Research on leadership style, conducted primarily with males, usually assumes that the leader's style causes group performance. Attribution theory suggests the reverse causal argument and has been supported in research using male leaders. The present study, using a quasi-experimental design and 256 students in introductory management, found that female managers of high-performing groups were evaluated and described differently than female managers of low-performing groups, even though their behavioral styles were identical. The results suggest that attributional processes applied to leadership are similar for male and female managers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartolK. M.The sex structuring of organizations: a search for possible causes. Academy of Management Review, 1978, 3, 805–815.
2.
BartolK. M.ButterfieldD. A.Sex effects in evaluating leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 446–454.
3.
ButterfieldD. A.BartolK. M.Evaluators of leader behavior: a missing element in leadership theory. In HuntJ. G.LarsonL. L. (Eds.), Leadership: the cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univer. Press, 1977. Pp. 167–188.
4.
ButterfieldD. A.PowellG. N.MainieroL. A.Group performance effects on evaluations and descriptions of leadership behavior. Proceedings: Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, August, 1978.
5.
CalderB. J.An attribution theory of leadership. In StawB.SalancikG. (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1977. Pp. 179–204.
6.
DayD. R.StogdillR. M.Leader behavior of male and female supervisors: a comparative study. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 353–360.
7.
DeauxK.EmswillerT.Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: what's skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 80–85.
8.
Feldman-SummersJ.KieslerJ. B.Those who are number two try harder: the effect of sex on attributions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 846–855.
9.
LordR. G.PhillipsJ. S.RushM. C.Effects of sex and personality on perceptions of emergent leadership, influence, and social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 176–182.
10.
MassengillD.DimarcoN.Sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics: a current replication. Sex Roles, 1979, 5, 561–570.
11.
OsbornR. N.VicarsW. M.Sex stereotypes: an artifact in leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction analysis?Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 439–449.
12.
PowellG. N.ButterfieldD. A.The “good manager:” masculine or androgynous?Academy of Management Journal, 1979, 22, 395–403.
13.
RosenB.JerdeeT. H.Perceived sex differences in managerially relevant characteristics. Sex Roles, 1978, 4, 837–843.
14.
StogdillR. M.Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire—Form XII. Columbus: Ohio State Univer., Bureau of Business Research, 1963.
15.
StrombergA. H.HarkessS.Women working: theories and facts in perspective. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1978.
16.
TerborgJ. R.Women in management: a research review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 647–664.
