Gender and Leadership: Literature Review

sex and attractionship Literature Review 1. Introduction attracters theories and literature describe what leading should do and on the new(prenominal) bridge player literature also exists on what leading actu all in ally do, the former be prescriptive and the latter atomic number 18 descriptive (Bratton et al 2005). leadinghip means of life is a relatively consonant set of behaviours that characterise a leader (DuBrin 1995). The main leadinghip theories encompass the trait, behaviour, contingency, situation tempt, and sex activity work on and give-and- necessitate leading perspectives.This paper foc works on transformational leading and thus pass on specific the hypothesis underpinning transformational leadinghip vis a vis sex activity deviances in lead. A abbreviated discussion on leading legalness as it relates to sexual practice and leadership panaches will also be sh profess. In a landing matter of sexual practice and leading behavio rs it is meaning(a) to highlight the deeper foundations that chip in a attitude on why man precedent and wo custody may lead distinguishablely. One of those causes has been found to be culture a brief canvass of this construct and its bearing on sex has also been tabulined in this section. . 2Gender and Leadership Swanepoel et al (2003) check grammatical gender as a demographic factor that may influence Human Resources Managework forcet in organisations and which keister lead to similar problems of favoritism in the work speckle. DuBrin (1995) present that the call sex and gender chevy controversy somewhat(prenominal) scientifically and politically. He further states that the term gender refers to perceptions nearly the differences among young-begetting(prenominal) persons and womanishs whilst sex differences refer to actual tangible differences much(prenominal) as the fact that the mean h eightsome of men is greater than that of women.The terms gender and sex a rgon, however, often used interchangeably. Task and inter in the flesh(predicate) styles in leaders look for ar obviously rele vant to gender because of the stereotypes mess demand about sex differences in these aspects of behaviour (Ash to a greater ut just about(prenominal), Del Boca, & Wohlers, 1986 Eagly & Steffen, 1984). Men atomic number 18 believed to be to a greater extent self-assertive and motivated to control their environment (e. g. , more than aggressive, independent, self-sufficient, forceful, and dominant). In contrast, women atomic number 18 believed to be more self little(prenominal)(prenominal) and concerned with former(a)s (e. . , more kind, helpful, understanding, warm, sympathetic, and alert of former(a)s feelings). Although democratic versus autocratic style is a diverse (and narrower) aspect of leader behaviour than task-oriented and interpersonally oriented styles (see bass voice, 1981), the democratic- autocratic dimension also relates to gender s tereotypes, because wiz segment of these stereotypes is that men argon relatively dominant and controlling (i. e. , more autocratic and directive than women.Bratton et al (2005) highlight a try out conducted by Schein (1975) who drawn-out the gender issue in Leadership further with the results overconfident that to both the priapic and distaff managers who participated in the study existence a successful manager meant being virile in terms of conventional behaviours (Bratton et al, 2005). Wajcman in Bratton, Grint and Nelson verbalize, Some leaders behaviours ar interpreted differently depending on the gender of the leader. For example, a particular action seen as firm when displayed by a man (e. , banging the table top with the hand) might be termed hysterical when displayed by a woman. (Bratton et al 189). Women are said to chance upon participative oversight more natural than men because they feel more lucky interacting with people and that their natural sensitiv ity encourages assemblage members to participate in decision- do (Dubrin 1995). Yet as women move up the corporate ladder, their identification with the priapic model of corporate success becomes measurable and may even repudiate the few young-bearing(prenominal) traits that they may earlier acquire endorsed. cryptical (1998) in his review of studies other than his own concludes that there is no consistent shape of male-female differences in leading styles. Modern possibleness proposes that women lead differently than men (Bratton et al 2005). This theory tends to promote the idea that women check the traits and skill that are necessary for effectual leadership and that these skills and characteristics include a more synergistic leadership style, the ability to realize consensus, a tendency to em creator others, and a greater ability to nurture others (Bratton et al 2005).Robbins (date) in Swanepoel et al (2003) points out that the similarities between women and men tend to outweigh the differences, and that these differences suggest that men are comfortable with a directive style while female managers prefer a democratic style (Swanepoel et al 2003). The gender perspective argues that women leaders have an interactive, people centered, participative management style. Women leaders are associated with consensus building and designer sharing.Views in favour of the gender perspective advocate for equal opportunities at the work place replete(p) utilization of women to utilize available charitable resources acknowledgement of the special contri thoion women can make the work place due to their leadership style and alternate accessiones to situations (Bratton, et al 2005). Swanepoel et al (2003) state that in general women follow a transformational leadership style, which emphasizes followers, consensus, and the use of charisma, personal reference and personal contact to enhance interpersonal relations and to influence followers.Men, however prefer a more direct style where short letter performance is seen as transactional and they also tend to use formal bewilder, power and authority to control people. To tackle the read/write head of whether men and women have different leadership styles, Eagly and Johnson conducted a 1990 review of leadership studies. Notably, although lab studies viewed women as both interpersonally oriented and democratic and men to be both task-oriented and autocratic, field studies indicated a difference on only one of those dimensions The omen were found to be more democratic, encouraging participation, and the men were more autocratic, directing performance. http www. psychologymatters. org/womanboss A 2003 meta-analysis extended those results and indicated that women were slightly more possible than men to have the transformational leadership style. Women also appeared to reward good performance more than men, a very substantiative part of transactional leadership. Men were more likely to criticize subordinates and be less hands-on, styles found to be in effective. http www. psychologymatters. rg/womanboss. However, psychologists caution against concluding that women or men have some sort of natural or inherent leadership style. on that point is a possibility that women, knowing how negatively people respond to domineering women, soften their approach. Additionally, the research shows only averages, or tendencies, for each sex. Some men will have more feminine management styles some women will have more manlike management styles. (http www. psychologymatters. org/womanboss) Eaglys advice is to be careful about the power of perception.She says that even though the research found some differences in leadership style, the sex differences are small because the leader role itself carries a lot of weight in determining peoples behaviour. She concludes that women are in some senses better leaders than men but suffer the disadvantage of leadership roles having a masculi ne image, specially in some compasss and at high levels. Stripping organizational leadership of its masculine aura would allow psychologists to get a pro determineer picture of any true differences between men and women. http www. psychologymatters. org/womanboss)Eagly and Johnson highlighted the interest summaries from their review The preponderance of available evidence is that no consistently clear pattern of differences can be discerned in the supervisory style of female as compared to male leaders (Bass, 198 l, p. 499)There is as yet no research evidence that makes a case for sex differences in both leadership aptitude or style (Kanter, 1977a, p. 199) In general, comparative research indicates that there are few differences in the leadership styles of female and male designated leaders (Bartol & Martin, 1986, 19. 278).However Quantitative reviews of this research have established the movement rather than the absence of overall sex differences (Eagly, 1987 Eagly & Wood, i n press Hall, 1984). These differences, although distinctively not large, tend to be comparable in magnitude to well-nigh other findings treated in social psychological research. (http www. psychologymatters. org/womanboss) 3. 3 heathenish Dimension the link to gender Several theories have been put earlier to account for gender differences including biological differences, differences in early childhood and the terminus of heathenly prescribed gender role expectations.doubting Thomas and Bendixen (2000) refer to Thomas and Ely (1996) who capture the essence of cultural issues in organisations when they state that employees make choices at work based on their cultural background (Thomas and Bendixen 2000). It is thus grave for organisations to understand these values that employees bring into the workplace (Thomas and Bendixen 2000). Thomas and Bendexin (2000) also be given on Trompenaars (1993) who identified different levels of culture, noting that national culture is at the highest level whilst organisational culture is at the attached level down in the pecking dress of culture.Gender related differences in leadership styles may have a foundation in culture. Schein (1990) defines organisational culture as a pattern of staple assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, then is to be taught to new members as the correct counseling to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein, 1990 111).He further identifies cardinal levels at which culture manifests itself as observable artefacts, values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 1990). apparent artefacts are things that one sees or feels upon entering an organisation. This includes the dress code, the physical layout, the savour and feel of the place to the more tangible things such(prenominal) as the one- year reports and company records (Schein, 1990). finished interviews, questionnaires, or survey instruments one can study a cultures espoused and documented values, norms, ideologies, charters, and philosophies. (Schein, 1990 112). More direct inquiring can reveal the more the underlying assumptions, which determine perceptions, thought processes, feelings and behaviour (Schein, 1990 112) For Edgar Schein (1985) the transformation that matters is a change in the corporate culture. What do leaders pay attention to, measure, and control sends symbolic signals to the rest of the corporate culture. Hofstede is a central figure in the development of literature on the cultural construct in leadership (Dickson, Hartog & Mitchelson 2003).He advances the idea that cultural differences are initially encountered as differences in shared values with values being defined as tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others (Dickson et al 2003). Hofstede (1980,2001) described initially four culture dimensions singleism-collectivism masculinity-femininity uncertainty avoidance and power distance and a fifth dimension, future orientation was added in by and by work (Dickson et al 2003). Power distance is the extent to which the less tidy members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unevenly.Hofstede (in Dickson, Harthog & Mitchelson, 2003, pg 737). Uncertainty avoidance is defined as the extent to which the members of a parliamentary procedure feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (Dickson et al p. 740). Individualism versus collectivism ranges from societies in which the ties between individuals are loose and people are judge to take care of themselves and close family only to societies that are tight where people expect their in-group to look after them and they do so in return (Dickson, et al. 2003). Masculinity versus femininity ranges from societies in which social gender roles are cle arly distinct to societies in which social gender roles cooccur (Dickson, et al. 2003). This dimension has a direct bearing on gender issues in that societal roles determine gender roles and these ultimately have a bearing on the leadership style that one practices, In her exploration of African management van der Colff (2003) uses the African tree concept advanced by Mbigi (1996).According to this concept the main stem underpinning all the most important values of African History can be traced with ubuntu, which is the cay to all African values and involves collectivism (van der Colff 2003). Traditionally African leadership is built on participation, duty and spiritual authority. (van der Colff 2003,258). Nussbaum (1996) in van der Colff (2003) is quoted as saying that African leadership requires transparency, accountability and legitimacy. The only way they can be legitimate is to be trustworthy themselves in the beginning they can expect trust from employees (van der Colff 20 03).Bass (1997) has argued that transformational leadership is universally applicable. He proposed, that irrespective of culture, transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group or organization, followers become motivated to expend greater hunting expedition than would would usually be expected. While acknowledging the universality of transformational leadership, Bass recognized that cultural differences will contribute to differences at the individual level of measurement.He stated Variation occurs because the same concepts may contain specific thought processes, beliefs, underlying understandings, or appearances in one culture not another (p. 132). This raises the question of the universality of gender differences in transformational leadership. Although there have been several studies on gender differences in America, unknown is the extent that these findings are replicated in other cultures. This study will show some findings of transformational leadership with a Zimbabwean sample. 3. 4. Transformational Leadership theoryFrom a broad perspective, leadership styles can be transformational and transactional a transformational leadership style is one that seeks to influence behaviour through inspirational and motiveal means. Transactional leadership styles use contingency factors such as rewards and punishment to influence and affect behaviour (Densten, Gray & Sarros, 2002). The transactional leadership theories emphasise transactions between leaders and their followers. Transactional leaders get things make by giving contingent rewards such as recognition and pay increases.These leaders usually manage by exception to monitor performance and take corrective action to remedy poor performance. They motivate followers by clarifying role and task requirements (Swanepoel 2003). Transformational leadership was first coined by ruin (1978) and further developed by Bass (1985, 1998) and Yammarino & Bass, (1990) with research accumulating in the realm over the past fourteen years. Transformational leadership is defined in terms of four inter-related factors idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual input signal, and individual context.Taken together, these sub-types are believed to represent the most effective attitudes and behaviours a leader can have. (Panopoulos 1998). The transformational characteristic of idealised influence is based on earlier conceptualisations of charisma (e. g. House, 1977). The magnetised leader is able to inspire respect and high order motivation in followers. The leader is able to communicate a sense of power and confidence in higher values and beliefs. The charismatic leader possesses a clear set of idealised qualities with which followers might wish to be associated (Panapoulos 1998).The leader who provides inspirational motivation to followers is likely to speak optimistically about the future, articulating a compelling vision o f what must be achieved. He motivates followers by his/her own intensity. The leader is therefore not and a distant charismatic source of referent power but is also able to directly and effectively translate his/her own enthusiasm to followers (Panapoulos 1998). The leader must also provide intellectual stimulation to followers. In providing intellectual stimulation, the leader is said to orient ollowers to awareness of problems, to their own thoughts and imagination, and to the recognition of their beliefs and values (Yammarino & Bass, 1990 in Panapoulos 1998). Furthermore, by providing an intellectually stimulating environment, transformational leaders are able to foster the development of creative solutions to problems, which stand in the way of organisational goal attainment. Panapoulos (1998) states that from a humanistic perspective, the most outstanding component of transformational leadership is the leaders individualised consideration of his/her followers.According to Ba ss and his colleagues (Yammarino, Spangler & Bass, 1993 in Panapoulos 1998), a leaders use of individual consideration is a crucial element in followers achievement of their full potential through a close consideration of their developmental involve. In providing individual consideration, the leader is not only aware of and sensitive to the modern needs of followers, but is also aiming to elevate those needs to a higher level (in combination with the use of the other factors of transformational leadership).This can be done by coaching and mentoring, as well as by setting examples and tasks, which are developmentally consistent with the needs of each individual (Panapoulos 1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership A review of past research A number of authors have speculated on possible gender differences in the use of transformational leadership (e. g. , Avolio & Bass, 1988 Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995), however, there has been a notable lack of evidence (Bass & A volio, 1994). Bass contends there are none.Yet, other studies show that women develop a feminine style of leadership, which is characterized by feel for and nurturance, and men adopt a masculine style of leadership, which is dominating and task- oriented (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). In a study of 345 metropolitan branch managers Carless (1998) found that Female managers are more likely than male managers to report that they take an interest in the personal needs of their staff, encourage self-development, use participative decision-making, give feedback and publicly recognize team achievements.In summary, female managers report they use more interpersonal-oriented leadership behaviors compared to male managers (Carless, 1998). The review by Eagly and Johnson was the first systematic and comprehensive analysis of gender differences in leadership. Earlier reviews (e. g. , Bartol & Martin, 1986 Dobbins & Platz, 1986) were based on limited samples and were criticized because th ey failed to specify the selection criteria for cellular inclusion in the review. Eagly and Johnsons (1990) meta-analysis of gender differences in leadership revealed mixed findings.An analysis of task-oriented style and interpersonal oriented style showed that women and men did not differ on these dimensions in organizational studies. Differences were noted for studies in which the sample did not formally hold a leadership position (experimental and assessment studies). On the other hand, significant gender differences were reported in the use of democratic leadership in organizational, experimental and assessment studies. Women used a more participative and inclusive style of leadership and men were more likely to use a directive, controlling style. Carless, 1998). Studies which have used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Bass, 1985b Avolio, et al. , 1995) to examine gender differences in leadership style have reported conflicting findings. Bass, Avolio and Atwater (19 96) examined gender differences in leader behaviour with three samples. Sample I consisted of 79 female and 150 male upper-level leaders who worked for American hi-tec, Fortune 50 firms. Subordinate ratings of leadership (N = 877) indicated that female leaders were rated higher on all transformational leader behaviors compared to male leaders.These findings are consistent with an earlier study of leaders in the Roman Catholic church (Druskat, 1994). Sample 2, consisted of first-level supervisors employed by a number of organizations, 38 of the leaders were female and 58 were male. Subordinates (N = 271) observe no gender differences for the subscales of Intellectual Stimulation and Inspirational Motivation, however, females were reported as higher on the subscales of Charisma and Individual Consideration.Sample 2 findings were consistent with an earlier study reported by Bass and Avolio (1994). Generally, in studies that report significant differences between females and males the effect sizes are very small and it is therefore argued that there is no practical differences between female and male leaders (Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer & Jolson, 1997). In the third sample of 154 female leaders and 131 male leaders who worked for nonprofitable organizations (e. g. health care), subordinates (N = 913) reported no differences in the leader behavior of females and male leaders. Similary, Komives (1991) found no difference between female and male manager self-ratings of transformational leadership, with the exception of Intellectual Stimulation women managers were found to be significantly higher than their male counterparts(Carless,1998). According to the gender-centred perspective, individual attributes vary according to their gender (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987 Hennig & Jardin, 1977 Loden, 1985).This approach proposes that, women develop a feminine style of leadership, which is characterized by caring and nurturance, and men adopt a masculine style of leadership, whic h is dominating and taskoriented (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). Similarly, the social-role theory (Eagly, 1987) proposes that individuals behave in accordance with societal expectations about their gender role. Through the socialization process, people learn to conform to cultural expectations about their gender role.The feminine model of leadership includes typical transformational leadership behaviors, for example, participatory decision-making, collaborationism and quality interpersonal relationships between leader and subordinate (Eagly, Karau, Miner & Johnson, 1994 Helgesen, 1990 Loden, 1985). Hence, it could be expected that females and males may differ in their use of certain transformational leadership behaviors(Carless,1998). The structural perspective suggests that the organizational role the individual occupies is more important then the gender of the individual (Kanter, 1977).Within organizations clear guidelines exist for the expected performance of managers, hen ce the major issue for managers is meeting the organizations expectations regarding effective management performance, not conforming to culturally defined gender roles. Assuming female and male managers occupy the same role within an organization and have equivalent access to status and power there is no mind to expect gender differences in leadership styles (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995).This suggests that when examining gender differences in leadership behavior it is important to compare women and men who occupy the same position in the organization and are at the same level in the organizational hierarchy. (Carless ,1998). Eagly and her colleagues (Eagly & Johnson, 1990 Eagly, et al. , 1995) suggest that gender differences vary according to the extent of gender delightfulity. Gender congeniality is described as the fit between gender roles and particular leadership roles (Eagley, et al. , 1995, p. 29). It reflects an individuals interest in a specific leadership role and appr aisal of their competence to perform that role. In some organizations, such as the military, leadership positions are defined in more masculine terms than feminine. Thus, leadership positions in these organizations would be described as congenial to men. In others, such as education and nursing, leadership is defined in more feminine ways and therefore could be described as congenial to women(Carless, 1998). 3. 5Effective LeadershipSince women began to climb the corporate ladder, authorities have asked if they have what it takes to lead groups and organizations. According to the research, while men and women are equally effective in some settings, more often effectiveness depends on the fit between the setting and management gender. For example, womens typically more mentoring, coaching style is more favorably received in female-dominated professions mens more typically command and control style is well received in male-dominated professions. http www. sychologymatters. org/womanbos s . In essence therefore, all things being equal, men and women are equally effective. only when given varied work settings and a workplace whose top managers are still more likely to be male, all things rarely are equal. For example, women are slightly more likely to be transformational leaders, serving as role models, helping employees develop their skills, and motivating them to be dedicated and creative. That approach may actually be more effective in todays less hierarchical organizations.But not all workplaces are alike The participatory style may backfire in traditional male settings such as the military or organized sports. Conversely, the command-and-control style more typical of men may backfire in a social-service agency or retail outlet. (httpwww. psychologymatters. org/womanboss) A 1995 review by Alice Eagly, PhD, Steven Karau, PhD and Mona Makhijani, PhD, of more than 80 different studies found that when aggregated over the organizational and laboratory experimental s tudies in the sample, male and female leaders were equally effective.The leaders or managers assessed in the studies were typically first-level or first-line supervisors, with a strong minority of studies looking at mid-level managers or managers of mixed or unknown levels. The analysis also showed that women were more effective leaders in female-dominated or female-oriented settings, and that men were more effective leaders in male-dominated or male-oriented settings. Thus working in a leadership role congruent with ones gender gives the perception that one is more effective. (http www. psychologymatters. org/womanboss) Theories of transformational leadership (e. . , Bass, 1985a Conger & Kanungo, 1988 Kouzes & Posner, 1987 Sashkin & Burke 1990 Trice & Beyer, 1986) have focused on identifying a range of leadership behaviors which contribute to effective performance. Although these theories differ in the leadership behaviors they distinguish, there exists a number of common themes. T ransformational leaders sound out a vision, use lateral or nontraditional thinking, encourage individual development, give regular feedback, use participative decision-making, and promote a cooperative and bank work environment. http www. psychologymatters. org/womanboss) Densten, et al. (2002) emphasise that successful leaders are able to build a strong corporate culture, are truth-tellers, can see the invisible, that is, cytosmear potential winners or identify trends before their rivals or customers, are ready learners and good communicators. Leaders are expected to anticipate future events before they occur and have a vision to overcome uncertainties. Managers on the other hand are expected to run current operations effectively and efficiently (Bratton, et al. 2005).Darling in Swanepoel, Erasmus et al argues a real mental testing of successful leadership in management lies in giving, to the greatest extent possible, opportunities to others within the situational context of the firm. One does not have to be pictorial to be a good leader, but you have to understand people- how they feel, what makes them tick, and the most effective ways to influence them. (Swanepoel, Erasmus, Van Wyk, Schenk 359) DuBrin (1995) state that in order to be a leader one has to make a difference and to facilitate positive changes.They further state that the common characteristic of effective leaders is their ability to inspire and stimulate others to achieve worthwhile goals (Dubrin 1995). Drucker (2004) outlines eight practices followed by effective executives. He says that they ask, What needs to be done? and What is objurgate for the enterprise. Effective executives also develop action plans, they take responsibility for decisions and communicating, focus on opportunities rather than problems, run productive meetings and focus on we rather than I (Drucker 2004).Drucker (2004) further explains that the first two practices gives them the knowledge they need, the next fou r help to convert this knowledge to effective action and the last two ensure that the whole organization feels responsible and accountable. look forers are especially interested in the question of whether a management style more associated with women a less authoritarian, more nurturing approach will click as the workplace generally shifts to more team-oriented structures that thrive under a less directive approach. REFERENCES Ashforth BE & Saks M. 996 Socialization Tactics Longitudinal Effects on Newcomer Adjustment, Academy of counseling ledger, 39, 147-178 Alvesson M & BillingYD. 1997Understanding gender in organisations. London Sage Publications Ltd. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York bountiful Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, (Winter) 19-31. Bass, B. , & Avolio, B. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling Women may make better managers. Hu man Resource Management, 33, 549-560.Bass, B. , Avolio, B. , & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology An International Review, 45, 5-34. Bennis W. 1992 On the Leading Edge of Change, executive director Excellence v9n4? Spacing? Check your referencing guidelines (Apr), p5-6 Bloodgood M, Bolino MC, Lester SW & Turnley WH. 2002 Not Seeing heart to eye differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach, ledger of Occupational Psychology 23 (2) 39 Bendixen M & Thomas A. 000 The Management Implications of Ethnicity in South Africa, Journal of International Business Studies, 31, 3,507-519 Blunt P& Jones ML. 1996 Exploring the limits of Western leadership theory in East Asia and Africa, Personnel Review, 26,1/2,6-23 Bratton J, Grint K & Nelson DL 2005. Organisational Leadership Ohio South-Western Thomson Bronwell J. 1992 Women in hospitality management. In Kay C & M onarz E. 2005 Lodging management success Personal antecedents, achievements, KSAs and situational factors, Hospitality Management, 25 324-341.Butterfield, A. and Grinnel, J. P. (1999). Re-viewing gender, leadership, and managerial behavior Do three decades of research tell us anything? In G. N. Powell (Ed. ), Handbook of gender and work. Thousand Oaks, Calif. Sage Carless SA. 1998 Gender differences in transformational leadership an examination of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles A Journal of Research, Carli LL. and Eagly A H. 2001 Gender, hierarchy, and leadership an introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 629-636. Colff L. 003 Leadership lessons from the African tree, Journal of Management Decision, 41(3), 257-261 cooper DR. & Schindler PS. 2003 Business Research Methods New York McGraw Hill Denston LI, Gray J & Sarros JC. 2002 Leadership and its impact on organisational culture, International Journal of Business Studies, 10 (2) 1-26 Denton. M & Vloe berghs D. 2003 Leadership challenges for organisations in the New South Africa, Journal of Leadership & Organisational Development, 24(2), 84-95 Dickson MW, Hartog DN & Mitchelson JK. 003 Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context reservation progress, and raising new questions, The Leadership Quarterly 14, 729-768 Drucker PF. 2004 What makes an effective executive, Harvard Business Review, 59-63 DuBrin AJ. 1995 Leadership Research Findings, Practice, and Skills Boston Houghton Mifflin Company Eagly AH. Johannesen-Schmidt MC. & van Engen M. 2003 Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 95, pp. 569-591. Eagly AH. and Johannesen-Schmidt M. 001 The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, pp. 781-797. Eagly AH. & Johnson BT. 1990 Gender and Leadership Style A Meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin 108, pp. 233-256 Eagly AH. Karau SJ and Makhijani MG. 1995 Gender and the effectiveness of leaders A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, pp. 125-145. Hogg MA. 2001 A Social Identity theory of Leadership, personality and social psychology review, 5, 3, 184-200 Javidan M & House RJ. 2001 heathenish acumen for the global manager Lessons from project GLOBE.Organisational Dynamics, 29(4), 289-305 Jung DI, Bass BM, & Sosik J J. 1995 Bridging leadership and culture A theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 3-18 Panapoulos F. No date Gender differences in transformational leadership among the field leaders of New South Wales Police students httpwww. aic. gov. au/conferences/policewomen2/Panapoulos Accessed on 2006/06/5 Rosener J. 1990 Ways Women Lead Harvard Business Review 68, pp. 119-125. Rousseau DM, Tijoriwala AS. 998 Assessing psychological contracts issues, alternatives and measures, organisational culture, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 19679-695 Schein E. 1990 Organisational Culture American Psychologist , 45 109-119 Swanepoel B, Erasmus B, Van Wyk M & Schenk H. 2003 South African Human Resource Management Theory & Practice. 3rd Edition. Cape townsfolk Juta & Company Unknown. No date When the boss is a woman, Men and women are equally effective in settings that match gender roleshttpwww. psychologymatters. org/womanboss. Accessed on 2006/08/25