexception. H2b: Female students are less likely to rate instructors as managing-by-exception. Students' Responses to Instructor Leadership Styles A secondary purpose of this study was to investigate male and female student responses to instructor leadership style, specifically students' perception of the instructors ability to elicit extra effort, leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with instructor. According to the FRL model, transformational leadership style is positively associated with follower motivation, satisfaction, willingness to put extra effort, and perception of leader effectiveness (Shamir et al., 1998). Further, empirical evidence associates transformational leadership style with follower level of satisfaction and performance (Bycio et al., 1995; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Shamir et al (1993), for example, reviewed more than 20 studies that found transformational leadership to be positively associated with followers performances and perceptions. Lowe et al (1996) reviewed another 35 empirical studies of transformational leadership and found transformational leadership positively correlated with followers rated and objectively measured performance. Hypothesis 3 following is based on the suggested link between transformational leadership behavior and followers rating of leader effectiveness, ability to elicit extra effort and satisfaction with the leader. Based on the earlier argument and prediction that females are more likely to identify with behaviors that are consistent with transformational leadership style, we predict that female students will be more likely to rate instructors higher on these three outcome variables. H3: Female students are more likely to rate instructors as effective, eliciting extra effort and satisfaction. Methods Measures of Leadership The study uses a modified version of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) to test the above hypotheses. The MLQ focuses on individual behaviors as observed by the followers and assesses the leadership behaviors that motivate followers to achieve expected performance. Used widely in various settings to study transactional and transformational leadership styles, the instrument has shown consistent internal reliability (Bass & Avolio, 1997). It contains 36 items that distinguish seven dimensions of transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire leadership (not considered in the current study) styles. It also includes nine items measuring learner willingness to put extra effort, the effectiveness of the leader, and satisfaction with the leader. The MLQ items are based on a 5-point scale (0=Not at all to 4=Frequently, if not always). A pair of rating forms was administered per class: the selfrating form for instructors and rater form for students. Although we collected the instructor self8

rating information, the instructor sub-sample size was too small to be used in the current study. We also modified the FRL framework and existing instrumentation to fit the instructional setting (Walumbwa & Kuchinke, 1999). Sample and Procedure We collected data from 478 students from a large Midwest research oriented university. The non-random sample selection was based on the faculty willingness to participate in the study. Because of the nature of the study, we selected relatively small classes to allow for student-instructor interaction. Consequently, we collected data from six colleges. The student sample included undergraduates and graduates. Due to missing information, about 10 percent of the questionnaires were unusable. This loss could have arisen from the fact that the instrument specifically requires respondents to leave items blank if they do not know the answer. The remaining sample of 90 percent (N=429) usable questionnaires did not appear to be statistically different from those that were omitted. The final sample consisted of 57% female and 43% male and averaged 25.24 (SD=7.12) years in age ranging from 18 to 53 years old. Of the total participants, 226 were undergraduates (47% female) and averaged 21.61 (SD=2.68) years in age and 4.84 (SD=2.74) years of part-time working experience. The graduates (61% female) averaged 29.28 (SD=8.26) years in age and full-time working experience of 5.02 (SD=7.73) years. The faculty (29% female) averaged 47.33 (SD=7.55) years in age with 19.57 (SD=7.69) years of full time working experience. Results The focus of this study was the comparison of female and male students' perception of instructors' style of leadership. Tables 1 and 2 following provide summary statistics, reliabilities, and correlation matrices for the seven leadership scales. The descriptive statistics reveal ranges of mean scores and standard deviations that are consistent with those reported in previous studies (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1997). Save for the combined transactional leadership dimension, all the measures on internal consistency assessed using Cronbachs alpha ranges from =. 70 to = 91 meeting the generally accepted criteria of = .70 (Nunally, 1967). We also combined MBE-A and MBE-P into MBE to meet the study criteria of =. 70. The inability of the combined transactional leadership measure to meet the = .70 criterion is probably contributed by the negative correlation between the contingent reward scale and the MBE components. Despite this potential shortcoming (Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 1998), the instrument is reasonably reliable at tapping students perception of their instructors leadership behaviors. ----------------------------------Insert 1 & 2 Table Here ------------------------------------

Table 3 following provides the results of the regression analysis. Since the demographic variables of age and level of educational achievement affect leadership behavior ratings, we controlled for these variables in our analysis. Similarly, level of academic achievement was divided into undergraduates and graduates. In hypotheses 1 and 1a to 1d we predicted that
9

female students would be more likely to rate their instructors as displaying transformational leadership behavior and its corollaries. As Table 3 indicates, these hypotheses were supported for the combined transformational leadership style (p<.05), for charisma (p<.05), for intellectual stimulation (p<.10), and for individualized consideration (p<.05). Female students tended to rate instructors with transformational leadership behaviors than their male counterparts. ----------------------------------------Insert Tables 3, 4a, and 4b Here -----------------------------------------To evaluate the robustness of the models, we ran separate regression analyses for undergraduates and graduates while controlling for age. Tables 4a and 4b following provide the results of these analyses. Save for the inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation items for which the gender coefficients are not statistically significant, the undergraduate sample results (Table 4a) support the hypothesis that female students were more likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behavior. Table 4a indicates that the hypotheses were supported for the combined transformational leadership style (p<.10), for charisma (p<.05), and for individualized consideration (p<.01). Female undergraduates were more likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behavior. The graduate students were a little different from their undergraduate counterparts. Save for the individualized consideration scale, gender did not appear to discriminate the graduate students rating of instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behavior. As Table 4b indicates, female graduate students compared to their male counterparts were more likely to rate instructors as exhibiting individualized consideration (p<.10). These results indicate that female students in general were more likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors and that gender appears to discriminate students perception of instructors transformational leadership behavior. Hypotheses 2 through 2b address the moderating effect of students gender on their perception of instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership behavior. We predicted that female students compared to their male counterparts are less likely to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership behavior and as employing contingent reward and MBE systems. As Table 3 indicates, the results support the hypotheses that female students compared to their male counterparts are less likely to rate their instructors as displaying transactional leadership style (p<.10) and that female students are less likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as managing-by-exception (p<.001). The hypothesis that female students are less likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as employing contingent reward was rejected. These results indicate that regardless of gender, students generally view instructors as employing a system of contingent reward. However, unlike their female counterparts, male students are more likely to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership style and as employing a system of management by exception. Table 4a shows that undergraduates gender (controlling for age) discriminates students perception of instructors use of contingent reward system but in the opposite direction to our prediction. That is, female undergraduates are more likely (not less likely) than their male
10

counterparts to rate instructors as employing a system of contingent reward. This anomaly is probably accounted for by the negative correlation between the contingent reward and MBE items. The anomaly disappears when we use the graduate sub-sample. Table 4b shows results that support the hypotheses that female graduates compared to their male counterparts are less likely to rate their instructors as displaying transactional leadership style (p<.10) and that female graduates are less likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as managing-byexception (p<.05). The hypothesis that female students are less likely than their male counterparts to rate instructors as employing contingent reward is rejected for the graduate students. These results indicate that regardless of gender, graduate students generally view instructors as employing a system of contingent reward but unlike their female counterparts, male graduates are more likely to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership style and as employing a system of management by exception. The final hypothesis addressed the relationship between gender and students' perception of the instructors ability to elicit extra effort, instructor effectiveness, and satisfaction. As Tables 3, 4a, and 4b indicate, we did not find statistically significant results for the hypothesis that female students are more likely to rate instructors as effective, eliciting extra effort and satisfaction. However, as Table 4a indicates, female undergraduates were more likely than their male counterparts to perceive instructors as eliciting extra effort, a perception that was not shared by the female graduates. Tables 3, 4a, and 4b also provide interesting results on the moderating effect of student age on their perception. Table 3 indicates that younger students (under 25) tended to rate instructors as exhibiting charisma (p<.10), employing individualized consideration (p<.10), exhibiting transactional leadership style (p<.01), and as employing a system of management byexception (p<.05). Further, Table 4a indicates that younger undergraduates tended to rate instructors as exhibiting intellectually stimulating characteristic (p<.10) and as employing contingent reward system (p<.10). Table 4a also indicates that younger undergraduates tended to rate instructors as effective and as satisfactory. Older undergraduates on the other hand tended to rate instructors as exhibiting transactional leadership style (p<.10) and as employing a system of management by-exception (p<.01). Similarly, Table 4b indicates that older graduate students tended to rate instructors as exhibiting charisma (p<.01), as employing a system of individualized consideration (p<.01), and as employing contingent reward system (p<.01). Table 4b also indicates that older graduate students tended to rate instructors positively in all the outcome variables. They rated instructors as eliciting extra effort (p<.01), as effective (p<.05), and as satisfactory (p<.001). Younger graduate students on the other hand tended to rate instructors as employing a system of management by-exception (p<.10).

Discussion In this study we sought to investigate whether gender discriminates students perception of instructors leadership behaviors. In the first hypothesis, we predicted that more females than males would rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors. We found evidence that is largely supportive of this hypothesis in consistency with previous studies (Bass, 1998; Druscat, 1994; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990) that support the notion that females are likely to identify with attributes conforming to transformational leadership.
11

Although previous studies were contextualized in traditional work-oriented organizations while the current studys context is instructional, the supportive evidence is consistent with the robustness of the transformations leadership behavior dimension of the FRL model. Lack of statistically significant association between the outcome variables and gender may however be the result of emphasis on gender equality in academic settings that may confound the relationship between these variables. The structured nature of academic programs may make it difficult for students to decompose their experience at the school into components that relate to their interaction with individual course instructors. For instance, it may be difficult to define noncontingent reward in a classroom setting. Hypothesis 2 proposed that male students as opposed to female students would rate instructors high on transactional leadership attributes. This hypothesis was also largely supported and the evidence is consistent with previous research (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990) that identifies males with behaviors consistent with transactional leadership qualities. However, the results did not hold for contingent reward but contradicted our hypothesis in the undergraduate sub-sample thereby supporting Comers et al. (1995) argument that female subordinates tend to prefer demonstration of contingent reward (Table 4a). The correlation matrix shows a similar pattern of negative correlation between the contingent reward and MBE leadership scale. On the other hand, the matrix registered positive correlation between the contingent reward item and all the transformational leadership behavior items. Our finding on the gender-contingent reward rating thus revisits an important question regarding the classification of contingent reward under transactional leadership behavior. Is the classification of contingent reward under transactional leadership dimension appropriate (Goodwin et al., 1998) or is there a need to revise the entire MLQ instrument for future studies? Hypothesis 3 stated that by virtue of their likelihood to rate instructors with transformational leadership behavior, female students would rate instructors as eliciting extra effort, effective, and as satisfying. This hypothesis was not supported. This result may not be surprising given the structured nature of academic setting such as the requirement that students take certain classes regardless of whether they like the course or not. Such restrictions in instructional setting confound the relationship in as far as students may register for certain classes merely to graduate or to meet registration conditions. It may be difficult to capture the true relationships in such situations where the end justifies the means. Students may reserve their decision about the perception of a particular instructors ability to elicit extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction until they receive their final grades. Limitations and Implications for Future Research While the study shows promise for gender-leadership style-instructional setting research, caution is necessary in interpreting the results due to constraints such as sample homogeneity. A larger and more diverse student body in terms of ethnicity and other attributes could constitute a rich and better testing sample. Also, because there were only 21 faculty (15 males and 6 females), leader subjects were insufficient for assessing the impact of the match between female/male students with female/male instructors. Future research may consider the effects of matching follower-leader gender that could affect subordinate perceptions and outcome variables (Comer et al., 1995).
12

Another constraint of the present study is that since leadership qualities require longer and closer relationship to discern the use of FRL model in academic setting may be limited by the nature of student-instructor relationship within a semester. Perhaps the model could be more applicable among graduates and their academic advisors where instructor-student interaction entails a much longer time in which to discern the dynamics at play. Transformational leadership behavior evokes building a strong and productive instructor-student relationship by animating collaboration between the instructor and assisting in the production of a widely set norms, values, and beliefs consistent with continuous improvement for students (Leithwood, Menzies, Jantzi, & Leithwood, 1996). However, since transformational leadership introduces a number of complex variables that in some cases appear to defy measurement, presenting quantitative and qualitative assessment of these dynamics particularly in an academic setting portends a great challenge to researchers (Gold & Quatroche, 1994). Despite these limitations the study provides some intriguing results that hitherto were not identified in the literature. In general, the results indicating that female consistently rated instructors higher on transformational leadership behaviors is consistent with the notion that gender differences may modify follower perception of leadership behavior. The findings further reinforce Druscats (1994) call for more research that explore gender differences in leadership styles and in transformational and transactional leadership styles in particular from subordinate perspective to clarify and possibly replicate the current findings. In conclusion, the results of this study serve as a beginning for the exploration of issues adjoining the gender-leadership behavior interface in academic setting. This is particularly important at a time when organizations are increasingly defining themselves in terms of know-how and as intellectual capital becomes the distinguishing value-creating mechanism for competitive organizations (Leonard-Barton, 1995).

REFERENCES Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical report. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden. Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance and beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(Winter), 19-31. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, Military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

13

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications for transactional leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. In R.W. Woodman & W.A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol.4) (pp. 231-272). Greenwich: JAI Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego: Academic Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form, rater, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Redwood City: Mind Garden. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto: Mind Garden. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater L. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(1), 5-34. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. Bernstein, D. A., & Roy, E. J., Srull, T. K., & Wickens, C. D. (1988). Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Burke, W. W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivasta (Ed.), Executive power (pp. 51-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Basss (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(2), 112-114. Comer, L. B. & Jolson, M. A. (1991). Perception of gender stereotypic behavior: An exploratory study of women in selling. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, XI(Winter), 43-59. Comer, L. B., Jolson, M. A., Dubinsky, A. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1995). When the sales manager is a woman: An exploration into the relationship between salespeople's gender and their responses to leadership styles. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15(4), 17-32. Davidson, M. & Ferrario, M. (1992). A comparative study of gender and management style. Target Management Development Review, 5(1), 13-17.

14

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational psychology, 7(1), 19-34. Druscat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 99-119. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational forces affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048. Dweck, C. S., Gillard, D. (1975). Expectancy statements as determinants of reactions to failure: Sex differences in persistence and expectancy change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(6), 1077-1084. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-57. Forgionne, G. A., & Peters, V. E. (1982). Differences in job motivation and satisfaction among female and male managers. Human Relations, 35(2), 101-118. Futrell, C. M. (1984). Salespeople's perceptions of sex differences in sales managers. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, IV(May), 19-23. Goodwin, V., Wofford, J. C., & Whittington, J. C. (1998). An empirically based extension of the transformational leadership construct. Paper presented to the 1998 Academy of Management Meeting. San Diego, CA. Gold, J. A., & Quatroche, T. J. (1994). Student government: A testing ground for transformational leadership principles. New Directions for student services,66(Summer) 31-43. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Supervisors evaluations and surbodinates perception of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695702. Heinen, J. S., McGlauchlin, D., Legeros, C., & Freeman, J. (1975). Developing the woman manager. Personnel Journal, 54(5), 282-86. House, R. J. & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), 81-97.

15

Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902. Jacobs, R. L. & McClelland, D. C. (1994). Moving up the corporate ladder: A longitudinal study of leadership motive pattern and managerial success in women and men. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46(1), 32-41. Lee, D. M. & Alvares, K. M. (1977). Effects of sex description and evaluations of supervisory behavior in a simulated industrial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 405-10. Leithwood, K., Menzies, T., Jantzi, D., & Leithwood, J. (1996). School restructuring, transformational leadership and the amelioration of teacher burnout. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 9(3), 199-215. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellspring of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interactions of childrens achievement orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 628636.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Fetter, R., (1993). Substitutes for leadership and the management of professionals. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 1-44. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(November-December), 119-125. Ruble, T. L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles, 9(3), 397-402. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effect of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Surbodinates attitudes, unit characteristics, and superior appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 4(4), 387-594. Shul, P. L., Remington, S., & Berl, R. L. (1990). Assessing gender differences in relationships between supervisory behaviors and job-related outcomes in the industrial salesforce. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, X(Summer), 1-16.
16

Sujan, H. (1986). Smarter versus harder: An exploratory attributional analysis of salespeople's motivation. Journal of Marketing Research, XXIII(February), 41-9. Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: John Wiley & Sons. U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). Employment and earnings Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Vinacke, W. E. (1952). The Psychology of Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. Walumbwa F. O., & Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). HRD faculty as leaders: The application of the Full Range Leadership theory to graduate level HRD instruction. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), The Academy of Human Resource Development. Conference Proceedings (pp.1210-1216). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development. Williams, J. E. & Best D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty-nation study. Beverly Hills: Sage. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. J. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings: In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measure of leadership (pp. 151-169). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102. Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Eaglewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall

17

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations among Leadership Scales, and Outcome Variables N 1. Transformational 2. Charisma 3. Inspirational Motivation 4. Intellctual Stimulation 5. Individualized Consideration 6. Transactional 7. Contingent Reward 8. Mgt-ByException 9. Laissez-Faire 10. Extra Effort 11. Effectiveness 12. Satisfaction 6. Transactional 10. Contingent Reward 11. Mgt-ByException 12. Laissez-Faire 10. Extra Effort 11. Effectiveness 12. Satisfaction *P < .05; **p < .01 20 8 4 4 4 12 4 8 4 3 4 2 5 .33** .71** -.13** .05 .69** .70** .68** M 3.50 3.40 3.63 3.59 3.49 2.67 3.60 2.20 1.71 3.58 3.63 3.74 6 .53** .78** .18** .34** .35** .34** -.12* -.33** .70** .75** .75** .45** -.11* -.13** -.15** SD .85 .87 1.02 1.02 1.08 .56 1.05 .80 .72 1.25 1.19 1.27 7 .91 .76 .70 .70 .74 .58 .74 .70 .51 .86 .80 .70 8 1 .94** .85** .83** .86** .43** .82** -.10* -.28** .75** .79** .76** 9 2 3 4

.74** .70** .74** .40** .73** -.05 -.23** .69** .72** .68** 10 .57** .63** .38** .70** -.08 -.20** .61** .69** .63** 11 .65** .35** .71** -.11* -.27** .61** .64** .65**

-.25** -.33** -.32**

.74** .70**

.70**

18

TABLE 2 Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for the Study Variable by Gender [Female Sample (N=245) Below Diagonal and Male Sample (N=184) Above Diagonal]
1 2 Mean Std. Deviation Alpha () Transformational 3.57 .84 Charisma 3.46 .86 Inspirational 3.68 1.05 Motivation 7. Intellectual 3.66 1.03 Stimulation 8. Individualized 3.59 1.02 Consideration 9. Transactional 2.62 .53 10. Contingent 3.66 1.10 Reward 11. Management2.12 .70 By-Exception 12. Laissezz-Faire 1.68 .73 13. Extra Effort 3.64 1.19 14. Effectiveness 3.66 1.20 15. Satisfaction 3.77 1.29 *P < .05; **p < .01 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 3 4 3.41 .86 .91 .93** .84** .82** .84** .34** .80** -.24** -.34** .75** .79** .75** 5 3.30 .87 .77 .94** .75** .67** .70** .32** .70** -.19** -.28** .64** .70** .65** .56** .61** .34** .70** -.16* -.21** .61** .67** .60** .64** .27** .70** -.24** -.35** .67** .69** .69** .24** .68** -.26** -.36** .70** .68** .68** 6 3.58 .96 .63 .83** .73** 7 3.50 .99 .70 .84** .72** .60** 8 3.36 1.16 .78 .89** .78** .67** .67** 9 2.74 .60 .64 .56** .55** .44** .48** .45** 10 3.54 .99 .70 .84** .76** .71** .73** .76** .59** .50** .74** .25** .30** .31** .32** -.22** -.39** .71** .74** .76** .58** -.21** -.23** -.24** 11 2.34 .72 .70 .11 .17* .06 .10 .04 .83** .05 12 1.74 .92 .40 -.22** -.18* .20** -.18* .23** .11 -.26** .31** -.30** -.37** -.36** 13 3.50 1.32 .90 .74** .73** .61** .53** .68** .40** .69** .02 -.21** .74** .75** 14 3.59 1.18 .81 .79** .76** .73** .56** .72** .42** .76** -.01 -.28** .74** .84** 15 3.70 1.24 .70 .76** .72** .68** .57** .70** .37** .73** -.04 -.29** .74** .84**

.90 .75 .74 .72 .70 .52 .78 .70 .62 .82 .80 .70

TABLE 3 Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable
Dependent Dependent Variable: Variable: Charisma Transformational Constant 3.656 3.580 Gender -.168* -.178* Age -.131 -.214 Degree .023 .100 R2 .013 .017 Adjusted R2 .006 .010 F 1.847 2.396* N 429 429 Independent Dependent Dependent Variable Variable: Variable: Contingent Mgt -ByReward Exception Constant 3.627 2.122 Gender -.149 .208*** Age -158 -.208* Degree .309** .279*** R2 .017 .049 Adjusted R2 .010 .042 F 2.455* 7.259*** N 429 429 p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01***P<.001 Independent Variable Dependent Variable: Inspirational Motivation 3.698 -.089 .025 -.089 .003 -.004 .497 429 Dependent Variable: Extra Effort 3.756 -.139 -.140 -.021 .006 -.001 .867 429 19 Dependent Variable: Intellectual Stimulation 3.680 -.156 .009 -.063 .007 .000 .997 429 Dependent Variable: Effectiveness 3.559 -.075 .068 .093 .004 -.003 .582 429 Dependent Variable: Individualized Consideration 3.744 -.241* -.260 .080 .019 .012 2.760* 429 Dependent Variable: Satisfaction 3.716 -.087 -.063 .197 .005 -.002 .728 429 Dependent Variable: Transactional Leadership 2.624 .089 -.191** .289*** .051 .044 7.596*** 429

TABLE 4a Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable (Undergraduates Controlling for Age)
Dependent Dependent Variable: Variable: TransforCharisma mational Constant 3.792 3.704 Gender -.197* -.182 Age -.009 -.009 R2 .023 .023 Adjusted R2 .014 .014 F 2.545 2.647 N 226 226 Independent Dependent Dependent Variable Variable: Variable: Contingent Management Reward By-Exception Constant 4.134 1.775 Gender .191* -.209 Age .016** -.012 R2 .026 .057 Adjusted R2 .017 .048 F 2.996* 6.714*** N 226 226 p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***P<.001 Independent Variable Dependent Variable: Inspirational Motivation 3.750 -.129 -.003 .006 -.003 .648 226 Dependent Variable: Extra Effort 3.932 -.246 -.011 .016 .008 1.872 226 Dependent Variable: Intellectual Stimulation 3.948 -.137 -.013 .017 .008 1.917 226 Dependent Variable: Effectiveness 4.228 -.138 -.018* .022 .013 2.489 226 Dependent Variable: Individualized Consideration 3.851 -.248** -.011 .024 .015 2.739 226 Dependent Variable: Satisfaction 4.329 -.146 -.017 .017 .009 1.971 226 Dependent Variable: Transactional Leadership 2.561 .026 .007 .014 .006 1.643 226

20

TABLE 4b Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable (Graduates Controlling for Age)
Dependent Dependent Variable: Variable: Charisma Transformational Constant 2.777 2.692 Gender -.179 -.173 Age .035 .033** R2 .057 .051 Adjusted R2 .048 .042 F 6.059** 5.37** N 203 203 Independent Dependent Dependent Variable Variable: Variable: Contingent Management Reward -By-Exception Constant 2.693 2.336 Gender -.102 .236* Age .035** -.014 2 R .034 .036 Adjusted R2 .024 .026 F 3.458* 3.735* N 203 203 p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 Independent Variable Dependent Variable: Inspirational Motivation 2.915 .083 .033 .035 .026** 3.653* 203 Dependent Variable: Extra Effort 2.671 -.047 .041** .037 .027 3.779* 203 Dependent Variable: Intellectual Stimulation 2.881 -.218 .035 .042 .033 4.404** 203 Dependent Variable: Effectiveness 2.759 -.042 .034* .026 .016 2.655 203 Dependent Variable: Individualized Consideration 2.707 -.251 .039** .047 .038 4.918** 203 Dependent Variable: Satisfaction 2.255 -.079 .060*** .072 .063 7.700*** 203 Dependent Variable: Transactional Leadership 2.455 .140 .026 .013 .003 1.336 203

21