Men Are Better Leaders Than Women Essay

Jamshed Modi in our college for their significant suggestions and help in accomplishing this project report . Abstract As women increasingly enter leadership roles that traditionally were occupied mainly by men, the possibility that the leadership styles of women and men differ continues to attract attention. The focus of these debates on sameness versus difference can obscure the array of causal factors that can produce differences or similarities. Whether men and women behave differently in leadership roles is a much-debated question.

Although there is general agreement that women face more barriers to becoming leaders than men do, especially for leader roles that are male dominated there is much less agreement about the behaviour of women and men once they attain such roles. Differences in styles can be consequential because they are one factor that may affect people’s views about whether women should become leaders and advance to higher positions in organizational hierarchies. Introduction: Purpose: The purpose of this project report is to find out whether men are better leaders than women. Methodology: A. Data Collection and Capturing (Primary Data) Collecting the data by using the Leadership assessment questionnaire prepared. ?Capturing the data from the sample size of 30 (15 each from males & females) and tabulating the same in the excel sheet ? Verification of the data entered to check upon any entry error B. Analysis, Interpretations and Conclusions ?Data collected will be analyzed using MS – Excel to understand their impact in the quantitative and qualitative aspect ? Based on the analysis, interpretations and conclusions will be drawn Limitations of the Study: ?The sample size may not adequately represent the macro view as methodology followed will be andom sampling. ? Biased, incomplete and incorrect responses to questions while collecting the primary data. Leadership Theories •Great Man Theory •Trait Theory •Behavioral Theories oRole Theory oThe Managerial Grid •Contingency Theories oFiedler’s Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Theory oCognitive Resource Theory oStrategic Contingencies Theory •Situational Theory oHersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership oHouse’s Path-Goal Theory of Leadership •Decision Theory oVroom and Yetton’s Normative Model Great Man Theory: Assumptions Leaders are born and not made. Great leaders will arise when there is a great need.

Description Early research on leadership was based on the the study of people who were already great leaders. These people were often from the aristocracy, as few from lower classes had the opportunity to lead. This contributed to the notion that leadership had something to do with breeding. Discussion Gender issues were not on the table when the ‘Great Man’ theory was proposed. Most leaders were male and the thought of a Great Woman was generally in areas other than leadership. Most researchers were also male, and concerns about androcentric bias were a long way from being realized.

Trait Theory: Assumptions People are born with inherited traits. Some traits are particularly suited to leadership. People who make good leaders have the right (or sufficient) combination of traits. Description Early research on leadership was based on the psychological focus of the day, which was of people having inherited characteristics or traits. Attention was thus put on discovering these traits, often by studying successful leaders, but with the underlying assumption that if other people could also be found with these traits, then they, too, could also become great leaders.

Stogdill (1974) identified the following traits and skills as critical to leaders. Traits Skills Alert to social environment •Ambitious and achievement-orientated •Assertive •Cooperative •Decisive •Dependable •Dominant (desire to influence others) •Energetic (high activity level) •Persistent •Self-confident •Tolerant of stress Willing to assume responsibility •Clever (intelligent) •Conceptually skilled •Creative •Diplomatic and tactful •Fluent in speaking •Knowledgeable about group task •Organised (administrative ability) •Persuasive •Socially skilled Discussion

There have been many different studies of leadership traits and they agree only in the general saintly qualities needed to be a leader. For a long period, inherited traits were sidelined as learned and situational factors were considered to be far more realistic as reasons for people acquiring leadership positions. Paradoxically, the research into twins who were separated at birth along with new sciences such as Behavioral Genetics have shown that far more is inherited than was previously supposed. Behavioral Theory: Assumptions Leaders can be made, rather than are born. Successful leadership is based in definable, learnable behavior.

Description Behavioral theories of leadership do not seek inborn traits or capabilities. Rather, they look at what leaders actually do. If success can be defined in terms of describable actions, then it should be relatively easy for other people to act in the same way. This is easier to teach and learn then to adopt the more ephemeral ‘traits’ or ‘capabilities’. Discussion Behavioral is a big leap from Trait Theory, in that it assumes that leadership capability can be learned, rather than being inherent. A behavioral theory is relatively easy to develop, as you simply assess both leadership success and the actions of leaders.

With a large enough study, you can then correlate statistically significant behaviors with success. You can also identify behaviors which contribute to failure, thus adding a second layer of understanding. Role Theory Assumptions People define roles for themselves and others based on social learning and reading. People form expectations about the roles that they and others will play. People subtly encourage others to act within the role expectations they have for them. People will act within the roles they adopt. Description We all have internal schemas about the role of leaders, based on what we read, discuss and so on.

We subtly send these expectations to our leaders, acting as role senders, for example through the balance of decisions we take upon ourselves and the decisions we leave to the leader. Leaders are influenced by these signals, particularly if they are sensitive to the people around them, and will generally conform to these, playing the leadership role that is put upon them by others.. Discussion Role expectations of a leader can vary from very specific to a broad idea within which the leader can define their own style. When role expectations are low or mixed, then this may also lead to role conflict. Contingency Theory:

Assumptions The leader’s ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors, including the leader’s preferred style, the capabilities and behaviors of followers and also various other situational factors. Description Contingency theories are a class of behavioral theory that contend that there is no one best way of leading and that a leadership style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others. An effect of this is that leaders who are very effective at one place and time may become unsuccessful either when transplanted to another situation or when the factors around them change.

This helps to explain how some leaders who seem for a while to have the ‘Midas touch’ suddenly appear to go off the boil and make very unsuccessful decisions. Discussion Contingency theory is similar to situational theory in that there is an assumption of no simple one right way. The main difference is that situational theory tends to focus more on the behaviors that the leader should adopt, given situational factors (often about follower behavior), whereas contingency theory takes a broader view that includes contingent factors about leader capability and other variables within the situation.

Fiedler’s Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Theory Assumptions Leaders prioritize between task-focus and people-focus. Relationships, power and task structure are the three key factors that drive effective styles. Description Fiedler identified the a Least Preferred Co-Worker scoring for leaders by asking them first to think of a person with which they worked that they would like least to work with again, and then to score the person on a range of scales between positive factors (friendly, helpful, cheerful, etc. ) and negative factors (unfriendly, unhelpful, gloomy, etc. ).

A high LPC leader generally scores the other person as positive and a low LPC leader scores them as negative. High LPC leaders tend to have close and positive relationships and act in a supportive way, even prioritizing the relationship before the task. Low LPC leaders put the task first and will turn to relationships only when they are satisfied with how the work is going. Three factors are then identified about the leader, member and the task, as follows: •Leader-Member Relations: The extent to which the leader has the support and loyalties of followers and relations with them are friendly and cooperative. Task structure: The extent to which tasks are standardised, documented and controlled. •Leader’s Position-power: The extent to which the leader has authority to assess follower performance and give reward or punishment. The best LPC approach depends on a combination of there three. Generally, a high LPC approach is best when leader-member relations are poor, except when the task is unstructured and the leader is weak, in which a low LPC style is better. Discussion This approach seeks to identify the underlying beliefs about people, in particular whether the leader sees others as positive (high LPC) or negative (low LPC).

The neat trick of the model is to take someone where it would be very easy to be negative about them. This is another approach that uses task- vs. people-focus as a major categorisation of the leader’s style. Cognitive Resource Theory Assumptions Intelligence and experience and other cognitive resources are factors in leadership success. Cognitive capabilities, although significant are not enough to predict leadership success. Stress impacts the ability to make decisions. Description Cognitive Resource Theory predicts that: 1.

A leader’s cognitive ability contributes to the performance of the team only when the leader’s approach is directive. 2. Stress affects the relationship between intelligence and decision quality. 3. Experience is positively related to decision quality under high stress. 4. For simple tasks, leader intelligence and experience is irrelevant. Discussion CRT arose out of dissatisfaction with Trait Theory. Fiedler also linked CRT with his Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Theory, suggesting that high LPC scores are the main drivers of directive behavior.

A particularly significant aspect of CRT is the principle that intelligence is the main factor in low-stress situations, whilst experience counts for more during high-stress moments. Situational Theory: Assumptions The best action of the leader depends on a range of situational factors. Style When a decision is needed, an effective leader does not just fall into a single preferred style, such as using transactional or transformational methods. In practice, as they say, things are not that simple. The leaders’ perception of the follower and the situation will affect what they do rather than the truth of the situation.

The leader’s perception of themselves and other factors such as stress and mood will also modify the leaders’ behavior. Yukl (1989) seeks to combine other approaches and identifies six variables: •Subordinate effort: the motivation and actual effort expended. •Subordinate ability and role clarity: followers knowing what to do and how to do it. •Organization of the work: the structure of the work and utilization of resources. •Cooperation and cohesiveness: of the group in working together. •Resources and support: the availability of tools, materials, people, etc. •External coordination: the need to collaborate with other groups.

Leaders here work on such factors as external relationships, acquisition of resources, managing demands on the group and managing the structures and culture of the group. Discussion Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) identified three forces that led to the leader’s action: the forces in the situation, the forces in then follower and also forces in the leader. This recognizes that the leader’s style is highly variable, and even such distant events as a family argument can lead to the displacement activity of a more aggressive stance in an argument than usual. Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Assumptions

Leaders should adapt their style to follower development style (or ‘maturity’), based on how ready and willing the follower is to perform required tasks (that is, their competence and motivation). There are four leadership styles (S1 to S4) that match the development levels (D1 to D4) of the followers. The four styles suggest that leaders should put greater or less focus on the task in question and/or the relationship between the leader and the follower, depending on the development level of the follower. Style Leadership style in response to follower development levelFollower development level LowHigh

R4R3R2R1 Task / directive behavior LowHigh Relationship / supportive behaviorHigh Low S3 Partici- patingS2 Selling S4 Dele- gating S1 Telling S1: Telling / Directing Follower: R1: Low competence, low commitment / Unable and unwilling or insecure Leader: High task focus, low relationship focus The leader may first find out why the person is not motivated and if there are any limitations in ability. These two factors may be linked, for example where a person believes they are less capable than they should be may be in some form of denial or other coping.

They follower may also lack self-confidence as a result. S2: Selling / Coaching Follower: R2: Some competence, variable commitment / Unable but willing or motivated Leader: High task focus, high relationship focus When the follower can do the job, at least to some extent, and perhaps is over-confident about their ability in this, then ‘telling’ them what to do may demotivate them or lead to resistance. The leader thus needs to ‘sell’ another way of working, explaining and clarifying decisions. Note: S1 and S2 are leader-driven. S3: Participating / Supporting

Follower: R3: High competence, variable commitment / Able but unwilling or insecure Leader: Low task focus, high relationship focus When the follower can do the job, but is refusing to do it or otherwise showing insufficient commitment, the leader need not worry about showing them what to do, and instead is concerned with finding out why the person is refusing and thence persuading them to cooperate. There is less excuse here for followers to be reticent about their ability, and the key is very much around motivation. If the causes are found then they can be addressed by the leader.

The leader thus spends time listening S4: Delegating / Observing Follower: R4: High competence, high commitment / Able and willing or motivated Leader: Low task focus, low relationship focus When the follower can do the job and is motivated to do it, then the leader can basically leave them to it, largely trusting them to get on with the job although they also may need to keep a relatively distant eye on things to ensure everything is going to plan. Followers at this level have less need for support or frequent praise, although as with anyone, occasional recognition is always welcome.

Note: S3 and S4 are follower-led. Discussion Hersey and Blanchard (of ‘One Minute Manager’ fame) have written a short and very readable book on the approach. It is simple and easy to understand, which makes it particularly attractive for practicing managers who do not want to get into heavier material. It also is accepted in wider spheres and often appear in college courses. It is limited, however, and is based on assumptions that can be challenged, for example the assumption that at the ‘telling’ level, the relationship is of lower importance. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Description

The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership was developed to describe the way that leaders encourage and support their followers in achieving the goals they have been set by making the path that they should take clear and easy. In particular, leaders: •Clarify the path so subordinates know which way to go. •Remove roadblocks that are stopping them going there. •Increasing the rewards along the route. Leaders can take a strong or limited approach in these. In clarifying the path, they may be directive or give vague hints. In removing roadblocks, they may scour the path or help the follower move the bigger blocks.

In increasing rewards, they may give occasional encouragement or pave the way with gold. This variation in approach will depend on the situation, including the follower’s capability and motivation, as well as the difficulty of the job and other contextual factors. House and Mitchell (1974) describe four styles of leadership: Supportive leadership Considering the needs of the follower, showing concern for their welfare and creating a friendly working environment. This includes increasing the follower’s self-esteem and making the job more interesting.

This approach is best when the work is stressful, boring or hazardous. Directive leadership Telling followers what needs to be done and giving appropriate guidance along the way. This includes giving them schedules of specific work to be done at specific times. Rewards may also be increased as needed and role ambiguity decreased (by telling them what they should be doing). This may be used when the task is unstructured and complex and the follower is inexperienced. This increases the follower’s sense of security and control and hence is appropriate to the situation. Participative leadership

Consulting with followers and taking their ideas into account when making decisions and taking particular actions. This approach is best when the followers are expert and their advice is both needed and they expect to be able to give it. Achievement-oriented leadership Setting challenging goals, both in work and in self-improvement (and often together). High standards are demonstrated and expected. The leader shows faith in the capabilities of the follower to succeed. This approach is best when the task is complex. Discussion Leaders who show the way and help followers along a path are effectively ‘leading’.

This approach assumes that there is one right way of achieving a goal and that the leader can see it and the follower cannot. This casts the leader as the knowing person and the follower as dependent. It also assumes that the follower is completely rational and that the appropriate methods can be deterministically selected depending on the situation. Decision Theory: This theory argues about, the way the leader makes decisions is as important as what she or he decides. Victor Vroom and PhillipYetton developed a leader-participation model that relates leadership behavior and participation in decision making,

Vroom and Yetton’s Normative Model Assumptions Decision acceptance increases commitment and effectiveness of action. Participation increases decision acceptance. Description Decision quality is the selection of the best alternative, and is particularly important when there are many alternatives. It is also important when there are serious implications for selecting (or failing to select) the best alternative. Decision acceptance is the degree to which a follower accepts a decision made by a leader. Leaders focus more on decision acceptance when decision quality is more important.

Vroom and Yetton defined five different decision procedures. Two are autocratic (A1 and A2), two are consultative (C1 and C2) and one is Group based (G2). A1: Leader takes known information and then decides alone. A2: Leader gets information from followers, and then decides alone. C1: Leader shares problem with Discussion Vroom and Yetton (1973) took the earlier generalized situational theories that noted how situational factors cause almost unpredictable leader behavior and reduced this to a more limited set of behaviors.

The ‘normative’ aspect of the model is that it was defined more by rational logic than by long observation. The model is most likely to work when there is clear and accessible opinions about the decision quality importance and decision acceptance factors. However these are not always known with any significant confidence. Leadership MODELS Leadership Styles and Behaviors A different perspective to trait theory for leadership is to consider what leaders actually do as opposed to their underlying characteristics. A number of models and theories have been put forward to explore this.

T. McGregor (1906-1964) postulated that managers tend to make two different assumptions about human nature. These views he explored in his theory X and theory Y: Theory X 1. The average human has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it, if he or she can. 2. Because of this human characteristic, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort towards the achievement of organizational objectives. 3. This has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all.

Theory Y 1. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest. 2. External control and threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organizational objectives. People will exercise self-direction and self-control in service of objectives to which they are committed. 3. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement 4. The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept responsibility but to seek it. 5.

The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination. Ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly distributed in the population. 6. Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are partially utilized Other studies were carried out to identify successful leadership behaviours, including studies at Ohio State University and Michigan University, following on from this research two studies of particular note were by Gary M.

Yukl and by Robert Blake and Jane Mounton. Ohio State University Research A series of studies at the University indicated that two behavioural dimensions play a significant role in successful leadership. Those dimensions are: Consideration – (friendship, mutual trust, respect and warmth) Initiating Structure – (organises and defines relationships or roles, establishes well-defined patterns of organisation, channels of communication, and ways of getting jobs done. ) University of Michigan Research

Studies carried at the university revealed two similar aspects of leadership style that correlate with effectiveness: Employee Orientation – (the human-relations aspect, in which employees are viewed as human beings with individual, personal needs) Production Orientation – (Stress on production and the technical aspects of the job, with employees viewed as the means of getting the work done. The Leadership Grid Robert Blake and Jane Mouton developed another theory called the Leadership Grid, focusing on production/relationship orientations uncovered in the Ohio State and Michigan University studies.

They went a little further by creating a grid based on Leaders’ concern for people(relationships) and production (tasks). It theory suggest there is a best way to lead people the 9,9 way. 1,1 Impoverished management. Often referred to as Laissez-faire leadership. Leaders in this position have little concern for people or productivity, avoid taking sides, and stay out of conflicts. They do just enough to get by. 1,9 Country Club management. Managers in this position have great concern for people and little concern for production.

They try to avoid conflicts and concentrate on being well liked. To them the task is less important than good interpersonal relations. Their goal is to keep people happy. (This is a soft Theory X approach and not a sound human relations approach. ) 9,1 Authority-Compliance. Managers in this position have great concern for production and little concern for people. They desire tight control in order to get tasks done efficiently. They consider creativity and human relations to be unnecessary. 5,5 Organization Man Management.

Often termed middle-of-the-road leadership. Leaders in this position have medium concern for people and production. They attempt to balance their concern for both people and production, but they are not committed. 9+9 Paternalistic “father knows best” management. A style in which reward is promised for compliance and punishment threatened for non-compliance Opp Opportunistic “what’s in it for me” management. In which the style utilised depends on which style the leader feels will return him or her the greatest self-benefit. 9,9 Team Management.

This style of leadership is considered to be ideal. Such managers have great concern for both people and production. They work to motivate employees to reach their highest levels of accomplishment. They are flexible and responsive to change, and they understand the need to change. Contingency Approaches Contingency theories propose that fro any given situation there is a best way to manage. Contingency theories go beyond situational approaches, which observe that all factors must be considered when leadership decisions are to be made.

Contingency theories attempt to isolate the key factors that must be considered and to indicate how to manage when those key factors are present. Fielder’s Contingency Model In this model leadership is effective when the leader’s style is appropriate to the situation, as determined by three principal factors: Leader-member relations: The nature of the interpersonal relationship between leader and follower, expressed in terms of good through poor, with qualifying modifiers attached as necessary.

It is obvious that the leader’s personality and the personalities of subordinates play important roles in this variable. Task structure: The nature of the subordinate’s task, described as structured or unstructured, associated with the amount of creative freedom allowed the subordinate to accomplish the task, and how the task is defined. Position power: The degree to which the position itself enables the leader to get the group members to comply with and accept his or her direction and leadership The Path-Goal Model Leaders Behaviour under Task Providing clear Objectives • Providing appropriate procedures • Ensuring there is evidence of progress • Ensuring avoidance of digression • Ensuring deadlines are met Leaders Behaviour under Team Commitment • Trust ; Openness • Sense of purpose • Stability • Cohesion • Success • Fun Leaders Behaviour under Individual • To be included • To make a contribution • To be respected • To receive Feedback • To feel safe To grow Leadership Traits: Five Most Important Leadership Traits The five leadership traits/leadership qualities are: 1. Honest 2. Forward-Looking 3. Competent 4. Inspiring 5. Intelligent Your skill at exhibiting these five leadership qualities is strongly correlated with people’s desire to follow your lead. Exhibiting these traits will inspire confidence in your leadership. Not exhibiting these traits or exhibiting the opposite of these traits will decrease your leadership influence with those around you. Forward-Looking as a Leadership Trait

The whole point of leadership is figuring out where to go from where you are now. While you may know where you want to go, people won’t see that unless you actively communicate it with them. Remember, these traits aren’t just things you need to have, they are things you need to actively display to those around you. When people do not consider their leader forward-looking, that leader is usually suffering from one of two possible problems: 1. The leader doesn’t have a forward-looking vision. 2. The leader is unwilling or scared to share the vision with others.

When a leader doesn’t have a vision for the future, it usually because they are spending so much time on today, that they haven’t really thought about tomorrow. On a very simplistic level this can be solved simply by setting aside some time for planning, strategizing and thinking about the future. Competency as a Leadership Quality People want to follow someone who is competent. This doesn’t mean a leader needs to be the foremost expert on every area of the entire organization, but they need to be able to demonstrate competency.

For a leader to demonstrate that they are competent, it isn’t enough to just avoid displaying incompetency. Some people will assume you are competent because of your leadership position, but most will have to see demonstrations before deciding that you are competent. When people under your leadership look at some action you have taken and think, “that just goes to show why he is the one in charge”, you are demonstrating competency. If these moments are infrequent, it is likely that some demonstrations of competency will help boost your leadership influence. Inspiration as a Leadership Trait

People want to be inspired. In fact, there is a whole class of people who will follow an inspiring leader–even when the leader has no other qualities. If you have developed the other traits in this article, being inspiring is usually just a matter of communicating clearly and with passion. Being inspiring means telling people how your organization is going to change the world. A great example of inspiration is when Steve Jobs stole the CEO from Pepsi by asking him, “Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to change the world? Being inspiring means showing people the big picture and helping them see beyond a narrow focus and understand how their part fits into the big picture. Intelligence as a Leadership Trait Intelligence is something that can be difficult to develop. The road toward becoming more intelligent is difficult, long and can’t be completed without investing considerable time. Developing intelligence is a lifestyle choice. Your college graduation was the beginning of your education, not the end. In fact, much of what is taught in college functions merely as a foundational language for lifelong educational experiences.

To develop intelligence you need to commit to continual learning–both formally and informally. With modern advances in distance, education it is easy to take a class or two each year from well respected professors in the evening at your computer. Summary of the Five Leadership Qualities By consciously making an effort to exhibit these traits, people will be more likely to follow you. These are the most important traits that people look for in their leaders. By exhibiting them on a regular basis, you will be able to grow your influence to its potential as a leader.

Theoretical Rationale for Sex Differences and Similarities in Leadership Style As women increasingly enter leadership roles that traditionally were occupied mainly by men, the possibility that the leadership styles of women and men differ continues to attract attention. The focus of these debates on sameness versus difference can obscure the array of causal factors that can produce differences or similarities. Adopting the perspective of social role theory, we offer a framework that encompasses many of the complexities of the empirical literature on the leadership styles of women and men.

Supplementing Eagly and Johnson’s (1990) review of the interpersonally oriented, task-oriented, autocratic, and democratic styles of women and men, we present new data concerning the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles. Analysis of the situation that women and men face as leaders provides a rationale for expecting differences and similarities. From the perspective of social role theory of sex differences and similarities (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000), this analysis begins with the principle that leadership roles, like other organizational roles, are but one influence on leaders’ behavior.

In addition, leaders elicit expectancies based on people’s categorization of them as male and female. These expectancies constitute gender roles, which are the shared beliefs that apply to individuals on the basis of their socially identified sex. These roles are assumed to follow from perceivers’ observations of men and women as concentrated in different social roles in the family and paid employment. Aspects of gender roles that are especially relevant to understanding leadership pertain to agentic and communal attributes.

Agentic characteristics, which are ascribed more strongly to men than women, describe primarily an assertive, controlling, and confident tendency–for example, aggressive, ambitious, dominant, forceful, independent, daring, self-confident, and competitive. In employment settings, agentic behaviors might include speaking assertively, competing for attention, influencing others, initiating activity directed to assigned tasks, and making problem-focused suggestions .

Communal characteristics, which are ascribed more strongly to women than men, describe primarily a concern with the welfare of other people–for example, affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, interpersonally sensitive, nurturant, and gentle. In employment settings, communal behaviors might include speaking tentatively, not drawing attention to oneself, accepting others’ direction, supporting and soothing others, and contributing to the solution of relational and interpersonal problems. Simultaneous Occupancy of Gender Role and Leader Role

Managers and other leaders occupy roles defined by their specific position in a hierarchy but also simultaneously function under the constraints of their gender roles. Although it would be consistent with a structural interpretation of organizational behaviour to predict that men and women who occupy the same leadership role would behave very similarly, gender roles ordinarily continue to exert some influence, with the result that female and male occupants and potential occupants of the same organizational role may behave somewhat differently.

Despite the likely influence of gender roles on leaders’ behavior, formal leadership (or managerial) roles should be of primary importance in organizational settings because these roles lend their occupants legitimate authority and are regulated by relatively clear rules about appropriate behavior. This idea that the influence of gender roles can be diminished or even eliminated by other roles was foreshadowed by experimental demonstrations of the lessening or disappearance of many gender-stereotypic sex differences in laboratory settings when participants received information that competed with gender-based expectations.

Although research that considers the joint impact of gender roles and organizational roles is sparse it suggests some tentative generalizations about the increased similarity of women and men who are in the same organizational role. It is thus likely that leadership roles, like other organizational roles, provide norms that regulate the performance of many tasks, which would therefore be similarly accomplished by male and female role occupants. For example, a manager is obligated to carry out a range of activities such as monitoring subordinates’ performance and gathering and disseminating information.

Despite pressures to conform to such norms, managers generally have some leeway to vary the manner in which they carry out these required activities. Managers may thus be friendly or more remote, consult few or many colleagues about decisions, and so forth. Organizational behaviors include in addition a wide range of more informal actions that are not narrowly regulated by organizational roles (e. g. , chatting about sports, commemorating co-workers’ birthdays). It is these elective and discretionary aspects of organizational behaviour that may be most likely to vary according to gender.

This influence of gender roles on organizational behaviour occurs, not only because people react to leaders in terms of gendered expectancies and leaders respond in turn, but also because most people have internalized gender roles to some extent. As a consequence of these differing social identities, women and men have somewhat different expectations for their own behaviour in organizational settings. Self-definitions of managers may reflect a blending of their managerial role and gender role, and, through self-regulatory processes, these composite selfdefinitions influence behavior.

Congruence of Leader Roles and Gender Roles Female leaders’ efforts to accommodate their behaviour to the sometimes conflicting demands of the female gender role and their leader role can foster leadership styles that differ from those of men. Gender roles thus have different implications for the behaviour of female and male leaders, not only because the female and male roles have different content, but also because there is often inconsistency between the predominantly communal qualities that perceivers associate with women and the predominantly agentic qualities that they believe are required to succeed as a leader.

People thus tend to have similar beliefs about leaders and men but dissimilar beliefs about leaders and women. The degree of perceived incongruity between a leader role and the female gender role would depend on many factors, including the exact definition of the leader role, the activation of the female gender role in a particular situation, and individuals’ personal approval of traditional definitions of gender roles.

Perceived incongruity between the female gender role and typical leader roles tends to create prejudice toward female leaders and potential leaders that takes two forms: (a) less favourable evaluation of women’s (than men’s) potential for leadership because leadership ability is more stereotypic of men than women and (b) less favourable evaluation of the actual leadership behavior of women than men because agentic behavior is perceived as less desirable in women than men.

The first type of prejudice stems from the descriptive norms of gender roles–that is, the activation of descriptive beliefs about women’s characteristics and the consequent ascription of female-stereotypic qualities to them, which are unlike the qualities expected and desired in leaders. The second type of prejudice stems from the injunctive (or prescriptive) norms of gender roles–that is, the activation of beliefs about how women ought to behave.

If female leaders violate these prescriptive beliefs by fulfilling the agentic requirements of leader roles and failing to exhibit the communal, supportive behaviors that are preferred in women, they can be negatively evaluated for these violations, even while they may also receive some positive evaluation for their fulfillment of the leader role.

The role congruity analysis thus suggests that female leaders’ choices are constrained by threats from two directions: Conforming to their gender role can produce a failure to meet the requirements of their leader role, and conforming to their leader role can produce a failure to meet the requirements of their gender role. Particularly consequential for leadership style would be the second form of prejudice–that is, the negative reactions that women may experience when they behave in a clearly agentic style, especially if that style entails exerting control and dominance over others.

In summary, the social role argument that leadership roles constrain behaviour so that sex differences are minimal among occupants of the same leadership role must be tempered by several more complex considerations. Not only may gender roles spill over to organizational settings, but also leaders’ gender identities may constrain their behaviors in a direction consistent with their own gender role. Also, the female gender role is more likely to be incongruent with leader roles than the male gender role is, producing a greater potential for prejudice against female leaders.

Such prejudice could produce negative sanctions that affect leaders’ behavior. Procedure followed in Statistical analysis : Sample size of male, n1=15 Sample size of female, n2=15 Sample mean of male{x1} = 40. 5 Sample mean of male{x2} = 38. 4 Population mean of male (u1) = 40. 625 Population mean of female (u2) =40. 24 Standard deviation for male (s1) =5. 65 Standard deviation for female (s2) = 7. 65 HYPOTHESIS TESTING We have to prove that men are better leader than women’ So let, h0:u1>u2 h1:u1