Human Resource Management : Solved Assignment

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx
Please cite this article as: Winny Shen, Dana L.Joseph, Human Resource Management Review,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100765
Available online 8 April 2020
1053-4822/© 2020 Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.
Gender and leadership: A criterion-focused review and
research agenda
Winny Shena,*, Dana L. Josephb
a Schulich School of Business, York University, 111 Ian Macdonald Boulevard, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada b Department of Management, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816-1390, United States of America
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Gender
Sex differences
Leadership behaviors
Leader effectiveness
Leader emergence
A B S T R A C T
There is a large and growing body of work on gender on leadership, but this literature remains
fragmented and incomplete, due in part to insufficient attention paid to nuances of the criterion
variable of leadership. To provide a broader perspective on this literature, we draw upon
Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, and Sager’s (1993) theory of job performance as a framework to
organize our review. First, we position gender as an indirect determinant of leadership and
summarize prior work on (a) gender differences in leadership outcomes (i.e., emergence and
effectiveness), (b) gender differences in leader behaviors, (c) gender differences in direct de-
terminants of leader behaviors (i.e., declarative knowledge, skill, and motivation), and (d) po-
tential mediated or indirect relationships between gender and these leadership criteria. Second,
we explore gender as a moderator of both interpersonal (i.e., leader behaviors → leadership
outcomes) and intrapersonal (i.e., direct determinants → leader behaviors) leadership processes.
Throughout our review, we highlight new directions for future research to advance the study of
gender and leadership.
Much has been written regarding the relationship between gender and leadership. In fact, scholars from an array of disciplines,
including but not limited to psychology, sociology, management, economics, political science, and women’s studies, have sought to
understand the challenges that women may face in attaining, leading, or succeeding in leadership roles. Despite a flourishing liter-
ature, we believe that more attention and theorizing has generally been paid to the role of gender rather than the nature of leadership.
Therefore, the purpose of our review is to infuse a new perspective into discussions of gender and leadership by drawing upon a
prominent theory and model of job performance to more clearly articulate the criterion side of the equation and its implications for
understanding the nature of the gender‑leadership relationship.
Specifically, we draw upon Campbell et al.’s (1993) theory and model of job performance as our organizing framework. We adopt
this model for two primary reasons. First, in contrast to other models that are solely descriptive in nature, Campbell and colleagues’
work best reflects a theory of performance, going beyond simply articulating the dimensionality of performance to also specify key
antecedents and consequences. This more comprehensive view of performance offers unique insights to the gender and leadership
literature; for example, pointing to specific classes of variables that may explain gender differences in leader behaviors. Second,
whereas many models of performance are either occupation-specific or very broad to be applicable to the population of jobs, this model
strikes the right-level of specificity for our purposes by capturing the multi-dimensional nature of job performance and explicitly
recognizing leadership behaviors as a dimension of performance.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [e-mail] (W. Shen), [e-mail] (D.L. Joseph).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100765
Received 17 July 2019; Received in revised form 20 January 2020; Accepted 27 March 2020

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx
2
Our review is organized as follows. First, we introduce Campbell et al.’s (1993) theory and model of job performance and clarify the
relationship between job performance and leadership. Second, we review evidence of gender differences in the three categories of
leadership criteria specified by the model: (a) outcomes, (b) behaviors or performance, and (c) direct determinants (i.e., knowledge,
skill, and motivation). We then discuss indirect relationships between gender and these three domains. Finally, we transition to the
moderating effect of gender in these processes. Specifically, we first review how the gender of the actor and perceiver as well as the
gender composition of the group or context may influence interpersonal leadership processes (i.e., the relationship between leader
behaviors and outcomes), before turning to discuss how the gender of the actor and gender composition of the context may also in-
fluence intrapersonal leadership processes (i.e., the relationship between direct determinants and leader behaviors). Throughout our
review, we offer new insights and highlight unresolved issues to be pursued in future research that will advance the science of gender
and leadership.
Given the continued growth of research on gender and leadership (Eagly & Heilman, 2016; Lord, Day, Zaccaro, Avolio, & Eagly,
2017), a review of this literature is both timely and necessary. By taking a criterion-oriented approach, we contribute to the literature
by offering a new framework to conceptualize the relationships between various leadership criteria, helping to create a more organized
and cohesive picture of links between gender and leadership. This interconnected approach also brings to light inconsistencies in
relationships between gender and various leadership criteria, pointing to potential omitted variables or unexamined moderators that
can be pursued in future research. Additionally, our framework also more clearly elucidates the multitude of ways (i.e., directly,
indirectly, and interactively) in which gender can exert its influence at different stages of the leadership process. Further, despite the
proliferation of research on gender and leadership, our framework and review of the literature reveals that certain aspects of the
process where gender may play a role remains understudied and ill-understood. Thus, ultimately, our review of gender and leadership
contributes to the literature by both taking stock of what is known on this issue as well as offering new directions forward to advance
our understanding of this domain.
1. Leadership criteria and processes
Although traditional research on gender differences in leadership often focuses on gender differences in a single leadership cri-
terion (e.g., transformational leadership), we begin instead by articulating a framework of leadership criteria drawing upon Campbell
et al.’s (1993) theory of job performance so that we can unify and review gender differences in key leadership criteria within a single
model. This theory provides a useful lens through which to understand leadership criteria and processes because leadership is a key
component of performance for jobs that require interpersonal influence as part of the role. Finally, this theory of job performance,
when applied to the leadership domain, offers us several critical insights.
The first insight is that performance should be defined by behaviors (McCloy, Campbell, & Cudeck, 1994). In other words, a leader’s
performance should be based on what they do. This emphasis on behaviors to define performance coincides with the proliferation of
behavioral leadership models in the literature. Scholars have argued that different behavioral models of leadership can be consolidated
via three (i.e., task-, relational-, and change-oriented; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002) or four (i.e., adding passive; DeRue, Nahrgang,
Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011) higher-order factors. Subsequently, research has documented the existence of distinct and more
destructive forms of leadership behaviors (e.g., Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013). Thus, leadership behaviors appear to be
composed of at least five major types of behaviors: task-oriented, relational-oriented, change-oriented, passive, and destructive. In our
review, we structure our discussion of gender differences in leadership behaviors around this typology.
However, in practice, the study of leaders is often the study of managers within business organizations (House & Aditya, 1997).
This leads us to a second key point that models of job performance offer us: performance is multi-dimensional (Campbell et al., 1993). In
other words, managers often engage in behaviors outside of the five categories of leadership behaviors that are typically studied by
leadership scholars. Specifically, managers are often also technical experts, key communicators to stakeholders inside and outside the
organization, and administrators (e.g., Borman & Brush, 1993). These are all types of job-related behaviors that are understudied by
leadership scholars that may, nonetheless, make important contributions to leader and group effectiveness. As a result, this theory of
job performance expands the criterion space, and we review gender differences in not only “traditional” leadership behaviors, but also
discuss other job-relevant managerial behaviors that are rarely considered in this literature.
The third takeaway from theories of job performance relevant to the leadership domain is that performance is distinct from
effectiveness, which reflect outcomes of performance behaviors that may be contaminated by environmental factors outside of the
individual’s control (Campbell, 1990). For example, two leaders may engage in the same behaviors, but ultimately lead groups who
experience different outcomes (e.g., sales) due to differences in the size of the client bases the two groups serve or resources available
(e.g., ability to offer discounts). Therefore, theories of performance strongly support that employees, including leaders, should be
evaluated and rewarded on their behaviors rather than on indices of effectiveness. In the leadership literature, the most common
effectiveness criteria are the perceived effectiveness of the leader and the performance of the group (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008).
Other frequently examined leader outcomes include follower satisfaction (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) and evaluations of leader promotion
and derailment potential (Bono et al., 2017). Hence, in our review, we review gender differences in leader behaviors and leadership
outcomes separately.
The fourth critical piece of information that leadership scholars can take from theories of job performance concerns the direct
determinants of performance. Campbell et al. (1993) theorized that there are only three direct determinants of performance:
knowledge, skill, and motivation. All other predictors of performance are indirect or influence performance via one or more direct
determinants. Unfortunately, in the leadership literature, most of the empirical research on antecedents of leader behaviors has
focused on indirect rather than direct determinants. Further, extant theorizing often focuses on explaining relationships between
W. Shen and D.L. Joseph

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
indirect determinants and leadership behavior using other indirect determinants (e.g., arguing that gender differences in leadership
behaviors are due to personality differences). However, a criterion-focused approach suggests that such theorizing is incomplete, as it
ultimately fails to identify the most proximal determinants of leader behaviors. Therefore, we review and suggest future work on
gender differences in the direct determinants of leader behaviors in this paper.
Together, these four insights from Campbell et al.’s (1993) theory and model of job performance as applied to the leadership
domain are encapsulated in Fig. 1. This figure highlights that gender may act as an indirect determinant of leadership processes and the
effect of gender on leader outcomes is likely serially mediated through knowledge, skill, or motivation as well as leader behaviors (with
examples for each category provided). In support of this process model, prior meta-analytic research finds that the relationship be-
tween various leader characteristics (e.g., gender) and leadership effectiveness were mediated by leadership behaviors (DeRue et al.,
2011), and there is some evidence that leader traits (i.e., intelligence, personality) impact leadership behaviors via multiple direct
determinants of performance, particularly leadership-related knowledge and skill (Van Iddekinge, Ferris, & Heffner, 2009). Building
on this foundational understanding of relationships between leadership criteria, in the following section we review evidence of gender
differences at each point in the process (i.e., outcomes, behaviors, and direct determinants).
2. Direct (and Indirect) Relationships between gender and leadership criteria
In this section, we first review gender differences in each of the three main phases of the process articulated Fig. 1. We begin with
leadership outcomes (denoted as class “A” in Fig. 1), as the bulk of past research has focused here. We then review gender differences in
leader behaviors (denoted as class “B” in Fig. 1), followed by gender differences in leadership-related knowledge, skill, and motivation
(denoted as class “C” in Fig. 1). Finally, we integrate and examine (in)consistencies in the relationship between gender and leadership
criteria at different points in the process by considering indirect effects (captured via paths “1”, “2”, and “3” in Fig. 1). Whenever
possible, we rely on meta-analytic estimates and large-scale studies. Additionally, within each domain, we also point out key areas of
omission and opportunities for future research. These research questions are summarized in Table 2, where we also provide infor-
mation regarding relevant theories and models and sample references for each topic.
2.1. Gender differences in leadership outcomes
The two primary types of leadership outcomes examined in the literature are leadership emergence and effectiveness (Kaiser et al.,
2008). Leadership emergence focuses on the extent to which individuals are perceived as “leader-like.” Historically, studies of lead-
ership emergence use methods such as the leaderless group discussion to examine how individuals behave and are perceived in groups
where there are no formal status differences between individuals. In contrast, leadership effectiveness research focuses on individuals
who typically hold formal leadership or supervisory roles, examining their perceived or actual effectiveness in their position.
Fig. 1.An integrated model of indirect and direct determinants of leadership, leadership behaviors, and leadership outcomes.
W. Shen and D.L. Joseph

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx
4
2.1.1. Leadership emergence
Table 1 (left panel) summarizes prior meta-analytic findings on gender differences in leadership emergence (denoted as part of class
“A” in Fig. 1). The most comprehensive meta-analysis to date on gender differences in leadership emergence was conducted by Badura,
Grijalva, Newman, Yan, and Jeon (2018). These authors found that although the magnitude of gender differences in leadership
emergence has declined over time, overall women are still less likely to emerge as leaders relative to men (d = 0.21, k = 136). Further,
although most studies included in this meta-analysis sampled students in either laboratory or classroom settings, Badura and col-
leagues were able to confirm that these effects also occurred in business settings (d = 0.15, k = 11). However, a prior meta-analysis by
Eagly and Karau (1991) found that although men were rated as higher than women on general leadership (i.e., a combination of task
and unspecified forms of leadership; d = 0.32, k = 74), women were rated higher than men on social leadership in leadership
emergence (d = −0.18, k = 15). Both meta-analyses found evidence that the male advantage in leadership emergence was smaller for
longer or repeated interactions and attenuated for higher social complexity tasks. Finally, Badura et al. did not observe that cultural
gender egalitarianism affected the magnitude of gender differences in emergence.
We position leadership emergence as a leadership outcome because it is not completely under behavioral control of the individual.
Although individuals can make claims of leadership, these claims must be accepted by others for one to emerge as a leader (e.g., DeRue
& Ashford, 2010; Marchiondo, Myers, & Kopelman, 2015). Claims are behaviors that individuals take to assert their leadership, which
can be explicit (e.g., saying that one is going to lead the meeting) or implicit (e.g., sitting at the head of the table) in nature
(Marchiondo et al., 2015). In the next section, we turn from one’s emergence as a leader to one’s effectiveness in leadership roles once
an individual has been granted (formal) authority over others within organizations.
2.1.2. Leadership effectiveness
Table 1 (left panel) also summarizes prior meta-analytic findings regarding gender differences in leadership effectiveness (denoted
as part of class “A” in Fig. 1). Paustian-Underdahl, Slattery Walker, and Woehr (2014) found that men and women were similarly
effective (d = −0.04, k = 82), and these findings echoed that of a prior meta-analysis by Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani (1995) that also
found null effects (d = −0.03, k = 56). However, both meta-analyses also found evidence of moderating effects. Eagly et al. found that
men were more effective than women in more masculine and more numerically male-dominated settings. The former may be explained
by role congruity effects (i.e., individuals are more effective in roles that are seen as congruent with their gender; Eagly & Karau, 2002)
and the latter by social identity theory (Hogg, 2001), as more prototypical group members are more likely to be viewed as effective
leaders. Paustian-Underdahl and colleagues also found evidence of role congruity effects, though their findings suggested that both
men and women are subject to these effects. In other words, their meta-analysis identified settings and leadership roles where women
may fit role expectations better than men (e.g., middle management positions and in business and educational organizations) and,
therefore, are seen as more effective.
Both Eagly et al. (1995) and Paustian-Underdahl et al. (2014) took a broad approach to conceptualizing overall leadership
effectiveness, including measures of “performance or leadership ability; ratings of satisfaction with leaders or satisfaction with leaders’
performance; coding or counting of effective leadership behaviors; or measures of organizational productivity or group performance”
(p. 1134). Thus, their inclusion criteria did include some variables that Campbell et al. (1993) would classify as leader behaviors or
performance rather than leader outcomes or effectiveness. Despite this potential source of construct contamination, when Eagly and
colleagues contrasted what they classified as effectiveness versus satisfaction measures, they found that, on average, male leaders were
Table 1
Summary of prior meta-analyses on gender differences in leadership behaviors and outcomes.
Leadership Outcomes k d Leadership Behaviors k d
Leadership emergence - overall b 136 0.21a Interpersonal style f 136 0.01
Business settings b 11 0.15a Subsequent studies in the 1990s g 16 −0.13
Leadership emergence – general (task and unspecified leadership) c 74 0.32a Task style f
Subsequent studies in the 1990s g
139
14
−0.02
−0.01
Leadership emergence – social leadership c 15 −0.18a Democratic vs. autocratic style f 28 −0.21a
Subsequent studies in the 1990s g 8 −0.19a
Leadership effectiveness d 82 −0.04 Transformational h 44 −0.10a
Self-ratings d 18 0.20a Idealized influence-attribute h 10 −0.12a
Other-ratings d 64 −0.11a Idealized influence-behavior h 15 −0.02
Leadership effectiveness – overall e 56 −0.03 Inspirational motivation h 29 −0.05a
Effectiveness measures e 65 0.05a Intellectual stimulation h 35 −0.05a
Satisfaction measures e 17 −0.16a Individualized consideration h 28 −0.19a
Contingent reward h 21 −0.13a
Management by exception-active h 12 0.12a
Management by exception-passive h 18 0.27a
Laissez-Faire h 16 0.16a
Abusive supervision i 14 0.26a
Note. Positive effect sizes indicates that men score higher on that constructs, and negative effect sizes indicate that women score higher on that
construct. All effect sizes presented here are weighted observed d-values to facilitate comparisons across studies.
Whenever possible, we report estimates of gender differences between actual leaders in organizations. a 95% confidence interval around this effect
does not include zero. b Badura et al. (2018). c Eagly and Karau (1991). d Paustian-Underdahl et al. (2014). e Eagly et al. (1995). f Eagly and Johnson
(1990). g van Engen and Willemsen (2004). h Eagly, Johannesen-Schdmit, & van Engen (2003). e Calculated from Mackey et al. (2017).
W. Shen and D.L. Joseph