Preferred leadership prototypes of male and female ... - SSRN papers

Journal of International Business Studies (2009) 40, 1396–1405

& 2009 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506 www.jibs.net

RESEARCH NOTE

Preferred leadership prototypes of male and female leaders in 27 countries Lori D Paris1, Jon P Howell2, Peter W Dorfman2 and Paul J Hanges3 1 School of Business and Public Administration, California State University, Bakersfield, USA; 2 College of Business, Department of Management, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA; 3Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, USA

Correspondence: LD Paris, Department of Management and Marketing, California State University, Bakersfield, 20 BDC, 9001 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93311-1022, USA. Tel: þ 1 661 654 6693; Fax: þ 1 661 654 2438; E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 1 November 2007 Revised: 28 May 2008 Accepted: 19 August 2008 Online publication date: 12 March 2009

Abstract Our study shows that preferred leadership prototypes held by female leaders differ from the prototypes held by male leaders, and that these prototype differences vary across countries, cultures, and especially industries. In general, female managers prefer participative, team oriented, and charismatic leadership prototype dimensions more than males. Contrary to popular belief, both males and females valued humane-oriented leadership equally. Gender egalitarianism and industry type were important moderators of the gender– leadership prototype relationship. Gender egalitarianism increased females’ desire for participative leadership, while prototype differences between genders were magnified in the finance and food industries. Journal of International Business Studies (2009) 40, 1396–1405. doi:10.1057/jibs.2008.114 Keywords: cross-cultural management; leadership theories; gender equality; GLOBE

INTRODUCTION Major changes are taking place in the roles of women in society and organizations worldwide, fueling a high level of research interest in gender and leadership (cf. Eagly, 2007). Factors driving this research include the relatively small number of women in executive level leadership positions (Francesco & Gold, 2005), the question of whether male and female leaders are substantially different in leadership styles and effectiveness (Vecchio, 2002, 2003), and the controversial notion that women have a ‘‘feminine leadership advantage’’ (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). Several of these research drivers may reflect gender differences in perceptions of what makes an outstanding leader. These perceptions are captured by the concept of leadership prototypes, and may result in gender differences in leadership styles as well as selection and appraisal of leaders (Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008). Because of large cultural differences among nations, it seems unlikely that any gender differences in perceptions of outstanding leadership will generalize across all nations or contexts. Vecchio (2003) and Eagly and Carli (2003a, b) described the need for studies of gender and leadership that include contextual variables that can influence the size, form, and meaning of gender differences. In the present study using the data set from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), we examined gender differences in perceptions of

Leadership prototypes across cultures

Lori D Paris et al

1397

outstanding leadership across nations and whether societal culture and industry type are important moderators of these gender-based perceptions (Avolio, 2007; Gordon, 1991).

aligned with a masculine leadership prototype. We therefore expect that female leaders will reject Autonomous and Self-Protective leadership prototype dimensions more so than males.

Why Should Gender Affect Leadership Prototypes? Implicit leadership theory posits that people develop sets of beliefs about the behaviors and characteristics of leaders vs non-leaders as well as effective vs ineffective leaders. These implicit theories are represented by prototypes that contain specific configurations that characterize the most common features of certain types of leader (e.g., military, sports, or business) (Phillips & Lord, 1986). Leadership prototypes ‘‘are developed and refined over time as a result of actual experiences with leaders, exposure to literature about effective leaders, and other social-cultural influences’’ (Yukl, 2006: 130). Research suggests that socialization experiences and/or culture may cause men and women to hold different prototypes of effective leaders (Ayman, 1993; Schein, 2007). A controversial leadership prototype, commonly labeled the ‘‘feminine leadership advantage’’, asserts that women value and excel in consensus-building, cooperation, nurturance, charisma, and interpersonal relations more than do men. Advocates of this feminine prototype suggest that this leadership style will be most effective in today’s contemporary organizations (Eagly et al., 2003). Tung and colleagues (Caligiuri & Tung, 1999; Tung, 2004) noted that these prototype characteristics are well suited for international assignments. These assertions, however, require further empirical verification. Of the six GLOBE leadership dimensions, Participative and Charismatic/Value-Based reflect two dimensions of the ‘‘feminine leadership advantage’’. The Humane Oriented dimension is closely aligned with an interpersonal relations style, and the Team Oriented dimension is closely aligned with cooperation and consensus-building. These four dimensions represent the core of the ‘‘feminine leadership advantage’’ prototype, and we expect females to rate these more highly than males. The GLOBE leadership dimension labeled Autonomous reflects an independent and individualistic leadership approach that is often described as a masculine prototype dimension (Heilman, 2001). The dimension labeled Self-Protective has not been studied in previous leadership research. However, an analysis of its contents (e.g., status conscious, self-centered, and internally competitive) indicates that it is more

Hypothesis 1: Female leaders will rate Participative, Charismatic/Value-Based, Humane Oriented, and Team Oriented leader prototype dimensions as stronger contributors to outstanding leadership, and Autonomous and Self-Protective leader prototype dimensions as stronger inhibitors (or weaker contributors), than will male leaders.

Do Gender Effects on Leadership Prototypes Vary Across Countries? Country is a natural starting point for exploring contextual variables because it encompasses political, legal, economic, and cultural characteristics that are likely to influence leadership processes. Role expectations for men and women represent a social contract that clearly varies across countries, and women are encouraged to seek leadership positions in some countries more than in others. Since Williams and Best (1990) showed that leader-related stereotypes vary across countries, and leader prototypes contain the most representative elements of a stereotype, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: The relationship between leaders’ gender and their ratings of the six GLOBE leadership prototype dimensions will differ across countries.

Should Gender Egalitarianism Moderate Gender Differences in Leadership Prototypes? It is likely that any variance across countries in gender effects on leadership prototypes is partially explained by cultural differences (Gerstner & Day, 1994). One GLOBE dimension of societal culture, Gender Egalitarianism, ‘‘y reflects societies’ beliefs about whether members’ biological sex should determine the roles that they play in their homes, business organizations, and communities’’ (House et al., 2004: 347). Low gender egalitarian societies are characterized by gender inequality. Women in these cultures are viewed as too emotional and irrational to lead organizations, and the predominant leadership prototype is composed of masculine attributes. In high gender egalitarian societies gender role differences are minimized, and the concept of gender-congruent roles is less relevant. Intuitively,

Journal of International Business Studies


Lori D Paris et al

1398

one might expect that male and female managers in high gender egalitarian societies would both value the same leader prototype. But there is reason to question this intuitive expectation. Ely and Padavic (2007) indicated that women in high gender egalitarian situations may feel liberated and empowered, and openly express their opinions regarding behaviors that contribute to outstanding leadership. Additionally, in many countries women have more access to organizational leadership positions than ever before, implying fewer constraints and greater empowerment for females (Eagly, 2007). In fact, our Gender Egalitarian measure was strongly correlated (r ¼ 0.69) with the number of women in management/professional positions for the sampled countries with available data (ILO, 2003). We therefore expect that female managers in high gender egalitarian societies will feel freer to reject the masculine leadership prototype, and emphasize elements of the ‘‘feminine leadership advantage’’ described earlier in this paper. Hypothesis 3: In high gender egalitarian societies, females will rate Charismatic/Value-Based, Team Oriented, Humane Oriented and Participative leader prototype dimensions as stronger contributors to outstanding leadership, and Autonomous and Self-Protective leader prototype dimensions as stronger inhibitors of outstanding leadership, than will males.

Should Industry Type Moderate Gender Differences in Leadership Prototypes? Leadership prototype differences are likely among different types of industry, since an industry often develops a culture and climate that reflects varying technologies, markets, strategies, or historical traditions. The percentage of men and women in specific industries may be partially explained by different leader prototypes for male and female leaders. Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999) showed that in male-dominated industries pressures exist on female managers to conform to a masculine leadership prototype. This is consistent with Eagly and Carli’s (2003a, b) contention that successful women managers in masculine and male-dominated industries change their behaviors and skills to reflect a masculine leadership model. In industries that are less male dominated there is less pressure to conform to a masculine leadership model (Eagly, 2007). Female leaders in these industries are freer to express their preferences for a cooperative and inclusive leadership style. The present study includes


data from three industries (food, telecommunications, and finance) that reflect varying degrees of male dominance in management positions. The food processing industry is one of the oldest, and is typically considered a type of manufacturing. Strong evidence for the masculine nature of the food industry is found in Chhokar, Brodbeck, and House (2007). We suspect that this strong masculine leadership prototype is held by males and female leaders alike in this industry. The telecommunications industry is relatively new, and is often considered a sunrise or non-traditional industry, with rapid technological changes, high expansion potential, and private ownership creating opportunities for women in management positions (Helfat, Harris, & Wolfson, 2006). These developments may have reduced the early emphasis on bureaucratic structures and strongly centralized decisions that are consistent with the masculine leader prototype. We therefore expect that female managers in telecommunications will ascribe to an inclusive, consensus-oriented leader prototype whereas male managers will maintain the traditional directive, bureaucratic, agentic prototype that was common early in this industry’s development. The financial services industry worldwide has historically been dominated by male managers (Booysen & van Wyk, 2007). In light of the lack of women in high-level leadership positions in financial services, we expect a masculine leadership prototype to prevail for both male and female leaders. These arguments lead to the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 4a: In the telecommunications industry, females will rate Charismatic/Value-Based, Team Oriented, Humane Oriented, and Participative leader prototype dimensions as stronger contributors to outstanding leadership, and Autonomous and Self-Protective as stronger inhibitors (or weaker contributors) of outstanding leadership, than will males. Hypothesis 4b: In the food processing and financial services industries, there will be no difference between males and females in their ratings of the six GLOBE leadership prototype dimensions.

METHODS Sample Our sample of 6165 mid-level managers in 27 countries is a subsample of GLOBE’s total original


Lori D Paris et al

1399

data set. We selected a subsample of countries and managers that met the following requirements: (1) there had to be at least 25 women respondents in a country’s sample, or more than 10% of the sample had to be female; and (2) at least two of the three industries studied must have been represented within each country. This latter criterion eliminates a potential confound between industry and country in the analysis. An average of four to five indigenous organizations (i.e., no multinationals) were sampled in each industry. We were able to obtain usable data from the following countries: Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, England, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Slovenia, South Africa (white sample), Sweden, Switzerland, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. There were 4372 male and 1793 female managers in the three industries sampled.1

Measures The construct definitions and scales for this project correspond to those in the GLOBE project (Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004). Dependent variables. Charismatic/Value-Based leadership reflects the ability to inspire, motivate, and expect high performance outcomes from others. Team Oriented leadership emphasizes effective team-building and implementation of a common purpose. Participative leadership reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and implementing decisions. Humane Oriented leadership reflects supportive and considerate leadership. Autonomous leadership refers to independent and individualistic leadership. Self-Protective leadership focuses on ensuring the safety and security of the individual leader/manager. Independent variables. ‘‘Gender’’ indicates whether the respondent was male or female. ‘‘Gender Egalitarianism’’ reflects the extent to which an organization or a society minimizes gender role differences, and was measured at the societal level in this study. ‘‘Industry’’ is a trichotomous variable indicating whether the organizations sampled were from the food processing, telecommunications, or financial services industry. Procedure Each manager in our sample rated items reflecting their society’s or organization’s values on the

GLOBE cultural dimension of Gender Egalitarianism using a seven-point Likert-type measure. In order to minimize common source variance, each respondent reported on either societal or organizational culture, but not both. Only society-level culture measures were used in the present study, because societal culture has been an important contingency variable in leadership research (Triandis, 1993), and it is an important variable in understanding leadership processes and the economic and psychological well-being of societies (Dorfman & Howell, 1988). Managers were also required to describe the leader behaviors and attributes that they perceived to enhance or impede outstanding leadership. Respondents used a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 ‘‘greatly inhibits’’ to 7 ‘‘greatly contributes’’ to a person being an outstanding leader (House et al., 2004: 22). Leader dimension ratings above 4 were considered contributors to outstanding leadership, whereas ratings below 4 were considered inhibitors of outstanding leadership.

Analysis Strategy Our data had a two-level, nested structure: individual and society. At the individual level the data consisted of respondents’ ratings of each leadership prototype dimension, along with gender information about the respondent, and an ‘‘effects coded’’ variable indicating the industry of the respondent. At the society level the data consisted of the GLOBE culture values scale for Gender Egalitarianism. We tested all hypotheses using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) because of this nested structure in our data (Bliese & Hanges, 2004).

RESULTS The aggregate mean scores, standard deviations, and correlations for variables studied are shown in Table 1. Note that the mean ratings of the dimensions of Charismatic/Value-Based, Team Oriented, Participative, and Humane Oriented exceeded the rating of 4 (contribute to outstanding leadership), whereas the mean ratings of Autonomous and Self-Protective were less than 4 (inhibit outstanding leadership). Gender Differences and Leadership Prototype Dimensions (Hypotheses 1 and 2) Hypothesis 1 predicted differences in the degree to which male and female managers would rate the six GLOBE leadership prototype dimensions as contributing to outstanding leadership. The results



Lori D Paris et al

1400

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Charismatic/Value-based Team Oriented Participative Humane Oriented Autonomous Self-Protective Gendera Gender Egalitarianism

Mean

s.d.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5.82 5.74 5.38 4.94 3.91 3.40 1.30 4.63

0.66 0.61 0.92 0.91 1.10 0.78 0.46 0.45

0.78** 0.28** 0.47** 0.05** 0.08** 0.05** 0.04*

0.33** 0.50** 0.04** 0.03* 0.09** 0.00

0.09** 0.26** 0.60** 0.07** 0.25**

0.02 0.24** 0.03* 0.20**

0.15** 0.06** 0.09**

0.09** 0.33**

0.15**

Notes: Industry is a categorical variable and therefore not included in the correlation table. N ¼ 4955. *po0.05; **po0.01. a 1 ¼ Male; 2 ¼ Female.

supported our predictions for four of the six leadership dimensions. Female managers viewed Charismatic/Value-Based, Participative, and Team Oriented leadership as more important contributors to outstanding leadership than did their male counterparts (t ¼ 2.25, po0.05; t ¼ 3.75, po0.05; t ¼ 3.51, po0.05). Also as predicted, female managers rated Self-Protective behaviors as stronger inhibitors of outstanding leadership than did their male counterparts (t ¼ 3.30, po0.05), although both genders rated Self-Protective leadership as an inhibitor. Counter to our predictions, male and female managers rated Humane Oriented leadership equally as a weak contributor to outstanding leadership (t ¼ 0.24, p40.05). Both genders rated Autonomous leadership equally, although we predicted that females would rate this as more of an inhibitor than males (t ¼ 1.12, p40.05; see Table 2). For each leadership prototype dimension, a w2 test of the differences in the gender slope across countries was calculated, since w2 is an omnibus test for potential moderators. Simply stated, Hypothesis 2 asked whether there are countries in which gender differences are stronger than in other countries. The answer in this study was ‘‘yes’’ for all leadership prototype dimensions except Humane Oriented (see Table 2). Although the actual size of the mean gender differences within countries was not large, an analysis of effect size estimates using the delta (d) statistic indicated that the gender differences were large enough to be of practical concern (Cohen, 1988). The delta statistic is usually interpreted in the following manner: 0.20 ¼ small effect, 0.50 ¼ medium effect, and 0.80 ¼ large effect. The average delta statistic computed across countries for each leadership prototype dimension ranged from 0.14 to 0.29; but the size of the statistic varied greatly depending on country. For example,


in the United States the delta statistic for participation ( þ 0.52) indicated that females value participation more than males. In contrast, the delta for participation in France (0.57) indicated that males valued participation more than females. These differences are large enough to be meaningful (data for each country are available from the first author). These results support Hypothesis 2, and justify our further search for moderators of gender effects on all leadership prototype dimensions except Humane Oriented.

Gender Differences Moderated by Culture (Hypothesis 3) Gender Egalitarianism moderated the differences between genders on Participative leadership (t¼3.74, po0.01). As the level of gender egalitarianism in a society increased, the difference between male and female ratings on the participative leadership dimension increased. As predicted, in high gender egalitarian societies, female managers placed more importance on the Participative leader prototype dimension as a component of outstanding leadership than did their male counterparts. This result was misinterpreted and incorrectly reported in House et al. (2004: 698). Gender Egalitarianism did not moderate differences between males and females for Charismatic/Value Based or Team Oriented leadership. We also found that Gender Egalitarianism moderated the relationship between gender and Self-Protective leadership (t ¼ 3.22, po0.05) but not Autonomous leadership. As Gender Egalitarianism increased, the differences in Self-Protective leadership increased. As predicted, females in high gender egalitarianism societies perceived that Self-Protective attributes were more of an inhibitor of outstanding leadership than did males. Thus Hypothesis 3 received support


Lori D Paris et al

1401

Table 2

Hierarchical linear model of gender main effects and country as a moderator predicting leadership prototype dimensionsa

Leadership prototype dimension

Coefficient

Charismatic/Value-based Intercept Gender Gender Country

5.88 0.05

Team Oriented Intercept Gender Gender Country

5.78 0.09

Participative Intercept Gender Gender Country

5.45 0.14

Humane Oriented Intercept Gender Gender Country

5.00 0.01

Autonomous Intercept Gender Gender Country

3.76 0.05

Self-Protective Intercept Gender Gender Country

3.45 0.10

Standard error

d.f.

t-value

0.05 0.02

26 26

116.00** 2.25*

w2

44.19**

0.05 0.02

26 26

127.40** 3.51** 52.19**

0.08 0.04

26 26

69.72** 3.75** 60.91**

0.18 0.03

26 26

64.60** 0.24 22.76

0.09 0.05

26 26

39.84** 1.12 53.47**

0.08 0.03

26 26

44.17** 3.30** 66.47**

*po0.05; **po0.01. a Coefficients are multilevel random slopes for hierarchical linear modeling.

for only two of the leader prototype dimensions – Participative and Self-Protective leadership.

Gender Differences Moderated by Industry (Hypotheses 4a and 4b) As predicted in Hypotheses 4a and 4b, industry type moderated the influence of gender on ratings for all six leadership prototype dimensions. Yet the form of the predicted moderator effects received limited support. The t values reported below refer to the interaction effect for the trichotomous industry variable, and if one or more of the effects-coded interaction terms are significant, the overall interaction with industry is significant. Graphing the results allows for a proper interpretation. Our predictions in Hypothesis 4a for the telecommunications industry were supported for only one of the leadership prototype dimensions.

As predicted, females rated Humane Oriented as more of a contributor to outstanding leadership than males (t ¼ 1.94, po0.05). Contrary to our prediction, females rated Autonomous as less of an inhibitor to outstanding leadership than did males (t ¼ 2.72, po0.01). There were no other significant gender differences for the other prototype dimensions in the telecommunications industry. In Hypothesis 4b, for the financial services industry, we predicted no gender differences in ratings of the six leadership prototype dimensions. Contrary to our predictions, the moderator analysis showed that females rated Charismatic/Value-Based (t ¼ 3.63, po0.01), Team Oriented (t ¼ 2.01, po0.05 and t ¼ 5.09, po0.01) and Participative leader (t ¼ 4.57, po0.01) prototype dimensions as more of a contributor to outstanding leadership than did males. Females also rated the Self-Protective prototype dimension as more of an



Lori D Paris et al

1402

inhibitor of outstanding leadership than did males (t ¼ 2.35, po0.01). In the food industry, Hypothesis 4b also predicted no gender differences in the six leadership prototype dimensions. However, the analysis showed that females rated Charismatic/Value-Based (t ¼3.63, po0.01), Team Oriented (t ¼ 2.01, po0.05 and t ¼ 5.09, po0.01), Participative (t ¼ 4.57, po0.01), and Humane Oriented (t ¼ 1.94, po0.05) dimensions as more of a contributor to outstanding leadership than did males. Females also rated Self-Protective as more of an inhibitor of outstanding leadership than did males (t ¼ 2.35, po0.01).

DISCUSSION Gender and Leadership Prototypes Results of this cross-cultural study clearly show that leaders’ gender is an important factor affecting their prototypes of outstanding leadership. Consistent with earlier research on leadership styles (Eagly et al., 2003), we found that women leaders placed stronger values on Charismatic/Value-Based, Team Oriented, and Participative leadership prototype dimensions than did male leaders. Although both males and females rejected Self-Protective leadership, females rejected the dimension more strongly, which is consistent with their emphasis on team orientation and consensus-building. These differences were consistent across most of the countries studied. The failure of both male and female leaders to endorse a prototype of leaders as Autonomous (independent) decision-makers indicates that both genders believe outstanding leadership requires incorporating others’ viewpoints in their decisions. A surprising finding from our study was the absence of gender differences with regard to the Humane Oriented leadership dimension. Male and female managers rated this dimension equally as a weak contributor to outstanding leadership across all 27 countries. This finding is not consistent with conventional wisdom that female managers are more supportive, considerate, and kind than male managers. This finding also calls into question part of the ‘‘feminine leadership advantage’’, where women are thought to possess more humane values necessary for effective leadership in modern organizations (Yukl, 2006). While our findings and earlier research support differences between male and female leaders in many prototypes and styles, humane-oriented/supportive leadership is not one of these differences.


Contextual Differences in Gender Effects GLOBE researchers recently reported evidence that leaders’ behavior is more effective when it matches their culture’s prototype (Javidan, Dorfman, & Sully de Luque, 2006). Caligiuri and Tung (1999) report that women’s adjustment as expatriates is related to the culture in the host country (e.g., level of masculinity). The gender differences found in the present study suggest that the prototypes of male and female managers should be considered in matching individual expatriate managers to specific cultural or industrial settings (a person– leadership prototype fit). This may avoid problems due to a mismatch of prototypes between host country subordinates and expatriate managers. We were surprised that the Gender Egalitarianism culture dimension produced so few moderating effects, although each of the culture findings makes sense. As gender egalitarianism increased, the stronger endorsement by female leaders of participation as an element of outstanding leadership became more exaggerated. In this study, type of industry was a more important contextual factor than societal culture affecting leadership prototype differences between male and female managers. It appears that telecommunications is not a sunrise industry that encourages female managers to ascribe to an inclusive, consensus-oriented leadership prototype. A more masculine prototype including less participation, less team orientation, less charismatic/ value-based, and more autonomy characterizes this industry for both genders. For the older industries (finance and food processing), female managers ascribed to Charismatic/ Value-Based, Participative, and Team Oriented prototype dimensions and rejected Self-Protective behaviors more strongly than did male managers. Male managers in these two industries still reflect old traditions, with a masculine prototype of effective leadership. Thus female managers in the food and finance industries identify with the ‘‘feminine leadership advantage’’, but male managers in all three industries reflect the masculine model of outstanding leadership. We believe that the implications for effective leadership are profound when considering the selection of females to be leaders within each industry. Females seeking leadership positions in telecommunications will fit best with existing leaders (and may be more effective) if they do not ascribe to a highly participative and consensus-building leadership prototype. Females in the food and finance industry are


Lori D Paris et al

1403

likely to fit with other female leaders if they match the feminine advantage prototype, but will contrast with male leaders in these two industries. An intriguing question concerns the importance of gender differences in more feminine service industries, where the ‘‘feminine advantage’’ may be especially valued. Although not the sole criteria, fit issues and contrasting leader prototypes are important, and should be considered in the selection and placement of leaders in the sampled industries.

Implications for Management Practice and Theory Many organizations today are attempting to promote females into high-level positions (Howell & Costley, 2006). Since female expatriates generally report successful and positive assignments in foreign countries (Varma & Stroh, 2001), multinational organizations are being urged to increase the employment of women in international assignments (Tung, 2004). Tung (2008) recently noted that gender and race can affect host societies’ perception of the suitability of given candidates. We suggest that adjustment and likelihood of success for expatriates in leadership positions will relate to the match between the expatriates’ preferred leadership prototype and that of the host country. Both recruiters and applicants for expatriate positions must carefully assess the culture of the assignment and the industry prior to placement. Retention may be a problem for male and female expatriates if they are ‘‘forced’’ to exhibit a prototype that is antithetical to their own. Expatriate leaders may be more effective if they understand prototype differences across cultures and industries, occasionally question their own prototypes, and understand that those who they work with may or may not share their own leadership preferences. Some scholars are likely to question the importance of small leadership prototype differences between genders. To the extent that leadership prototypes translate into patterns of actual leader-

ship behavior among managers, small differences in leadership prototypes between genders are important (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2008). Over time, these differences will be magnified through repetition, leading to different expectations for male and female leaders. Martell, Lane, and Emrich (1996) demonstrate this magnification process by showing how very small differences in promotion rates due to biased procedures can lead to large differences in the ratio of males to females in top management ranks. Similarly, small to medium size differences in leader prototypes found in this study may be amplified over time and affect leader emergence and assessed performance (Heilman, 2001). Also, small differences are not inconsequential when the leadership dimensions are critically important to leadership effectiveness. Our findings show that the combination of gender, gender egalitarianism and industry type is an important determinant of leaders’ role expectations. These factors are likely to influence women’s success in organizational leadership. Cultures in some industries and nations are less rigid, and may allow female leaders to express their natural preferences towards a feminine leadership prototype. Other industries and nations may require a single leadership prototype for leaders to be effective. Triandis has asserted that national culture is the ultimate moderator (1993). Our findings suggest, however, that the culture of an industry may cross national boundaries and become the most important contextual factor influencing prototypes of effective leadership in global organizations. NOTE The GLOBE sample of male and female managers reported on page 384 in House et al. (2004: 384) was incorrect, and based on a misinterpretation of sample data. We corrected this misinterpretation in the present study. 1

REFERENCES Avolio, B. J. 2007. Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory building. American Psychologist, 62(1): 25–33. Ayman, R. 1993. Leadership perception: The role of gender and culture. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions: 137–166. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. 2004. Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though

they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4): 400–417. Booysen, L. A. E., & van Wyk, M. W. 2007. Culture and leadership in South Africa. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R. J. House (Eds), Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies: 433–474. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Caligiuri, P. M., & Tung, R. L. 1999. Comparing the success of male and female expatriates from a US-based multinational



Lori D Paris et al

1404

company. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(5): 763–782. Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds) 2007. Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. 2004. Leadership prototypes and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed implicit theories of leadership. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies: 10–22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. 1988. Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In R. N. Farmer & E. G. McGoun (Eds), Advances in international comparative management, Vol. 3: 127–150. London: JAI Press. Eagly, A. H. 2007. Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1): 1–12. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2003a. The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 807–834. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2003b. Finding gender advantage and disadvantage: Systematic research integration is the solution. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 851–859. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. 2008. Leadership style matters: The small, but important, style differences between male and female leaders. In D. Bilmoria & S. K. Piderit (Eds), Handbook of women in business and management: 279–303. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. 2003. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 569–591. Ely, R., & Padavic, I. 2007. A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1121–1143. Francesco, A. M., & Gold, B. A. 2005. International organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gardiner, M., & Tiggemann, M. 1999. Gender differences in leadership style, job stress, and mental health in male- and female-dominated industries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(3): 301–315. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1994. Cross-cultural comparison of leadership prototypes. Leadership Quarterly, 5(2): 121–134. Gordon, G. G. 1991. Industry determinants of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 396–415. Heilman, M. E. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4): 657–674. Helfat, C. E., Harris, D., & Wolfson, P. J. 2006. The pipeline to the top: Women and men in the top executive ranks of US corporations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(4): 42–64. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. 2006. Understanding behaviors for effective leadership, (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ILO. 2003. Yearbook of labour statistics, Table 2C. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Sully de Luque, M. 2006. Culture and leadership: An overview of the findings of the GLOBE project, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta. Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, J. R. 2008. The strong sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(1): 39–60.


Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. 1996. Male–female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51(2): 157–158. Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. 1986. Notes on the practical and theoretical consequences of implicit leadership theories for the future of leadership measurement. Journal of Management, 12(1): 31–41. Schein, V. E. 2007. Women in management: Reflections and projections. Women in Management Review, 22(1): 6–18. Triandis, H. 1993. The contingency model in cross-cultural perspective. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions: 137–166. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Tung, R. L. 2004. Female expatriates: The model global manager? Organizational Dynamics, 33(3): 243–253. Tung, R. L. 2008. Do race and gender matter in international assignments to/from Asia Pacific? An exploratory study of attitudes among Chinese. Human Resource Management, 47(1): 91–110. Varma, A., & Stroh, L. K. 2001. Different perspectives on selection for international assignments: The impact of LMX and gender. Cross Cultural Management, 8(3/4): 85–97. Vecchio, R. P. 2002. Leadership and gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6): 643–671. Vecchio, R. P. 2003. In search of gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 835–850. Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. 1990. Measuring sex stereotypes: A multinational study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yukl, G. 2006. Leadership in organizations, (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Lori D Paris ([email protected]) received her PhD from New Mexico State University. She is an Assistant Professor at California State University, Bakersfield. Her research interests include gender and international leadership, diversity in the workplace, and knowledge-sharing. She is a US citizen.

Jon P Howell ([email protected]) received his PhD from the School of Business at University of California, Irvine. He is Professor Emeritus at New Mexico State University. His current research interests include leadership and followership, cross-cultural management, and substitutes for leadership. He is a US citizen and was born in California.

Peter W Dorfman ([email protected]) is a Professor of Management at New Mexico State University. Dr. Dorfman’s current research involves investigating the impact of cultural influences on managerial behavior and leadership styles. He has been a co-principal investigator and executive board member of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Project. He is a US citizen and born in New York.


Lori D Paris et al

1405

Paul J Hanges ([email protected]) is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Maryland. He is an affiliate of Maryland’s R.H. Smith School of Business and the Aston Business School (Birmingham, England). His

research focuses on selection and fairness, cross-cultural leadership, and computational modeling. He is on the editorial board of the Journal of Applied Psychology and a fellow of APA, APS, and SIOP.

Accepted by Rosalie Tung, Area Editor, 19 August 2008. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.
