SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2001, 29(6), 607-616

© Society for Personality Research

DOI .2224/sbp.2001.29.607

THE INFLUENCE OF FEMINIST SELF-DEFINITION ON

THE
DEMOCRATIC ATTITUDES OF MANAGERS

AYALA MALACH PINES, HENRIETTE DAHAN-KALEV, AND SIGALIT RONEN

Ben-Gurion University, Israel

The only consistent gender difference in management style reported in the literature is the
more democratic style of women. Democratic leadership is a cornerstone of the feminist
approach. In the current exploratory study we aimed to differentiate between the effect of feminist
self-definition and gender in explaining differences in democratic attitudes of managers. Israeli
male (43) and female (28) managers were questioned about their managerial attitudes and
whether they are feminist or non-feminist. Results suggest that a surprisingly high number of
both male and female managers defined themselves as feminist. Furthermore, feminist self-
definition was found to explain several democratic managerial attitudes better than gender.

Keywords: feminist, self-definition, management, gender differences.

The question of gender differences in managerial style has been the focus of
both research and media attention since women started entering management
positions in the Seventies. The first books in which this issue was addressed were
focused on women’s inferiority relative to men (e.g., Harragan, 1977; Henning &
Jardim, 1976). Recent books have been focused on women’s superiority to men
_____________
Professor Ayala Malach Pines, PhD, clinical, social, and organizational psychologist at the School of
Management, Ben Gurion University, Israel; Henriette Dahan Kalev, PhD, political scientist specializing in
women’s politics at the School of Management, Ben-Gurion University, Israel; Sigalit Ronen, graduate student.
School of Management, Ben-Gurion University, Israel.
The authors wish to thank Maya Rodnai, Moshe Cohen, Chana Maman, and Itai Siloah for their help in
collecting the data.
Appreciation is due also to reviewers including: Dr. Kay B. Forest, Department of Sociology, Northern Illinois
University, Dekalb, IL, USA; Dr. Irene Dabrowski, Division of Social Sciences, St John’s University, Staten
Island, NY, USA.
Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Ayala Malach Pines, School of Management, Ben-Gurion
University, Beer-Sheva, Israel 84105. Phone: 972-7-6472636; Email: pinesa@bgumail.bgu.ac.il

607
 608 THE INFLUENCE OF SELF-DEFINITION ON MANAGERS
(e.g., Fisher, 1999; Helgesen, 1995). Both assume that the genders differ in their
management style. Yet in a number of studies in which the managerial style of men
and women were compared (e.g., Donnell & Hall, 1980; Morrison, White, Velsor,
& the Center for Creative Leadership, 1987) no gender difference was found.
Donnell and Hall (1980) termed this consistent finding “a significant case of no
significant differences”.
One explanation given in studies that showed few, if any, personality or behavior
differences between male and female managers is that women had to identify with,
and emulate, the model created by men in power in order to progress in organiza-
tions (e.g., Wajcman, 1998). Some authors argue that this has negative
consequences for both the women concerned and the organizations, because the
feminine traits that are suppressed are the ones necessary to make organizations
more responsive to the human need for connectedness, community, purpose,
affiliation, and nurturing (e.g., Grant, 1992). In other words, there is an assump-
tion of implicit gender differences in management styles even in cases where no
differences are evident.
A meta-analysis of studies in which gender differences in managerial style
were investigated revealed very few differences in such stereotypically male
characteristics as task orientation, and such stereotypically female characteristics
as a focus on interpersonal relationships. However, it shows also a consistent gen-
der difference in women’s greater tendency to use a democratic leadership style,
and men’s tendency to use an authoritarian leadership style (Eagly & Johnson,
1990).
The research in which women’s democratic style of management is documen-
ted is fast growing. This shows that the new generation of women managers are
more open with colleagues and subordinates than are men managers, and are con-
sensus builders who encourage wider participation in decision making (Nelton,
1991). It shows also that women tend to be more interested in the health and per-
sonal worries of their subordinates. Men – on the other hand – tend to be far more
competitive than women, more interested in winning, more career-conscious, and
far more willing to “boss people about” (Morris, 1992).
Men prefer a “Command and Control” leadership style which includes such
things as: top-down decision making, use of structural power, focus on self-interest
of followers, control by reward for specific tasks, and stress on individual contribu-
tion. Women prefer an “Interactive Leadership Style” which includes such things
as: shared decision making, use of personal power, focus on achievement of goals,
control by empowerment, and stress on shared power and information (Rosener,
1995). Women leaders are more likely to prefer work in web-shaped organizations
than in ones that are pyramid-shaped (e.g. Fisher, 1999; Helgesen, 1995). They
tend to structure flatter organizations and to emphasize frequent contact and shar-
ing of information in webs of inclusion. And they are more likely than men to
encourage participation, to enhance the self-worth of others, and to get followers
to trade off their self-interests for the overall good of the organization (Rosener,
 THE INFLUENCE OF SELF-DEFINITION ON MANAGERS 609
1990). Based on employee evaluations of male and female managers from the top
three levels of management in six Fortune 500 firms, Bass and Avolio (1994)
concluded that women managers, on the average, are superior to men on “trans-
formational leadership.” The profile of a female manager that emerged from their
study is one who empowers her employees and is trusted and respected by them,
showing great concern for the individual needs of her subordinates. Returning to
the meta-analysis by Eagly and Johnson (1990), it seems that at the heart of
women’s managerial style is democratic leadership.
What is democratic leadership? While there is no clear definition of it, demo-
cratic leadership has been identified as behavior that influences people in a
manner consistent with such basic democratic principles as distribution of
responsibility and empowerment (Castil, 1994), self-determination, inclusiveness,
equal participation, and deliberation (Fishkin, 1991).
In recent years the workplace has become more democratic. Corporations’
increased democratization is evident in “reengineering” in the workplace that
emphasizes the “empowerment” of the worker – which means pushing decision
making authority as far down as possible.
Democratic leadership is one of the cornerstones of the feminist approach
(e.g., Bond & Mulvey, 2000; Eisenstein, 1981; Freeman, 1973; Phillips, 1991).
The relationship between feminism and democratic leadership, when transferred
from an ideology to the level of the individual’s experience, raises an interesting
question: Does a feminist self-definition imply a democratic style in men as well
as in women?
Cowan, Mestlin, and Masek (1992) found that the best predictors of a feminist
self-definition are agreement about feminist issues and with the ideals of the femi-
nist movement. Smith and Self (1981) found, similarly, that feminists present a
coherent and consistent gender role ideology concerning relationships with men
and the division of labor. Rejection of the label was found to be related to the
negative connotation associated with it and the negative stereotypes attached to
women who carry it (Griffin, 1989; Kamen, 1991; Renzetti, 1987).
If feminism has a negative connotation in the USA, it has an even more negative
connotation in Israel – which tends to be a more traditional country influenced by
both religious ideology and a militaristic macho ideology (e.g. Dahan-Kalev, 1996).
Thus, the current exploratory study was carried out in Israel. We aimed to diff-
erentiate between the effect of a feminist self-definition and the effect of gender
in explaining differences in democratic managerial attitudes.
It was hypothesized that more women than men would define themselves as
feminist and that a feminist self-definition – in both men and women – would be
predictive of a more democratic leadership ideology.
 610 THE INFLUENCE OF SELF-DEFINITION ON MANAGERS

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
Seventy-one Israeli managers (43 men and 28 women) participated in the study.
Of the male managers, 34% were in top management, 45% were in middle man-
agement, and 21% were in low level management. Of the women managers, 14%
were in top management, 46% were in middle management, and 39% were in low
level management. The average level of education was 15.4 years of school (with
3.4 years of college). Most of the managers had studied economics; others were
in marketing, communication, engineering, and human resources. Their average
age was 40.4 (SD = 9.8). The managers worked in six organizations including a
telephone company, a health maintenance organization, a bank, a governmental
agency, a high technology company, and an advertising agency. Some of these
organizations were in the private sector and some in the public sector; most were
large, few were relatively small.
Eighty subordinates of the managers who took part in the study were questioned
about their managers’ managerial style.
INSTRUMENT
A three-part self-report questionnaire that was built especially for the purpose
of the current study provided the main instrument:
1. A series of 14 questions about managerial attitudes assumed to measure
egalitarian attitudes as well as a gender schematic view of the world (all on 7-
point scales, ranging from 1 = absolutely not, to 7 = absolutely yes, with an added
request to explain the answer: for example,
Is your approach toward your subordinates, in general, egalitarian?
Is your approach toward male subordinates, in general, egalitarian?
Is your approach toward female subordinates, in general, egalitarian?
Is your approach toward male and female colleagues similar?
Based on your experience, is there a difference in the ability of men and
women?
2. Self-definition as a feminist: “To what extent do you view yourself as a
feminist?” (on the same 7-point scale). In addition, there were three open ques-
tions: “What does your self-definition as a feminist mean?”, “What, in your
opinion, is feminism?”, “Who, in your opinion, is a feminist?”
3. Background information: sex, age, education, occupational area, managerial
rank.
The subordinates were asked (on the same 7-point scale): Whether their
manager’s approach toward subordinates was egalitarian, the approach toward
male and female colleagues was similar, whether their manager was feminist.
 THE INFLUENCE OF SELF-DEFINITION ON MANAGERS 611
PROCEDURE
The questionnaires were given to the managers and the subordinates by BGU
graduate students and completed individually. Anonymity was assured and kept.
Since the questionnaires were collected by students who worked at the organiza-
tion, the response rate was very high (ranging between 70-90%). The interviews
were conducted over three weeks in 1999, a period of relative economic stability
(none of the organizations was expanding and none was downsizing).

RESULTS

A higher percentage of female managers (75%) than male managers (58%)

described themselves as feminist.
Since there was no difference amongst the three levels of management that par-
ticipated in the study in terms of both feminist self-definition (F = .07) and
almost all the democratic values addressed in the questionnaire (except for the
importance of individual expression, in which middle managers believed most and
low level management believed the least, F = 4.6 p < .05) their data were
combined for analysis.
Table 1 presents the results of a 2 (sex) x 2 (feminist versus non-feminist self-
definition) analysis of variance (ANOVA).
TABLE 1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
DEMOCRATIC ATTITUDES OF MANAGERS BY SEX AND FEMINIST SELF-DEFINITION

Feminists Non Feminists F F F

Men Women Men Women Sex Feminism Interaction

means means means means

Egalitarian toward employees 6.04 6.19 5.07 5.43 .596 6.83** .101
Egalitarian toward female employees 5.96 6.29 5.21 5.00 .026 8.82** .623
Egalitarian toward male employees 5.96 6.32 4.80 5.83 3.60* 5.03* .856
Similar to male & female colleagues 6.17 6.29 5.20 5.00 .012 9.72** .195
Is there a sex difference in abilities? 2.67 3.05 3.21 2.57 0.67 .005 1.02
Male/female preference for a task 3.40 2.71 4.07 3.43 1.66 1.80 .002
Importance of individual expression 5.33 5.67 5.79 5.71 .103 .376 .246
Belief in affirmative action 2.68 3.94 2.62 3.29 3.45* .482 .325
Male & female managers differ 2.80 3.95 3.33 3.71 2.49 .094 .629
Male & female management style differ 3.60 4.55 3.31 4.29 4.18* .348 .000
Male managers perform tasks better 2.60 2.38 2.23 2.43 .000 .154 .259
Female managers’ relationships better 2.58 3.76 2.38 2.71 2.49 1.70 .789
Female managers are democratic 2.38 3.71 2.00 3.43 10.2** .583 0.10
Preference for male/female boss 2.72 3.95 2.80 3.57 4.23* .095 .224
Preference for male/female colleague 2.52 3.86 2.07 2.86 6.14** 2.86* .405
Feminist self-definition 5.25 5.29 2.10 2.14 .341 2.52 .357

** p < .01; * p < .05

 612 THE INFLUENCE OF SELF-DEFINITION ON MANAGERS
As can be seen, a number of variables related to democratic values were better
explained by a feminist self-definition than by gender. Both male and female man-
agers who defined themselves as feminist described their approach toward both
subordinates in general – and toward both male and female subordinates – as
egalitarian. They also described themselves as treating male and female colleagues
similarly.
However, there were a number of variables in which women’s responses were
significantly different from those of men. Women managers agreed, more than
men, that there is a masculine managerial style that is different from the feminine
style, and reported that – in their personal experience – female managers were
more democratic.
A Pearson Correlation Analysis indicates that a feminist self-definition is sig-
nificantly correlated with an egalitarian attitude towards employees (r = .29, p =
.001), toward female employees (r = .31, p = .001), toward male employees (r =
.27, p = .001), and with a similar attitude toward male and female colleagues (r =
.36, p = .001).
The majority of women managers (57%) preferred to work in organizations that
are web-shaped, while the majority of men managers preferred to work in organi-
zations that are pyramid-shaped (60%; not a statistically significant difference).
The evaluations of subordinates were compared to the self-evaluations of the
managers. In all cases, the self-evaluations of the managers were somewhat higher:
managers rated themselves as more egalitarian (Mm = 5.83, SD = 1.26, Sm =
5.17, SD = 1.28); as more likely to treat male and female colleagues equally (Mm
= 5.88 SD = 1.38 Sm = 5.37 SD = 1.09); and as more feminist (Mm = 4.23, SD =
1.80, Sm = 4.14, SD = 1.14). When the evaluations of the subordinates were
correlated with the self-evaluations of the managers, results suggested that man-
agers who viewed themselves as egalitarian were also viewed as egalitarian by
their employees (r = .50, p = .028). Managers who described themselves as
treating men and women colleagues equally were viewed by their employees as
egalitarian (r = .62, p = .005).
The qualitative data collected in the open questions supports the findings based
on the quantitative data. When asked about their self-definition of a feminist, what
feminism is, who feminists are, and what the effect of a feminist approach in the
sphere of work is, the responses of men and women managers were very similar.
Here are some examples:
A man who defined himself as a feminist explained it by saying: “I am for
complete equality of rights”; a feminist “does everything in his power to keep
complete equality of rights”; in the sphere of work “a feminist treats men and
women equally”; a woman who defined herself as a feminist explained it by
saying: “I am for equality of rights and opportunities between men and
women”; feminism defines equality of rights and opportunities; a feminist is “a
person who believes in keeping equality of rights and opportunities”; in the
sphere of work “a feminist practices equality of rights and opportunities.”
 THE INFLUENCE OF SELF-DEFINITION ON MANAGERS 613
A man who defined himself as non-feminist explained: “I am against a preferen-
tial treatment of women”. Feminism means preferring a woman over a man. A
feminist is “a person who makes an effort to help women get preferred over men”.
In the sphere of work “a feminist approach creates discomfort among workers”.
A woman who defined herself as non-feminist explained: “I see myself as a
woman in every way, including self-actualization”. In response to the question
“What is feminism?” she said: “struggle for recognition”. A feminist is “a person
who struggles for recognition”. In the sphere of work “a feminist approach may be
expressed in an aggressive need to be noticed or, alternatively, the use of emotional
blackmail as a way to be noticed”.

DISCUSSION

Despite the negative stereotypes associated with a feminist label – especially

in a country as traditional, religious, and militaristic as Israel – the majority of
both male and female managers described themselves as feminist. This surprising
finding can be explained by the relatively high age, education, rank, sophisti-
cation, and maturity of the group of managers who participated in the study. It
can be attributed also to the growing acceptance of feminism as a politically
correct label. Nevertheless, as expected, a higher percentage of women than men
defined themselves as being “feminist”.
The most exciting findings gained in the current study – as tentative as they are
– imply that feminist self-definition may have a greater influence than gender on
a democratic style of leadership. Managers who define themselves as being
feminist, whether male or female, described their approach toward subordinates
(both male and female) as egalitarian and their approach toward male and female
colleagues as similar. It is, of course, extremely difficult to make a case for cau-
sal priority among attitudes. In this particular case, the alternative ordering is
equally plausible: that managers who believe in a democratic style of manage-
ment, as a result, label themselves feminists. It is also possible that both are
manifestations of an attitude-personality construct.
It is important also to distinguish between self-definition and actual behavior.
Indeed, in a study in which British male and female managers of similar ranks
were surveyed, it was found, similarly to the present study, that the majority of
both men and women saw themselves as egalitarian managers. However, when
they talked about their actual practices as managers, both men and women were
more likely to manage in a stereotypical masculine style. Wajcman (1998), who
conducted the study, argues that managers’ self definition is consistent with
whatever is the current most fashionable style in management discourse. It is
possible that because the democratic style of management is currently in vogue,
both men and women managers adopt it as part of their managerial presentation of
self.
 614 THE INFLUENCE OF SELF-DEFINITION ON MANAGERS
The significance of the managers’ feminist self-presentation is enhanced by the
fact that they are supported by employees’ ratings. Managers who viewed them-
selves as egalitarian were also described as egalitarian by their subordinates.
It is interesting that women managers acknowledged, more than men, the gen-
der differences in managerial style. These women supported the research reviewed
in the introduction in describing female managers as more democratic and as
preferring web-shaped organizations to pyramid-shaped ones.
Kingsley Browne argued recently that basic biological sex differences in per-
sonality and temperament account for much of the gender gap and the glass ceiling
in the modern labor market (Browne, 1999). The sample on which the current
study is based is too small to conclude with confidence that gender has no effect,
but the study does leave open the possibility that feminist attitudes – independent
of gender – may influence even something as classically gender-typed as demo-
cratic philosophy of management. It was similarly suggested that feminist
leadership can be achieved through the widely known Total Quality Management –
a philosophy and technology that emphasizes empowering staff by consensus
(Lanza, 1997).
It may be that the structural context is more important than individual attitudes
in influencing managerial behavior. Thus, management philosophy may reflect
women’s and men’s differing structural locations in organizations (Kanter, 1977).
It is possible that differences in managerial style of the type addressed in the cur-
rent study are linked to social or structural factors that, in turn, influence the man-
agers’ attitudes. Selection effects may also play a role if these organizational con-
texts favor the selection of people with feminist attitudes, regardless of their gen-
der.
At the dawn of the new millennium traditional hierarchical organizations are
giving way to more democratic and egalitarian organizations and to a more “trans-
formational leadership” (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1994). The results of the present
exploratory study, as tentative as they are, suggest that feminist ideology – whether
adopted by men or women – is a way to move in the direction of a more demo-
cratic and egalitarian leadership style with all the advantages such a style implies.
Future researchers will need to overcome the obvious limitations of the ex-
ploratory study by replicating these findings with larger, more representative
crosscultural samples and with more objective behavioral measures of both fem-
inist self-definition and an egalitarian management style.

REFERENCES
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling: Women may make better managers. Human
Resources Management, 33, 549-560.
Bond, M. A., & Mulvey, A. (2000). A history of women and feminist perspectives in community psychology.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 599-630.
 THE INFLUENCE OF SELF-DEFINITION ON MANAGERS 615
Browne, K. (1999). Divided labors: An evolutionary view of women at work. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Castil, J. (1994). A definition and illustration of democratic leadership. Human Relations, 47, 953-975.
Cowan, G., Mestlin, M., & Masek, J. (1992). Predictors of feminist self-labeling. Sex Roles, 27, 321-330.
Dahan-Kalev, H. (1996). Stereotype discourse in Israel. Special edition: The European Legacy – Toward New
Paradigms. Journal of the International Society for the Study of European Ideas, 1, 680-689.
Donnell, S., & Hall, J. (1980). Men and women managers: A significant case of no significant differences. In
J. Shogren (Ed.), Models for management: The structure of competence (pp. 467-486). The Wood-
lands, Texas: Teleometrics International.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
108, 233-256.
Eisenstein, Z. (1981). The radical future of liberal feminism. New York: Longman.
Fisher, H. (1999). The first sex: The natural talents of women and how they are changing the world. New York:
Random House.
Fishkin, J. (1991). Democracy and deliberation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Freeman, J. (1973). The origins of the Women’s Liberation Movement. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
792-811.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Grant, J. (1992). Women as managers: What they can offer organizations. In M. Syrette & C. Hogg (Eds.),
Frontiers of leadership (pp. 298-306). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Griffin, C. (1989). “I’m not a Women’s Libber, but…”: Feminism, consciousness and identity. In S. Skevington
& D. Baker (Eds.) The social identity of women (pp. ) London: Sage.
Harragan, B. L. (1977). Games mother never taught you. New York: Warner Books.
Helgesen, S. (1995). The female advantage: Women’s way of leading. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Henning, M., & Jardim, A. (1976). The managerial woman. New York: Pocket Books.
Kamen, P. (1991). Feminist fatale. New York: Fine.
Kanter M. R. (1977). Men and women of the organization. New York: Basic Books.
Lanza, M. L. (1997). Feminist leadership can be achieved through total quality management. Healthcare for
Women International, 18, 95-106.
Morris, R. (1992). Management: Why women are leading the way. In M. Syrette & C. Hogg (Eds.), Frontiers
of leadership (pp. 307-312). Oxford UK: Blackwell.
Morrison, A., White R., Velsor E., & the Center for Creative Leadership. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can
women reach the top of America’s largest corporations? New York: Addison-Wesley.
Nelton, S. (1991, May). Men, women and leadership. Nation’s Business, 6-22.
Phillips, A. (1991). Engendering democracy, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Renzetti, C. M. (1987). New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward feminism. Sex Roles,
16, 265-277.
Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, 119-125.
Rosener, J. B. (1995). Sexual static. In America’s competitive secret: Women as a management strategy. (pp.
67-83). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, M., & Self, G. (1981). Feminists and traditionalists: An attitudinal comparison. Sex Roles, 7, 183-188.
Wajcman, J. (1998). Managing like a man. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of
Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.