1975 Volume 18, Number 3 645

that such courses would affect high school graduates' careers more than
the careers of university educated subjects. For this reason, taking courses in
the first case would be more meaningfully related to achievement and
growth than would be true in the second case.
The above explanation also might be feasible in clarifying the non-
significant differences in all the high salaried categories, including all the
high school subjects. After one reaches a relatively high position level,
taking a course outside the organization might not be strongly related to
advancement and development. In conclusion, the results, at least in a
general way, tend to provide an indication that job orientation may be a
useful concept for understanding certain job behavior. Other studies using
different types of organizations and different types of work behavior are
needed to test further the validity of this approach and to clarify, in more
concrete terms, the dynamics and consequences of what has been labeled
intrinsic and extrinsic job orientation.

REFERENCES
1. Gemmili, G. R., and W. J. Heisler. "Fatalism as a Factor in Managerial Job Satis-
faction, Job Strain, and Mobility," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 25 (1972), 241-250.
2. Girod, R., Y. Fricker, and A. Korffy. "Counter-Mobility," Social Science Information,
Vol. 11(1972), 257-267.
3. Haywood, H. C , and V. Dobbs. "Motivation and Anxiety in High School Boys,"
Journal of Personality, Vol. 32 (1964), 371-379.
4. Lawler, E. E., and D. T. Hall. "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job Involve-
ment, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motivation," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
54(1970,305-312.
5. Lodahl, T. M., and M. Kejner. "The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 49 (1965), 24-33.
6. MuUer, W. "Family Background, Education and Career Mobility," Social Science
Information, Vol. 11 (1972), 223-255.
7. Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectancies for Intemal Versus External Control of Rein-
forcement," Psychological Monograph, Whole No. 609 (1966).
8. Saleh, S. D., and T. Grygier. "Psychodynamics of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Orienta-
tion," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 53 (1969), 446-450.
9. Saleh, S. D., and R. Pasricha. "Job Orientation and Job Tenure," Proceedings, 78th
Annual American Psychological Association Convention, 1970, pp. 595-596.
10. Vroom, V. "Ego Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance," Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 15 (1962), 159-177.
11. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1962).

COMPARISON OF MALE AND FEMALE LEADERSHIP STYLES

J. BRAD CHAPMAN
University of Nebraska-Omaha
Omaha, Nebraska

Throughout the leadership literature, very little empirical research

attempts to determine if there is a significant difference between male and
female leadership styles or behaviors. The theoretical relationships between
646 Academy of Management Journal September

sex and leadership exist since many of the accepted leadership question-
naires call for responses to basic questions or situations which are shaped
by learning experiences or perceptions developed over a period of time. An
individual's sex is one factor that not only affects perception of certain
phenomena but, based on social sex roles stereotypes, also defines what
behaviors are appropriate in given situations.
A review of the empirically based research specifically related to female
leadership behaviors (2, 3, 5, 8) generally indicated that women tend to
adopt more accommodative strategies than do their male counterparts in
influencing group performance and subordinate goal attainment. For
example, Vinacke and GuUickson (8) found that in competitive activities
women tended to form coalitions in an accommodative manner; men were
more exploitive and used coalitions to gain individual advantages. Research
conducted by Denmark and Diggory indicated, "It is clear that on the
average men are more authoritarian than women with respect to the leader's
exercise of authority and power in the matter of group goals and control
of the behavior of individual members" (3, pp. 867-868). However, these
behaviors may be a result of social sex role stereotyping and, therefore, are
not indicative of the female's basic leadership style.
Females, as well as males, are conditioned by societal and cultural pres-
stires to adopt behavioral patterns consonant with society's expectations of
how they should behave. Most cultures attribute dominant, aggressive
qualities to males and passive, dependent qualities to females (1). In a
comprehensive study of the relationship between sex role stereotypes and
management characteristics, Virginia Schein stated "that successful middle
managers are perceived to possess characteristics, attitudes, and tempera-
ments more commonly ascribed to men in general than to women in general"
(6, p. 99). In terms of leadership strategies, one would expect females to
adopt more accommodative or relationship oriented behaviors, since these
behaviors are consistent with societal expectations.
Because of the potential influence of social sex role stereotypes on the
manifestation of female leadership behaviors, the present study attempted
to accomplish two objectives: (a) determine and compare the leadership
styles of practicing male and female leaders with respect to the satisfaction
of their basic underlying need structure, with leadership style measured as
a function of the individual and his(her) need structure; and (b) investigate
and compare the relationship between situational and biographical variables
and leadership style for male and female leaders.
The following hypotheses were proposed:
1. There is no significant difference between male and female leadership
styles.
2. There is no significant correlation between situational and biographi-
cal variables and a specific leadership style for either male or female
leaders.
1975 Voiume 18, Number 3 647

For the purpose of this study, Fred Fiedler's (4) definition of leadership
style and his method of measurement, the Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC)
instrument, were used. Fiedler indicates that leadership style basically is
the underlying need structure of the leader which motivates his behavior
in various leadership situations and infers the consistency of goals or needs
over different situations. Leadership behavior, on the other hand, is what a
leader does: the specific acts in which a leader engages during the course of
directing and coordinating task oriented activities. Consequently, an in-
dividual's leadership behavior may change from situation to situation and,
in the case of women, may be contingent upon sex role stereotypes. However,
his (her) leadership style will remain constant.

Method
Leadership and biographical questionnaires were distributed to a ran-
domly selected sample of practicing male and female leaders (managers) in
one military and one civilian organization. In both instances the samples
were stratified to include only those male and female leaders having similar
job responsibilities and formal authority. The military samples included 146
males and 60 females in the grades of Staff Sergeant through Major; the
civilian samples included 49 males and 28 females who were supervisors or
assistant supervisors at the departmental level of a company. The military
and civilian samples were not combined for analytical purposes and no inter-
organization comparisons were made.
Leadership styles were determined from the respondent's score on
Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-worker questionnaire. The LPC, a semantic
differential scale composed of 16 bipolar adjectives, measures the leader's
perception of his least preferred co-worker. According to Fiedler, a high
LPC leader views his least preferred co-worker in very favorable terms and
therefore derives his major satisfaction from successful interpersonal rela-
tionships: the low LPC leader views his least preferred co-worker in very
unfavorable terms and derives his major satisfaction from task accomplish-
ment. A high LPC leader denotes a relationship oriented leadership style;
the low LPC leader denotes a task oriented leadership style.
Correlations between LPC scores and the following job and biographical
data were computed for each sample: age, marital status, number of
dependents, education, management training, number of individuals super-
vised, number of males supervised, number of females supervised, years
in current supervisory position, total years in supervisory positions, sex of
supervisor, and job structure.
The Marm-Whitney U Test was used to test the first hypothesis, and
Spearman rank correlation coefficients were computed for testing the
second hypothesis (7).
648 Academy of Management Journal September

TABLE 1
Distribution of LPC Scores for AU Samples

Military Civilian
Male Female Male Female
LPC Score N % N % N % N %
1.00-3.36 41 28.1 11 18.3 12 24.5 6 19.5
3.37-4.04 41 28.1 16 26.7 9 18.4 9 34.1
4.05-8.00 64 43.8 33 55.0 28 57.1 13 46.4
Total 146 100.0 60 100.0 49 100.0 28 100.0

Results
Although, as Table 1 shows, there is a difference in the actual distribution
of LPC scores across all samples, this difference proves to be significant
only at the .28 level of confidence for the military sample and at the .50
level for the civilian sample. Consequently, the first hypothesis must be
accepted; it noted that there is no significant difference between male and
female leadership styles as measured by the Least Preferred Co-worker
instrument.
The computed z statistic was 1.094 for the military group and 0.674 for
the civilian group. The comparisons were made between the male and
female LPC score in the civilian and the military groups. All LPC mean
scores between 3.36 through 4.05 were deleted from the sample for
analytical purposes.
Table 2 presents a summary of the correlations between the 14 job and
biographical variables and LPC scores for each of the four samples. At
the .05 level of confidence only five significant relationships exist. There
are negative correlations, significant at the .02 and .01 level of confidence
respectively, between LPC scores and the number of dependents and
number of individuals supervised in the civilian male sample. A positive
correlation, significant at the .04 level, exists between the LPC score and
marital status for the same sample.
In the military female sample, there is a negative correlation, significant
at the .04 level, between the LPC score and number of males supervised.
There also is a negative correlation between the LPC score and education
for the military male sample.
In addition to the fact that there is no significant difference in male and
female leadership styles, a noteworthy finding concerns the relationship
which exists between the number of males supervised and the leadership
style for female leaders. The data indicate that as the number of males
supervised by female leaders increases, the LPC score decreases. In other
words, as females manage an increasing number of males, their leadership
style tends toward the task oriented dimension.
 1975 Volume 18, Number 3 649

TABLE 2
Correlation Coefficients Using LPC Semes

Female Male Female Male

Civilian Civilian Military Military
Job and Bio Data (N = 19) (N = 40) (N = 44) (N = 'lO5)
Age -.17 .13 .14 .15
Marital status —.16 .32* .01 -.08
Number of dependents — .05 -.36* .22 .13
Education —.13 -.18 .11 -.25*
Management training —.34 .12 .05
Number of individuals .26
supervised .14 .23 -.08
Number of males -.40*
supervised — .37 .30* -.09
.17
Number of females
supervised .07 .15 -.01
.20
Years in current
supervisory position ,16 .25 .04
.26
Total years in
supervisory position .13 .14 .10 .08
Sex of supervisor —.25 .06 .04
Job structure .02 .05 .03 .06
Note: r, = The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient.
' = p < .05, for two-tailed test of significance

Discussion

The importance of studying sex differentials in leadership is emphasized

when one considers the increased incidence of females in leadership positions
throughout American industry and government—a situation which, because
of societal expectations, cultural norms, or other factors, is unique to the
field of management. Since women and men have been conditioned by
societal expectations, certain sex role stereotypes can emerge which in-
fluence personality development and behavioral patterns for both men and
women. Consequently, when placed in a leadership position, women may
exhibit leadership behaviors which are significantly more relationship
oriented than are those of their male counterparts; behaviors therefore which
are more congruent with societal expectations.
The results of this study indicate that, although there may be a difference
in leadership behaviors between male and female leaders, there are no
differences in terms of style. Practicing female managers do not have a
significantly higher need for fostering good interpersonal relationships
than do their male colleagues. Also of importance is the finding that the
females studied are not significantly more task oriented than are the males,
although females might be expected to be task oriented if they are to suc-
ceed in a traditional male environment.
550 Academy of Management Journal September

REFERENCES
1. Baughman, E. Earl. Personality, The Psychological Study of the Individual (Englewood
ClifFs: Prentice-Hall, 1972).
2. Bond, J. R., and W. E. Vinacke. "Coalitions in Mixed-Sex Triads," Sociometry, Vol.
24 (1961), 61-75.
3. Denmark, Florence L., and James C. Diggory. "Sex Differences in AtUtudes Toward
Leader's Display of Authoritarian Behavior," Psychological Reports, Vol. 18 (1966),
4. Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
5 Megargee, Edwin I. "Influence of Sex Roles on the Manifestation of Leadership," Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 53 (1969), 377-382.
6. Schein, Virginia Ellen. "The Relationship Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite
Management Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 (1973), 95-100.
7. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Science (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1956).
8. Vinacke, Edgar, and Gary R. Gullickson. "Age and Sex Differences m the Formation
of Coalitions," Chiid Development, Vol. 35 (1964), 1217-1231.

WHEN YOU CHANGE YOUR ADDRESS please

tell us well in advance what your new address will be.

Be sure to give us your old address, too—even

better, enclose a clipping of the address label from
a recent mailing envelope.

Academy of Management members, please notify:

Robert E. Coffey
Graduate School of Business Administration
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, Calif. 90007

Nonmember subscribers, please notify:

Dennis F. Ray
P. O. Drawer KZ
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS 39762