Leadership in Practice >
Survey Report
Chair of Research and Science Management Technical University of Munich
December 2017 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Study Aims We examined how German employees view their leaders, if this differs according to leader or employee gender, as well as leaders’ caregiving (i.e., for children or family members). Key Findings Although employees generally rated their leaders about the same in terms of positive and effective leadership styles (e.g., transformational and servant leadership)–regardless of the leader’s gender or the employee’s gender–caretaking gave leaders a boost in these ratings. In particular, male leaders who had fewer than 22 direct reports seemed to benefit most. Takeaways Leaders–especially men–may benefit from caretaking, a bonus that may outweigh some of the more short-‐term consequences that can create barriers for leaders’ caretaking. Details The survey was conducted in two waves of web-‐based surveys: the first in summer 2016 and the second in summer 2017. Our sample consists of employed German adults who were recruited online through professional platforms (e.g., LinkedIn and Xing), primarily from the Bavarian region of Germany. Our analyses are based on 403 employees.
2
1. DEMOGRAPHICS PARTICIPANT GENDER
PARTICIPANT AGE, CHILDREN, & MARITAL STATUS
MALES: 37% FEMALES: 54%
MEAN AGE: Leader: 46 Participant: 38
MARITAL STATUS: 63%: Married 11%: Single 12%: Strong relationship 5%: Divorced
CHILDREN: 33% NO 67% YES
3
INDUSTRY
2. MANAGEMENT DETAILS POSITION
DIRECT REPORTS Participants reported that their leaders had an average of 21 employees directly under their supervision (range: 1-‐349). 4
3. LEADER RATINGS TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-‐ interest for the good of the group, Bass (1990, p. 21).1 We asked participants to rate their leaders’ transformational leadership on 15 different behaviors (e.g., my leader is always there when needed, my leader speaks with enthusiasm about what should be achieved). The mean value for transformational leadership was 3.37 (scale range: 1-‐5, higher = more transformational leadership). In terms of leader gender, male leaders (M=4.88, SD=1.27) were rated as slightly more transformational than female leaders (M=4.74, SD=1.27). Male (M=3.34, SD=0.87) and female (M=3.38, SD=0.77) employees rated their leaders about the same.
SERVANT LEADERSHIP is a collective-‐oriented leadership style whereby a person with a natural feeling...to serve [then makes a] conscious choice...to lead (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 13).2 We asked participants to rate their leaders’ servant leadership on 7 different behaviors (e.g., my leader puts my well-‐being above his/her own, my leader would not violate moral principles in order to succeed). The mean value for servant leadership was 3.08 (scale range: 1-‐5, higher = more servant leadership). In terms of leader gender, we found that male leaders (M=3.06, SD=0.86) and female leaders (M=3.12, SD=0.79) were rated as about the same in terms of servant leadership. Male (M=3.10, SD=0.88) and female (M=3.06, SD=0.80) employees also rated their leaders about the same.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-‐31. 2 Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis: Robert K. Greenleaf Center. 1
5
4. CAREGIVING AND LEADERSHIP RATINGS We defined caregiving as taking over care for children or family members to the point that the leader had to break from working life or reduce working hours. Thus, this includes formal arrangements such as flex-‐time and parental leave, but also unofficial arrangements. LEADERS WITHOUT CAREGIVING Leader Gender Leadership Leadership Outcomes Responsibilities Male Few Direct Transformational Leadership: M=3.33, SD=0.80 Reports (< 22) Servant Leadership: M=3.04, SD=0.81 Many Direct Transformational Leadership: M=3.20, SD=0.93 Reports (> 22) Servant Leadership: M=2.83, SD=1.14 Female Few Direct Transformational Leadership: M=3.45, SD=0.73 Reports (< 22) Servant Leadership: M=2.78, SD=1.34 Many Direct Transformational Leadership: M=3.32, SD=0.90 Reports (> 22) Servant Leadership: M=2.98, SD=0.93 CAREGIVING LEADERS Leader Gender Leadership Leadership Outcomes Responsibilities Male Few Direct Transformational Leadership: M=3.50, SD=0.76 Reports (< 22) Servant Leadership: M=3.37, SD=0.78 Many Direct Transformational Leadership: M=3.28, SD=0.96 Reports (> 22) Servant Leadership: M=2.84, SD=1.04 Female Few Direct Transformational Leadership: M=3.49, SD=0.93 Reports (< 22) Servant Leadership: M=3.19, SD=0.84 Many Direct Transformational Leadership: M=3.16, SD=0.94 Reports (> 22) Servant Leadership: M=2.95, SD=0.97 6
For more information (in German and in English): http://www.rm.wi.tum.de/leadership-‐care For other questions or comments: Jamie L. Gloor, PhD Arcisstrasse 21 Munich, Germany 80333
[email protected]
7
