The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ve of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0964-9425.htm

Occupational
Exploring gender differences in self-efficacy
leaders’ occupational self-efficacy
Birgit Schyns and Karin Sanders
Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Work and Organisational Psychology, 513
University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands
Received 20 February 2005
Revised 17 May 2005
Abstract Accepted 26 May 2005
Purpose – This study focuses on gender differences in the relationship between transformational
leadership and leader’s occupational self-efficacy. The aim is to explain how female and male leaders
develop their self-efficacy. This knowledge is important for leaders as well as organizations (e.g.
human resources departments).
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 58 leaders were asked to indicate their
transformational leadership as well as their occupational self-efficacy, and 113 followers to indicate
these leaders’ transformational leadership. Hypotheses were examined using regression analyses.
Findings – We found no significant relationship between self-rated transformational leadership and
occupational self-efficacy for women, although we did find a positive relationship for men. No
interaction effect with respect to leaders’ occupational self-efficacy could be found between leaders’
gender and follower-rated transformational leadership.
Research limitations/implications – Whereas the relationship between transformational
leadership and occupational self-efficacy was examined for men and women, we could not examine
the processes that lead to the differences.
Practical implications – Knowing that female and male leaders differ in the relationship between
transformational leadership and occupational self-efficacy can help organizations to seek ways to
build up their occupational self-efficacy. This is especially important when considering that
occupational self-efficacy is related to performance in organizations.
Originality/value – The paper employs both leader and follower evaluations on leaders’
transformational leadership to explore the relationship between transformational leadership and
occupational self-efficacy. The paper sheds light on the different processes involved in establishing
occupational self-efficacy.
Keywords Leadership, Gender, Management effectiveness
Paper type Research paper

Exploring gender differences in leaders’ occupational self-efficacy

Previous studies all yield similar results: working women are still under-represented in
the managerial ranks within modern organizations (for Germany see e.g. Beckmann,
2004; for the US see e.g. US Department of Labor, 2002). Women’s lack of involvement
in decision-making, particularly in areas that are important, may reflect a more subtle
and covert form of gender discrimination in western society (Ridgeway, 1997). This
under-representation occurs in spite of the fact that female leadership styles, such as
transformational leadership, have clearly been found to be effective (Lowe et al., 1996).
Women in Management Review
Parts of the study were presented at the Sixth Symposium on Gender Research (Kiel, Germany, Vol. 20 No. 7, 2005
15-17 November 2002). The authors would like to thank Hartmut Blank, Tina Paul, and Gisela pp. 513-523
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Mohr for their comments on earlier versions of this paper and Jule Epp for proofreading the 0964-9425
paper. DOI 10.1108/09649420510624747
WIMR Another trend in modern organizations is the placing of increasing emphasis on
20,7 issues pertaining to self-efficacy, as self-efficacy has been shown to be related to
performance (Judge and Bono, 2001). While there are studies on differences between
male and female leaders (Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly and Johnson, 1990), and studies on
the self-efficacy of leaders (Mayo et al., 1996; Paglis and Green, 2002), little or no
research has combined these strains to look at the relationship between leadership and
514 occupation self-efficacy with respect to male and female leaders. Consequently, our
study focuses on gender differences in the relationship between self- and other-ratings
of transformational leadership and leaders’ occupational self-efficacy.

Transformational leadership and gender

Based on Burns’ (1978) initial considerations, Bass (1985) summarised the concept of
transformational leadership as follows: transformational leadership is seen as
multi-dimensional and exceptional leadership. According to Bass and Avolio (1995),
there are four dimensions of transformational leadership: idealised influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration.
Transformational leadership refers to having distant goals (such as visions,
assessed using the dimension of idealised influence). Furthermore, transformational
leadership is able to influence followers in such a way that they change their
convictions, needs, and values (Burns, 1978; Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987; reflected in
the dimensions inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation). Individualised
consideration refers to the recognition of the individual followers’ needs (Bass and
Avolio, 1993).
Theoretical considerations and empirical results underline that female leaders differ
from male leaders with respect to the degree of transformational leadership they show.
Theoretically, Bass et al. (1996) argue that relationship-orientation is one part of
successful leadership (see the transformational leadership dimension “individual
consideration”) and at the same time emphasise that women are more nurturing,
considerate, and caring, which may be giving women a possible advantage when it
comes to establishing a relationship with their followers. As transformational
leadership is relationship-oriented, Bass et al. (1996) assume that women are rated more
transformational than men. To explain why women may lead in a more
transformational manner than men, Eagly and Karau (2002) revert to the role
congruity theory, an extension of Eagly’s (1987) social role theory. They argue that
communal behaviours (such as transformational leadership) are less opposed to the
female role than other types of leadership (e.g. directive leadership). This means that
women will receive less negative feedback from others when engaging in
transformational leadership behaviour. As a consequence, women are looked upon
as being more transformational than men and probably also as behaving in a more
transformational manner than men as women are rewarded more for this type of
leadership than men.
Results obtained by Bass et al. (1996) imply that, compared to their male colleagues,
female leaders are evaluated as being more transformational by their subordinates. The
sample in their study consisted of female and male subordinates of male and female
middle or high managers. In a second (heterogeneous) sample of managers on lower
levels of hierarchy, Bass et al. (1996) could replicate their findings. In a recent analysis of
the norm data of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ), a very commonly used
instrument in transformational leadership research, Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt Occupational
(2001) considered gender differences in transformational leadership (Eagly et al., 2003). self-efficacy
Their results also show differences between men and women in terms of
transformational leadership, with women leading in a more transformational manner
than men. We can, therefore, expect that women in our sample will be rated
(other-ratings) higher in transformational leadership than men (H1).
515
Transformational leadership and leaders’ self-efficacy
Occupational self-efficacy is an important resource in companies, as has been shown
by the positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance (recent examples
are Chen et al., 2001; Judge and Bono, 2001[1]). Occupational self-efficacy is defined as
self-efficacy related to the workplace. It is a broad concept applicable to different
professions (Schyns and Collani, 2002). According to Bandura (1977), the successful
execution of a task positively influences self-efficacy. However, this positive effect only
occurs when the successful execution is attributed to one’s own abilities (Bandura,
1977). This is especially the case when it comes to performing difficult tasks (Bandura,
1977). Leadership can be seen as a difficult task as leaders normally perform tasks
involving considerable autonomy and complexity (Mohr, 1999), allowing us
consequently to assume that the execution of the difficult task “leadership” is
positively related to self-efficacy.
Studies examining the relationship between transformational leadership and
self-efficacy concentrate on the followers’ perspective, meaning that they focus on the
followers’ rating of transformational leadership and the followers’ self-efficacy (Felfe
and Schyns, 2002; Schyns, 2001, see Shea and Howell, 1999, for the relationship
between charismatic leadership and followers’ self-efficacy).

Self-rated transformational leadership and leaders’ occupational self-efficacy

In this paper, we assume that transformational leadership indicates that the task of
leadership has been fulfilled with particular success. There are a couple of reasons for
this assumption. First of all, transformational leadership consists of components that
are especially important in modern organizations, such as visions and individualised
consideration (being a coach rather than a supervisor; Dess and Picken, 2000). Second,
transformational leaders have been shown to be highly successful, for example, in
Lowe et al. (1996). Working with the assumption that transformational leadership
equals successful leadership, and keeping in mind that successfully executing a task
leads to high self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), we can expect self-efficacy to be positively
related to transformational leadership when the success is attributed to one’s own
abilities. Here we wish to emphasise the importance of attribution style in the
establishment of self-efficacy. If attribution styles are different for men and women,
then this will have an effect on how their self-rated transformational leadership is
related to their occupational self-efficacy.
Early reflections on attribution styles of women and men go back to Deaux (1976).
She argues that women tend to have low expectations of their performance when
confronted with a task that could be considered male specific. They regard good
performance as surprising and thus attribute it to external factors such as chance
(for an empirical evidence, see Deaux and Farris, 1977). Although transformational
leadership seems to be in accordance with female stereotypes (Eagly et al., 2003),
WIMR leadership in itself is often connected to male stereotypes, as research on the
20,7 think-manager-think-male phenomenon shows (Schein, 1973, 1975). In addition, when
it comes to pure numbers, there are still considerably more men in managerial
positions than women. Consequently, we assume that leadership is a male task. In
accordance with attribution theory, we are lead to propose that female leaders will
regard their success in leadership as more surprising than male leaders do and, as a
516 result, attribute it externally. Rosenthal et al. (1996) examined the attribution styles of
male and female leaders. Controlling for organizational setting and level of hierarchy,
they found that female leaders attribute their success less to their abilities than male
leaders do. Connecting that result to the relationship between attribution of success
and self-efficacy, we can assume that women may experience success but do not
attribute it to their abilities. Therefore, we hypothesise that, for women, the
relationship between self-rated transformational leadership and self-efficacy is lower
than it is for men (H2).

Follower-rated transformational leadership and leaders’ occupational self-efficacy.

It seems that women are better at integrating feedback into their self-appraisal
(Roberts and Nolen-Hoeksema, 1989, 1994; Roberts, 1991). Consequently,
follower-ratings of transformational leadership should have a different effect on
leaders’ occupational self-efficacy than self-ratings. Women tend to regard the
evaluation of others as more accurate and informative than men do. In line with that,
they make more use of that information than men do (Roberts, 1991; Roberts and
Nolen-Hoeksema, 1989, 1994). We, therefore, assume that female leaders also consider
their followers’ opinions of their leadership style as more accurate and informative. In
the long run, they will integrate the evaluation of their followers into their self-image,
which leads to a positive correlation between followers’ ratings of transformational
leadership and female leaders’ self-efficacy. As men do not react to the same extent to
such feedback, we do not expect a relationship between followers’ ratings of
transformational leadership and male leaders’ self-efficacy. Therefore, we hypothesise
a positive relationship between follower-rated transformational leadership and leaders’
occupational self-efficacy for female leaders and no relationship between follower-rated
transformational leadership and leaders’ occupational self-efficacy for male
leaders (H3).

Method
Sample
The sample involved 112 followers and their 58 supervisors in 23 different town,
hospital, and health insurance administrations in Germany. From each leader, one
female and one male follower were asked to take part in the study, that is, two
followers rated one leader. In some cases, this was not possible. The following gender
constellations emerged: 28 male followers reported to have a male leader, 27 male
followers reported to have a female leader, 28 female followers reported to have a male
leader, 29 female followers reported to have a female leader. The followers had a mean
age of 37.3 years (SD ¼ 10.15). Of the followers, 50.9 per cent were female. Their direct
supervisors were 41.1 years of age (SD ¼ 8.89). Of the leader, 51.7 per cent had a
university degree. Ten per cent of the followers reported to have contact with their
supervisor all day.
Procedure Occupational
Part of the questioning took place in the presence of students that had taken an self-efficacy
advanced course on the subject of research in work and organizational psychology;
others were given to the participants and handed back to the students later; and still
others were done via mail. After agreeing to take part in the study, none of the
participants declined to do so.
517
Instruments
Transformational Leadership was assessed using a German translation of MLQ (Bass
and Avolio, 1995; translation by Felfe, n.d.). Although the MLQ includes additional
leadership scales, only the subscales for transformational leadership were used here.
Theoretically, five subscales can be differentiated: idealised influence (attributed and
behaviour), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised
consideration (Bass and Avolio, 1995). The answer categories of the MLQ range from
1 ¼ does not apply at all to 5 ¼ applies completely. Since there is no agreement on the
dimensionality of the MLQ (Avolio et al., 1999; Den Hartog et al., 1997), a factor
analysis was conducted to test for the dimensionality of the transformational
leadership subscales. Regarding the followers’ ratings of the leaders’ transformational
leadership, a clear one-dimensional factor solution emerged (the variance explanation
of the first factor was 43.73 per cent, of the second 7.67 per cent, and of the third 6.66
per cent). One item had to be deleted due to low factor loading. The internal consistency
(Cronbach’s a) of the 19 items was 0.93. The factor solution for the leaders’ self-ratings
was less unambiguous[2]. The variance explanation of the first three factors was 20.84,
15.74, and 9.20 per cent, respectively. In order to be able to best compare the results, the
same solution as the one applicable to the followers was chosen. The internal
consistency of the instrument is a ¼ 0.74.
Self-efficacy of the leaders was assessed using Schyns and Collani’s (2002)
occupational self-efficacy scale. This instrument is work-related and allows for the
comparison among different occupations. The answer categories run from 1 ¼ agree
completely to 6 ¼ do not agree at all. The items were recoded in a way that a high
value means high self-efficacy. One item had to be deleted due to low factor loading.
The internal consistency for ten items was a ¼ 0.80.

Results
Before beginning our analysis, we had a closer look at demographic variables in order
to clarify whether or not we would have to control for certain demographics in the
testing of our hypotheses.

Demographic variables
We found no significant relationship between supervisor’s self-rated transformational
leadership and his/her age (r ¼ 0.14). We also found no significant relationship
between supervisor’s occupational self-efficacy and his/her age (r ¼ 2 0.10). The
difference between men and women on self-rated transformational leadership was
significant (M (women) ¼ 4.00 and M (men) ¼ 3.81; t (50) ¼ 2 2,170; p , 0.05). Men
and women did not differ significantly with respect to occupational self-efficacy
(M ¼ 3.94 for men, M ¼ 4.10 for women). As the correlations between age and the
other variables were not significant, age is not controlled for the further analyses.
WIMR The overall correlation between self-rated transformational leadership and
20,7 occupational self-efficacy was r ¼ 2 0.35 ( p , 0.05). The overall correlation between
follower-rated transformational leadership and leaders’ occupational self-efficacy was
r ¼ 2 0.10 (n.s.).

Test of hypotheses
518 Results of a t-test indicated that male and female leaders were not rated significantly
different on transformational leadership (H1), although the mean difference did go in
the right direction (Mfemale ¼ 3.75, Mmale ¼ 3.66, t(54) ¼ 2 0.58, n.s.).
In order to test our hypothesis concerning the differences in the relationship
between self-rated transformational leadership and occupational self-efficacy, we
conducted a moderated regression analysis. Following Aiken and West (1991), we
centred the continuous variables and dummy-coded gender. As can be seen in Table I,
transformational leadership, as well as the interaction between transformational
leadership and gender, has a significant impact on occupational self-efficacy. In order
to see what the relationships look like for male and female leaders, we drew a diagram.
In Figure 1, we can see that the relationship between transformational leadership and
occupational self-efficacy is near zero for female leaders and positive for male leaders.
This confirms our hypothesis (H2).
The third hypothesis (H3) concerning the relationship between follower-rated
transformational leadership and leaders’ occupational self-efficacy was also tested
with a moderated regression analysis. Beforehand, we calculated the mean value of the
followers’ ratings of transformational leadership for the respective leaders. As can be
seen from Table II, neither follower-rated transformational leadership, gender, nor the
interaction has a significant impact on the leaders’ self-efficacy. Therefore, H3 cannot
be confirmed. In addition, we test the extent to which same gender in a leader-follower
dyad would affect the relationship between follower-rated transformational leadership
and leader’s occupational self-efficacy. Taking into account only male followers’
ratings of transformational leadership and male leaders’ occupational self-efficacy, as
well as female followers’ ratings of transformational leadership and female leaders’
occupational self-efficacy, an interesting result emerged: whereas for male leaders, this
relationship was almost zero (r ¼ 0.02, n.s.), it was negative for female leaders
(r ¼ 2 0.35), although, due to low N, this correlation did not reach significance.

Summary, discussion, and future research

In this paper, we had a closer look at the relationship between (self- and follower-rated)
transformational leadership and leaders’ self-efficacy as moderated by gender. First,
we tested whether or not followers rated female leaders as more transformational than

B Beta R R2
Table I. Constant 2 0.021 0.46 0.21
Moderated Transformational leadership 0.84 0.53 * * *
regression – gender, Gender 0.13 0.12
transformational Gender *transformational leadership 2 0.99 20.36 * *
leadership, and
occupational self-efficacy Notes: * *p , 0.05; * * *p , 0.01
 Occupational
self-efficacy

519

Figure 1.
Moderated
regression – gender,
self-rated transformational
leadership, and
occupational self-efficacy

B Beta R R2
Table II.
Constant 20.08 0.22 0.05 Moderated
Transformational leadership 0.01 0.02 regression – gender,
Gender 0.15 0.14 follower-rated
Gender *transformational leadership 20.24 2 0.19 transformational
leadership, and
Notes: *p , 0.10; * *p , 0.05; * * *p , 0.01 occupational self-efficacy

male leaders, as was found in prior research (Eagly et al., 2003). Results indicate no
significant difference in how followers rate their male and female leaders, although the
follower rating for women leaders were higher than for men leaders. However,
interestingly, female leaders rate themselves higher in transformational leadership. We
have to keep in mind that public and insurance administrations such as we assessed in
this study may in general be more female-typed than, for example, manufacturing
WIMR companies. This may lead to a stronger need for transformational leadership for both
20,7 and female leaders, which diminishes the differences found in follower-rated
transformational leadership for male and female leaders. Although we can only
speculate on the reasons for why female leaders rate themselves higher in
transformational leadership, we might assume that women have fewer problems
assigning themselves a female leadership style (Eagly et al., 2003) than male leaders do.
520 This could explain the differences found in self-ratings. Further research is needed,
especially in terms of follower-rated leadership, in other parts of the labour market to
explore our assumptions and to examine if there are differences among women and men
leaders in different organizations, e.g. male- or more female-typed organizations. This
means that it would be especially interesting to compare in how far followers rate male
and female leaders differently in different types of organizations. We could expect that
women in organizations where they are tokens (see Kanter, 1977, for a discussion on
the problems of tokens within organizations) are rated higher in female leadership
styles as compared to men. We expect that for two reasons. First, using a female
leadership style makes the female role and the leadership fit (see lack of fit idea,
Heilman, 1983). Second, especially when women are tokens, others may expect them to
behave differently from men, thus, using a female leadership style. This also relates
to the idea of think-manager-think-male (Schein, 1973, 1975), that is, that people tend to
find the same characteristics typically for men and for managers, whereas typical
female characteristics hardly overlap with typical manager characteristics.
In the second hypothesis, we argued that women might consider their (self-rated)
transformational leadership as less relevant to their self-efficacy, following the logic
that leading is a male task and that women may then attribute their own successful
leadership (as indicated by transformational leadership) to chance rather than to their
own abilities. For men, we expected that self-efficacy and transformational leadership
would be positively related, as no such attribution to chance would occur. Our results
confirm our hypothesis: the relationship between self rated transformational
leadership and self-efficacy is lower for women than for men. However, a clear
limitation of our study is that we could not control whether or not the assumed
mechanism of attribution differences is indeed responsible for the effect we found.
Future research should examine the reasons we assume for these different
relationships and see if they hold true. This can be done by experimentally varying
the feedback given to participants, either comprising the idea that their success is due
to chance or ability and examine in how far this affects their self-efficacy. We expect
the effects to differ for male and female respondents as the incorporation of feedback
should be different for male and female participants. Subsequently, the results of such
experimental research can be validated in field studies. This, of course, may cause
difficulties with respect to ethics. What could be done is to ask female and male leaders
themselves for what they think the reason for their success is and see how that relates
to their self-efficacy, prior to giving them extensive feedback on how to improve their
leadership (and their self-efficacy in this respect).
In the third hypothesis, we expected that follower-rated transformational leadership
would be positively related to leaders’ self-efficacy for women, as women tend to
include feedback in their self-concept (Roberts, 1991). This was not confirmed as the
interaction between gender and follower-rated transformational leadership did not
reach significance. One possible explanation for this is that because female and male
leaders in our sample did not differ significantly with respect to follower-rated Occupational
transformational leadership, male and female receive the same type of feedback and self-efficacy
are more or less the same with regard to the sensitivity to the evaluations of the
followers. This could mean that the female leaders are in the same way as male leaders
not very sensitive towards the evaluations of their followers or that male leaders in
these female-typed context show a similar degree of sensitivity to the evaluations of
their followers. Another, but related, possible explanation is that the companies we 521
assessed do not engage in a systematic feedback to leaders. Leaders in our sample may
not be aware of their followers’ judgements concerning their leadership. We also
cannot rule out that companies reward men more than women for female leadership
styles (given, as we assumed above that this is the preferred style in female-typed
companies) as transformational leadership may be considered unusual for male
leaders, whereas for female leaders it is considered natural to lead in this way. This
means, that women may get less positive feedback for their leadership style than men
and, therefore, gain no advantage from leading in a transformational manner. Again,
as in the second hypothesis, the mechanisms as to how follower-rated transformational
leadership affects leaders’ self-efficacy need to be examined. This could be done by
experimentally varying the degree of feedback male and female participants receive
and analyse the effect this has on their self-efficacy. In field study, we could compare
male and female leaders in companies that use different types of feedback systems (e.g.
structured: 360 degree feedback, or unstructured: leaving it to the leader to seek
feedback). The present study points at possibilities in the relationship between
transformational leadership and leaders’ self-efficacy. Our results help to formulate
questions for future research on that topic as we outlined here.

Notes
1. However, Vancouver et al. (2002) found a negative relationship between self-efficacy and
performance in an experimental study. Self-efficacy lead to an overestimation in their study.
Whether or not and the extent of which such a relationship can also be found in an
organizational context needs further testing.
2. Schyns (2002) assumes that one’s own leadership experiences play a role when
differentiating leadership behaviour, which is to say that followers differentiate less than
leaders. The results of the factor analysis seem to support this assumption.

References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 441-62.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84, pp. 191-215.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York,
NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership: a response to critiques”, in
Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research, Academic Press,
San Diego, CA, pp. 49-80.
WIMR Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x-Short), Mind
Garden, Redwood City, CA.
20,7
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. and Atwater, L. (1996), “The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 45,
pp. 5-34.
Beckmann, P. (2004), “Arbeitsmarkt für frauen (Labormarket for women)”, Selbstverwaltung
522 aktuell, 13 January, pp. 17-20.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M. and Eden, D. (2001), “Validation of a new generalized self-efficacy scale”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4, pp. 62-83.
Deaux, K. (1976), “Sex: a perspective on the attribution process”, in Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W. and
Kidd, B. (Eds), New Directions in Attribution Research, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Deaux, K. and Farris, E. (1977), “Attributing the causes for one’s own performance. The effects of
sex, norms, and outcome”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 11, pp. 59-72.
Den Hartog, D.N., van Muijen, J.J. and Koopman, P.L. (1997), “Transactional versus
transformational leadership: an analysis of the MLQ”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 19-34.
Dess, G.G. and Picken, J.C. (2000), “Changing roles: leadership in the 21st century”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 28, pp. 18-34.
Eagly, A.H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role Interpretation, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Eagly, A.H. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2001), “The leadership styles of women and men”,
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57, pp. 781-97.
Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B.T. (1990), “Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 233-56.
Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 109, pp. 573-98.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and van Engen, M.L. (n.d.), “Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and
men”, Psychological Review, 129, pp. 569-591.
Felfe, J. (n.d.), Zeitschrift für Arbeits – und Organisationspsychologie, Validierung einer deutschen
Version des Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5x Short) von Bass &
Avolio (1995) (Validation of a German Version of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire)(in press).
Felfe, J. and Schyns, B. (2002), “The relationship between employees’ occupational self-efficacy
and perceived transformational leadership – replication, an extension of recent results”,
Current Research in Social Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 137-62, available at: www.uiowa.edu/
, grpproc
Heilman, M.E. (1983), “Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 269-98.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2001), “Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction
and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 80-92.
Kanter, R. (1977), Men and Women in the Cooperation, Harper, New York, NY.
Kuhnert, K.W. and Lewis, P. (1987), “Transactional and transformational leadership: a Occupational
constructive/developmental analysis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12,
pp. 648-57. self-efficacy
Lowe, K.B., Kroek, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 385-425.
Mayo, M., Pastor, J.C. and Meindl, J.R. (1996), “The effects of group heterogenity on the 523
self-perceived efficacy of group leaders”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 265-84.
Mohr, G. (1999), “Theoretische konzepte von managementaufgaben: traditionelle ansätze und
neuere modelle (Theoretic concepts of management tasks: traditional approaches and new
models)”, in Hacker, W. and Rinck, M. (Eds), Bericht über den 41 Kongress der Deutschen
Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Dresden 1998, Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich,
pp. 416-32.
Paglis, L.L. and Green, S.G. (2002), “Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation for
leading change”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 215-35.
Ridgeway, C.L. (1997), “Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: considering
employment”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, pp. 218-35.
Roberts, T-A. (1991), “Gender and the influence of evaluations on self-assessments in
achievement settings”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 109, pp. 297-308.
Roberts, T-A. and Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1989), “Sex differences in reactions to evaluative
feedback”, Sex Roles, Vol. 21, pp. 725-47.
Roberts, T-A. and Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1994), “Gender comparisons in responsiveness to others’
evaluations in achievement settings”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 221-40.
Rosenthal, P., Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (1996), “Gender differences in managers’ causal
explanation for their work performance: a study in two organizations”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 145-51.
Schein, V.E. (1973), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 95-100.
Schein, V.E. (1975), “Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 340-44.
Schyns, B. (2001), “The relationship between employees’ self-monitoring and occupational
self-efficacy and transformational leadership”, Current Research in Social Psychology,
available at: www.uiowa.edu/ , grpproc, Vol 7, pp. 30-42.
Schyns, B. (2002), “Geschlecht und Differenzierung von Führung”, Wirtschaftspsychologie, Vol. 4,
pp. 45-9.
Schyns, B. and Collani, G.v. (2002), “A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to
personality constructs and organisational variables”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 219-41.
Shea, C.M. and Howell, J.M. (1999), “Charismatic leadership and task feedback: a laboratory
study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10,
pp. 375-96.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005), Monthly household data from the current population
survey (Table A-19: Eployed persons by occupation, sex, and age), available at: www.bls.
gov/web/cpseea19.pdf
Vancouver, J.B., Thompson, C.M., Tischner, E.C. and Putka, D.J. (2002), “Two studies examining
the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87,
pp. 506-16.