The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Integrating transformational and

participative versus directive
leadership theories
Examining intellectual stimulation in male and
female leaders across three contexts

Intellectual
stimulation
in leaders
67

Kara A. Arnold
Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University,
St. Johns, Canada, and

Catherine Loughlin
Sobey School of Business, St. Marys University, Halifax, Canada
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which male and female leaders
report engaging in participative versus directive intellectually stimulating transformational
leadership behaviour across three different contexts (business, government and military).
Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 64 senior
leaders (29 female and 35 male) across Canada.
Findings Leaders were more likely to describe using a participative versus directive approach to
intellectual stimulation. Gender similarities and differences also appeared across contexts: government
leaders reported almost twice as many directive examples as business leaders, and men and women in
both of these contexts were very similar in their reports about how they enacted intellectual
stimulation. In contrast, men and women in the military diverged, with male leaders reporting more
participative behaviour than female leaders.
Research limitations/implications This study extends the leadership literature through an
integration of participative and directive leadership theory with transformational leadership theory.
Sample size and self-report data are possible limitations.
Practical implications Findings provide insight into the behaviours leaders engage in to enhance
creative thinking and problem solving within organizations across different contexts and suggests
that this aspect of transformational leadership is most likely to be enacted in a participative way by
both male and female leaders.
Originality/value This is one of the first studies to empirically investigate participative versus
directive transformational leadership behaviour. Gender differences between contexts are worthy of
further study, specifically regarding the implications of these findings for female leaders promotion
and career progression.
Keywords Intellectual stimulation, Transformational leadership, Gender similarities,
Gender differences, Problem solving, Participative and directive leadership, Gender, Leadership,
Canada
Paper type Research paper

An earlier version of this study was presented at the 2011 meeting of the Academy of
Management, San Antonio, TX, August 12-16, 2011. This research was supported by a Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Standard Research Grant. The authors
would like to thank Elizabeth Russell and Jenna Hawkins for their assistance with the analysis.
The authors also thank the busy leaders who gave their time for their interviews.

Leadership & Organization

Development Journal
Vol. 34 No. 1, 2013
pp. 67-84
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437731311289974

LODJ
34,1

68

Transformational leadership theory has had a large impact on leadership theory and
practice (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Desvaux and Devillard-Hoellinger, 2008; Eagly and
Carli, 2007b). The 1990s saw more than half of all published empirical leadership
studies focus on transformational leadership ( Judge and Bono, 2000). In The
Leadership Quarterly it was the most widely published leadership theory in the past
20 years (Gardner et al., 2010; Lowe and Gardner, 2000). Antonakis (2012) states, this
research stream dominates the leadership landscape whether deservingly or not
(p. 257). Transformational leadership has been associated with many positive
individual, group and organizational outcomes with respect to behaviours, attitudes
and performance. However, the bulk of research has focused on followers reactions to
transformational leadership in their supervisors; people [who work with
transformational leaders] are more committed to their work, more highly engaged,
and more satisfied (Avolio, 2011, p. 49). As well, despite the extensive research
literature investigating antecedents and outcomes of transformational leadership
behaviour, there is relatively little work that delves into each component of this
leadership theory.
In research studies, transformational leadership has been characterized by four
behavioural components (Bass, 1998): first, idealized influence being a role model
whom followers aspire to emulate; second, inspirational motivation communicating a
compelling vision and holding high expectations; third, intellectual stimulation
encouraging thinking outside the box and generating new solutions to old problems;
and fourth, individual consideration caring about employees and spending time
coaching and mentoring each individual (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985, 1998). Of these
dimensions, the most underdeveloped component of transformational leadership is
intellectual stimulation (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004, p. 333). It is this component to
which we turn our attention in this paper.
In this study, we respond to calls to further our knowledge about this
underdeveloped aspect of transformational leadership (i.e. intellectual stimulation).
Investigating how leaders encourage employees to think of new ways to approach
problems is an important question because innovation and creativity are important
outcomes of this process (Moss and Ritossa, 2007; Shin and Zhou, 2003); and many
organizations today depend upon creativity and innovation to succeed (Garcia-Morales
et al., 2008).
Some recent studies have examined the transformational dimensions separately
(e.g. Arnold and Loughlin, 2004, 2010; Loughlin et al., 2012; Rafferty and Griffin, 2004,
2006; Vinkenburg et al., 2011). Findings suggest that different components of
transformational leadership may be associated with different outcomes, particularly
for female leaders. In the current study, we focus on leaders descriptions of how they
approach problem solving in their organizations. We empirically investigate the
question of how they describe performing the intellectual stimulation component of
transformational leadership (i.e. in a participative or directive manner).
Intellectual stimulation: participative vs directive mechanisms
Studying participative vs directive approaches to transformational leadership may be
particularly important because of the clear distinction between participation as a
stereotypically feminine way to lead (e.g. Helgesen, 1990) vs direction being perceived
as congruent with a stereotypically masculine approach (e.g. Heilman et al., 1995).
Participative and directive leadership styles can be neatly integrated into feminine and
masculine sex role stereotypes (Eagly and Johnson, 1990), whereas transformational

leadership cannot be so easily classified. Taken as a whole, transformational

leadership has been regarded as gender neutral by some researchers (e.g. Eagly and
Carli, 2007b). Although transformational leadership is not neatly categorized in terms
of gender role stereotypes, research suggests that certain components (individual
consideration) are clearly perceived as feminine (e.g. Hackman et al., 1992); while
others, such as intellectual stimulation, lean towards the masculine (Hackman et al.,
1992). In research undertaken by Catalyst (2005), problem solving is characterized
as the one [behaviour] that might best embody the take charge stereotype of men
(p. 15). Other researchers using different typologies (similar to the transformational
leadership dimensions) corroborate this work. For example, Atwater et al. (2004)
investigated perceptions of 19 managerial sub-roles by surveying 146 male and 117
female university students. Participants were asked to rate each sub-role as more
masculine, more feminine, or cant say. They found that the managerial sub-role
of problem solving was perceived as masculine.
The masculine and feminine stereotypes attached to leader behaviour are important
due to their influence on how leaders are perceived and evaluated (Heilman and
Eagly, 2008). In past research, participative leadership approaches have been found
to be perceived as more communal (and hence more feminine), and it was found that
women tend to utilize this leadership style more so than men (Eagly and Johnson,
1990). Past work also clearly demonstrates that women often find themselves in a
double bind in their leadership roles. If they behave in masculine ways (congruent
with the leader role: e.g. Schein, 1973; Schein et al., 1996) they are not likeable, but if
they behave in feminine ways (congruent with their gender role), they are not seen as
leader-like (Heilman and Okimoto, 2007). In fact, this double bind has been suggested
to be a major reason why women have not made much progress into senior leadership
roles (Eagly and Karau, 2002). There is the possibility that transformational leadership
dimensions could be enacted in either participative or directive fashions, leaving
each component the potential to be congruent with either feminine or masculine sex
role stereotypes.
While many researchers have assumed that transformational leadership is
participative by nature, Bass consistently suggested that transformational leadership
could take either participative or directive forms (Bass, 1990, 1999; Bass and Bass,
2008). Avolio (2011) recently confirmed this position; transformational leadership can
be directive or participative as well as democratic or authoritarian ( p. 69). We are not
aware of any empirical research investigating how each component of
transformational leadership can be enacted in a participative (congruent with
feminine stereotype) vs directive (congruent with masculine stereotype) way.
Generally, directive leadership can be defined as leader behaviours that seek [y]
compliance with [leader] directions about how to accomplish a problem solving task,
whereas participative leadership is the sharing of problem solving by consulting
[employees] [y] before making a decision (Sauer, 2011, p. 575).
Bass and Riggio (2006) give examples of participative intellectual stimulation
compared to directive intellectual stimulation. While different forms of participative
leadership exist, the one commonality is that this approach typically focuses on
involving followers [actively] in decision processes whereas with a directive style
leaders [themselves] play the active role in problem solving and decision making, and
expect followers to be guided by their decision (Bass and Bass, 2008, p. 460). In terms
of intellectual stimulation, a participative example would be: Can we try to look at our
assumptions as a ground without being critical of each others ideas until all

Intellectual
stimulation
in leaders
69

LODJ
34,1

70

assumptions have been listed? (Bass and Riggio, 2006, p. 12). In this example, the
leader is open to opinions and suggestions of employees, and engages them in an open
discussion in order to generate new solutions. The followers opinions are sought and
valued. This can be contrasted with a directive example for followers to engage in
problem solving themselves: You must reexamine the assumption that a cold fusion
engine is a physical impossibility. Revisit this problem and question your assumption
(Bass and Riggio, 2006, p. 12). In this example, the leader tells the employee to rethink
the problem in essence directs them to do this on their own vs engaging them in
a two-way process. As well, a leader who makes the decision about the solutions
to problems him/herself and then directs employees to implement these would also be
defined as directive. The distinction here lies in whether or not the leader involves
followers in a process of discussion to come up with new solutions, vs telling them
either to do it on their own, or telling them what the leader has already decided the
novel solution should be.
In 2005, Catalyst found that there were differences in perceptions (not necessarily
in the actual behaviours) of women and men who engage in problem solving or
intellectual stimulation. This study investigated 296 senior corporate managers
perceptions of differences between male and female leaders in terms of how effective
they were at problem solving. Male and female respondents to this survey had very
different assessments of the problem solving ability of male vs female leaders. Women
perceived female leaders to be superior at problem solving to males, whereas men
perceived male leaders as superior at problem solving to female leaders (Catalyst,
2005). Further, when women were leaders in masculine contexts they were even more
likely to be viewed as poor problem solvers, especially by senior managers who
have direct exposure to women leaders (Catalyst, 2005, p. 24). This finding was
suggested to be particularly detrimental for women leaders in as much as being
stereotyped as poor problem-solvers, their power to motivate followers may be
seriously undermined (Catalyst, 2005, p. 4). In discussing the double bind that
senior female leaders find themselves in, particularly in masculine industries, the
authors note that womens energy might be better spent on implementing solutions,
[but instead] they may have to spend considerably more effort than male leaders
on negotiating with subordinates and getting their buy-in (Catalyst, 2005, p. 24).
It appeared in this study that female leaders might almost be forced to take a more time
consuming participative approach to problem solving (in alignment with feminine
stereotypes) to get buy-in from employees and be perceived as effective leaders.
Based on these findings, it is reasonable to expect that female leaders will enact
intellectual stimulation in a more participative way than male leaders across
contexts to gain buy in from others. This being said, there is an alternative
theoretical lens through which to view these relationships and some empirical evidence
to suggest rival propositions. We now turn to this literature.
Context matters
In 2006, Johns called for a more explicit focus on organizational context in
organizational behaviour research. Context can be defined as situational opportunities
and constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behaviour
as well as functional relationships between variables ( Johns, 2006, p. 386). Different
organizational contexts can be described as weak vs strong situations (Cooper and
Withey, 2009; Mischel, 1977). Strong situations are characterized by obvious norms
and rigid roles [and they] tend to constrain the expression of individual differences [y]

[whereas weak situations] permit more latitude or opportunity for the expressions of
such differences ( Johns, 2006, p. 387). Although gender can be a powerful driver
of behaviour (as discussed above), context and occupational identity may also exert
considerable influence on leaders behaviour.
At least two contextual forces may suppress the gender-based differences
discussed above: first, some authors argue that there has been a feminization of
management in general (Fondas, 1997) and empirical research has supported this in
terms of leadership behaviour (Loughlin et al., 2012), whereby male and female
leaders may now be expected to behave in similar (stereotypically feminine) ways in
their leadership roles and second, research on occupational identities also suggests
that individuals will be more similar within occupations than across genders.
In this regard, borrowing from the gender literature, we are reminded that
performing an identity can produce the identity itself (Butler, 1990). Thus,
behaving like someone in a particular role (e.g. an engineer) may in and of itself make
men and women come to act more similar than one might expect based on their
gender identities alone. Some research has supported this proposition, finding that
professional identity can over-ride gender identity particularly in masculine
occupations (e.g. Moore, 1999; regarding police officers). In the public sector, some
research also suggest that women adopt more masculine styles due to occupational
identities (Ford, 2006).
Given the above, we could propose rival propositions across contexts in regard to
participative vs directive intellectual stimulation: first, the military is a prototypical
strong situation, given its hierarchical rank structure that constrains behaviour.
The masculine norms and culture in the military also align well with directive
approaches (e.g. Lim and Ployhart, 2004; Silva, 2008). Consequently, it is possible that
male and female problem solving will be the most similar and most directive in the
military. Second, government structures are also highly bureaucratic and this has been
cited as an impediment to creative problem solving and employee empowerment in
past research (e.g. Daley and Lovrich, 2007). While the government lacks the rigid
constraints of the military, it is also characterized by greater policy and procedural
constraints in terms of being creative and innovative than business contexts, thus there
is reason to expect that leaders in this context will be less directive than the military
but not as participative as in business. Implications for gender differences are less
clear. Finally, we might expect the business context to have the fewest constraints on
behaviour and therefore to be the most stereotypical in its outcomes (i.e. with female
leaders being the most participative).
This study is exploratory; hence our rival propositions are tentative. Past literature
suggests that there are possible reasons to expect both difference and similarity; and
the extent of these differences and similarities may depend on the context. Next, we
present our method for investigating these relationships. We then delineate our
empirical findings on how male and female leaders across the three contexts in
our study describe their intellectual stimulation. Finally, in the discussion we summarize
our findings and contribution to the literature, discuss limitations and future research
questions arising from this study and take up the implications of our findings for
leadership evaluations.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with leaders from private sector
businesses, government and the military across four provinces in Canada. We

Intellectual
stimulation
in leaders
71

LODJ
34,1

72

pursued a purposive sampling strategy and interviewed female and male leaders with
senior supervisory experience from a broad range of contexts (Stake, 2005). In this
paper, data from 64 leaders in total are analysed: 29 business leaders (11 female and 18
male), 20 government leaders (nine female and 11 male) and 15 military leaders (nine
female and six male). The business leaders were senior level managers, within two
levels of the CEO and/or president, government leaders filled director and executive
positions, and military leaders were at the levels of major and colonel. For the business
and government leaders the average years of management experience was 18.0 for
males and 12.4 for females. In total there were 35 male leaders in our sample:
their average age was 46.9 years, and there were 29 female leaders in our sample: their
average age was 44.8 years.
We employed a semi-structured interview methodology with specific questions
asked of every participant but with no set response formats individuals could
answer as they felt best described their opinions and experience (Fontana and Frey,
2005). The data presented here are part of a larger study[1] that included other aspects
of leadership and career development. Interviews lasted between 45 minutes to
75 minutes, were conducted by phone, audio recorded and transcribed. The transcribed
files were input into Nvivo 7.0 for an initial analysis. For present purposes we focus
on specific interview questions related to intellectual stimulation: do you feel that it is
important to get employees to think of different ways of doing things? and if so, can
you tell me what you do in order to encourage outside of the box thinking? These
questions were directly modelled after the questions on the multifactor leadership
questionnaire (MLQ: Bass and Avolio, 1995), which is a valid and reliable measure of
transformational leadership. These structured questions were followed up by probing
questions specific to each interviewees example(s). In the first step of our analysis,
we coded for any examples where problem solving was discussed. These examples
were most likely to come from participant answers to the above questions; but they
could also have been discussed in relation to other aspects of the interview. The initial
unit of analysis and coding was completed at the level of the individual leader
(Boyatzis, 1998).
Our data were then content analysed using thought items (Miles and Huberman,
1994) from individual leaders as the unit of analysis. Thought items are chunks of data
that are logically related: phrases, sentences and/or paragraphs that express a similar
idea. Using this approach vs a line-by-line coding approach allowed us to maintain
the meaning and context of the ideas that our participants discussed. We followed the
steps for content analysis outlined by Weber (1990). This protocol is widely referenced
in the literature (e.g. Duriau et al., 2007). We employed two graduate students to
independently code the data according to predetermined definitions of participative
and directive problem solving behaviour. The gender and context of the individual
leaders were removed from these transcripts. Neither coder knew the intent of the
study. The coders were give copies of the transcripts and were trained in the definitions
of participative and directive leadership behaviour. Our definitions came from the
extant literature on participative and directive leadership. Specifically, we defined
participative behaviour as behaviour that involves employee input in decision making
and problem solving there is a two-way interaction whereby the leader takes
followers input into account (e.g. Bass and Bass, 2008). Directive behaviour was
defined as behaviour that does not involve the employee in the decision making
and problem solving there is no two-way interaction between leader and follower
(e.g. Bass and Bass, 2008).

When the two graduate student research assistants had completed the independent
blind coding the first author compared their coding to calculate the level of inter-coder
agreement. In total, 155 though items were initially coded between both coders. There
was agreement on 130 items translating to an acceptable inter-rater agreement of
83.9 per cent (130/155). The authors then revisited the coding to be sure that each
thought item tapped into the construct of intellectual stimulation. We found three
instances where thought items did not qualify as intellectual stimulation and these
items were discarded; eight additional thought items were coded during this process
leaving 160 thought items coded in total (91 from males and 69 from females).

Intellectual
stimulation
in leaders
73

Findings
Overall, our findings would appear to support observations about the feminization
of management (Fondas, 1997) as the majority of both female and male leaders
described engaging in participative approaches to intellectual stimulation across
contexts (see Table I): 84.1 per cent of female and 86.8 per cent of male comments
were coded as participative (i.e. more aligned with feminine stereotypes). This pattern
of results (i.e. more participative items than directive items) was fairly consistent
across all three contexts.
However, when we look at the results comparing men and women across the three
contexts some interesting differences also emerge. As the percentages in Table II
illustrate, a greater percentage of male military leaders discussed items that were
coded as participative compared to female military leaders. The female military leaders
were more likely to give directive examples (20 per cent) than their male counterparts
(7.7 per cent). Further, men in the military actually gave the largest percentage of
participative examples across contexts (92.9 per cent). In the military, patterns for men
and women diverged regarding participative vs directive trends, and the findings
show that female leaders were most likely to report being directive in their intellectual
stimulation. Males, however, showed a different pattern, with males in the military
Category
Participative intellectual stimulation (%)
Directive intellectual stimulation (%)
Total thought items

Category
Participative intellectual stimulation
Business (%)
Government (%)
Military (%)
Total thought items
Directive intellectual stimulation
Business (%)
Government (%)
Military (%)
Total thought items

Females

Males

84.1
15.9
69

86.8
13.2
91

Females

Males

88.5
82.6
80
58

89.6
79.3
92.9
79

11.5
17.4
20
11

10.4
20.7
7.7
12

Table I.
Thought items by
category and gender

Table II.
Thought items by
category, gender
and context

LODJ
34,1

74

being the least likely to provide directive examples. In the government sample, we
found gender similarity in participative behaviour (male leaders 82.6 per cent and
female leaders 79.3 per cent); however, there were a greater percentage of directive
ideas expressed by both sexes as compared to business. In the business context,
male and female leaders were also quite similar; with a smaller percentage of items
coded as directive (males 10.4 per cent and females 11.5 per cent).
In the paragraphs that follow we provide illustrative examples of the leaders
participative approaches to intellectual stimulation across all three contexts. A word
count conducted with the transcripts of coded thought items and notations from
coders indicated that there were two main themes regarding participative
behaviours. These centred on holding meetings (34) in order to facilitate
brainstorming processes (18); and asking questions (24) with the intent of being
open to being challenged (16).
Holding meetings to foster brainstorming
In the business sample, there were numerous examples given of how leaders engaged
in participative behaviour related to the intellectual stimulation of their employees.
Holding meetings for the purpose of brainstorming was something that was frequently
mentioned:
Wed [my employees and I] talk about it. We have a meeting and we are brainstorming and
when we do our plan, okay, its a safe environment [to suggest] [y] lets do something
different and what can we do thats different? (FB9[2]).
This group of management people that I work with I would brainstorm ways to do that. So
its setting up that kind of environment and I have a couple of people that I work with that
[y] I ask them to lead those sessions, so it comes from their peers [y] everything is fair
game [y] not to sound like Doctor Phil but, theres no judgment passed (MB1).

Government leaders provided similar examples of brainstorming. The notion of

humility and breaking down hierarchical boundaries between leader and employee
came across in the examples of how meetings are conducted:
We try to have fairly regular staff meetings and everybody shares what theyre working on
and what theyre doing. And so everybody has a chance to give some input. So rather than
getting into your own head of what you think needs to be done, its an opportunity to get other
ideas and other opinions on things (FG15).
I dont think of myself as being a personally particularly creative person, but I do know I have
a reputation of gathering people around me that together as a group, can come up with
creative and innovative kinds of solutions (FG13).
Well get all our staff in the room [y] and we say were going to develop this together [y] we
all have a think session and there is no level in that room [i.e. everyone is on the same level
regardless of hierarchical position in the organization] (MG31).

Military leaders also described holding meetings and brainstorming as important

participative techniques used to encourage thinking about old problems in news ways.
For example:
So in a lot of cases, I may be looking to try to produce a report or develop a program, or do
some sort of construction where I dont necessarily know all of the things that I would need to
know in order to solve that problem. So I like to try to go back to the people who do have that
skill and ask them well, what is your suggestion? (FM21).

These leaders also described meetings and brainstorming where all individuals in the
room are on equal footing:
What I tend to do is when we face an issue that we have to try to come up with different
solutions, we just sit around the table and do some brainstorming. And we try and kick down
the traditional barriers that Im the boss and youre the subordinate, and we just have a
session where anyone can say anything about any idea, no matter how ridiculous it is
(MM29).

Giving people a chance to take a second look at a decision after some time to think
about it was part of a process used in addition to brainstorming for some leaders:
And then you mull it over and you bounce things off people. And at the end of the session on
Monday, we left with a direction. And the next day, when people had a time to think it over
and mull it over, I guess away from the masses, and then did a bit of quiet time, somebody
came back in and said, you know, I had a different thought last night. And of course I brought
everybody back again, we had a chat about that and it seemed to be the way to go (FG14).

Bringing different people together in the meeting was also a technique that was
brought up. This is similar to the idea that bringing in new people can help alleviate
groupthink (Janis, 1982) in team settings who is brought together can also influence
the problem solving process and the likelihood that new ideas are generated. A set of
fresh eyes can look at old problems in new ways:
I move people around allowing them the opportunity just to come in and say hey why is that
the way it is and is that the best way and get the people within that department questioning it
themselves and saying, maybe we do need to look at this another way (MB4).

The notion of doing things differently in meetings where you bring people together
was also cited:
And you have to be innovative. Like people are bored easily and they dont just want to just
sit there listen to the same ____. You kind of have to challenge people all the time because
weve all been in like hundreds of meetings and its always the same crap, the same agenda.
I do things a bit differently that whenever there are suggestions come up and they are outside
of the box, you really take a look at them (FM24).

Questioning and being open to being challenged

The second theme that was apparent regarding participation was the notion of
questioning others and being open to being challenged. Questioning others and
themselves was frequently mentioned, and many leaders across the three contexts
reported using this as a strategy to bring out employees ideas in a two-way discussion.
This approach appeared to be conducted with some humility in order to encourage
participation. For example, in business:
Its probably what distinguishes the best [leaders] from the adequate ones [y] thinking
creatively not just shouting out their own ideas (FB1).
I think just the nature of our department is, when I meet with my folks, innovation is a key
competency that you need in this job. And so I think [y] they know that coming up with new
and better ways of doing things is the expectation. Change [my] mindset from the manager
who tells to the manager who asks (FB6).
You guys know what youre looking at [describing an organizational problem focused on one
department]. You can ask a lot of questions that I wouldnt even think to ask let alone
understand the answer [y] I put together a group of two representatives from each of the

Intellectual
stimulation
in leaders
75

LODJ
34,1

76

fixed teams we had at the time [y] I got out of the room [y] and went back to talk to them
about two months later (MB5).

Being open to being challenged (and enjoying this) and communicating this feeling to
employees was perceived as a particularly effective participative technique:
I tell them that I dont hire lemmings [y] that I dont want to go over the cliff with everybody
else. So if Im running headlong toward the cliff I need them to stand up and tell me, you know
what? Youre wrong. And I need them to tell me why Im wrong, and I have no problem being
challenged, and I encourage it (MB10).
I prefer to be challenged in an open fashion, in a constructive way. And if somebody has a
better solution I am more than prepared and happy to embrace it (MG19).
So Ill throw out an idea and want them [employees] to challenge it (MM29).
Theyve been in these roles longer than me, so they have some very good ideas, thats why
they are where they are, so I think a lot of it is to challenge each other, to question stuff, to look
at it from different perspectives (FG23).

Similar to the business and government samples, the leaders in the military also spoke
about being challenged by employees and enjoying this they wanted this to happen
while recognizing that the nature of their work meant that it was not always possible
(e.g. during a crisis). The philosophy of being open to challenge and being comfortable
with it seemed to permeate most of the participative leaders in all three contexts:
So Ill throw an idea out and want them to challenge it so that we can come to the best logical
point (MM26).

A note about context

In addition to differentiating between participative and directive forms of intellectual
stimulation, participants from government and military highlighted the fact that
although they needed to operate within policies and procedures, they were open to
changing these if necessary. These participants were more likely than the business
participants to express the notion that the participative approach requires setting aside
the usual policies and rules in order to come up with new solutions and there were
sometimes good reasons to be doing this. While the solutions might be constrained by
policy (particularly in both government and military contexts), policy did not dictate
the use of a directive approach for these leaders. Despite policy constraints these
leaders were more likely to give participative than directive examples of intellectual
stimulation. There was considerable openness to new solutions and to making policy
change where necessary. The government sector leaders discussed their accountability
to the public in this regard. The military leaders discussed the changing environment
in which they operated and budgetary constraints as forces making it necessary to find
new ways of doing their work. For example:
[y] recognizing that we have these clear guidelines here and this is how were supposed to do
things, come up with ideas on how we could do it differently, completely ignoring the policy
as its written now. What would you do completely differently if you were given the authority
to completely change how we manage this particular process? (MG24).
[y] the government isnt the wide west but there are opportunities for improvement in just
about every department. I encourage my managers to find ways of working [y] to make
things better, to try and change the way we currently do things (MG20).

As well, the notion that they owed it to the public to think of new ways of
approaching problems came out as a reason for encouraging new approaches to
problems despite constraints:
At every monthly staff meeting we have in my unit, I raise that very issue [y] we should be
constantly looking at making improvement in the way in which we do our job. Thats
something that I firmly believe in. We owe that to ourselves. We owe it to the organization. We
owe it to the public (MG18).

Finally, in regards to directive approaches overall, in the government we found the

greatest percentage of directive ideas. In the military sample we found a higher
percentage of female comments coded as directive vs male comments and the largest
gender difference. Some illustrative examples of directive intellectual stimulation
follow:
We ask [employees] to look at [new policy] and to implement it kind of as weve designed it
(FB2).
I might say [when an employee comes to me with a problem] [y] heres one of the ways you
might do it. Heres how I would say it. Understanding you might say it differently so play
back to me what you heard in your own words (MB33).
Early in our relationship, I would help them and, direct them [y] (MB4).
[I am] limited in terms of how far outside the box [we] can go because in addition to the
problem solving role there is the enforcement angle of _______ legislation. We have to adhere
to that (MG23).
The main thing I do [to get employees to solve problems] is just try to impose on them the
way I approach [the situation] and encourage them to do it the same way (FM22).

We note that the differences regarding the percentage of directive thoughts expressed
by female leaders in military compared to males did not support either of our
propositions: females were not more participative and gender differences were largest
in this context. The proposition that women and men would be more similar within
government and military than business contexts was only partly supported. In fact, in
the military sample, we saw the largest percentage of differences between males and
females.
Discussion
In this study, we investigated examples of intellectual stimulation from the perspective
of leaders across three contexts (business, government and military). This component
of transformational leadership has not been the subject of extensive research
(Rafferty and Griffin, 2004, p. 333). We contribute to the literature by exploring how
male and female leaders describe implementing this aspect of transformational
leadership in participative or directive ways. As such, this study provides preliminary
empirical evidence of the assertion that transformational leadership can be enacted in
either participative or directive ways; an assertion backed by theory (Avolio, 2011;
Bass and Bass, 2008; Bass and Riggio, 2006) but no published empirical evidence that
we could find. Our findings also suggest that across contexts, leaders are now much
more likely to see themselves as being intellectually stimulating in participative ways
(with all scores around 80 per cent or above). This result held for male and female
leaders; there was greater similarity than difference (Hyde, 2005).

Intellectual
stimulation
in leaders
77

LODJ
34,1

78

The most common techniques leaders used for encouraging participation included:
getting groups of people together for meetings to brainstorm or discuss issues and
questioning themselves and others while being open to being challenged. Despite
the fact that both government and military leaders acknowledged that they were
working in a constrained environment due to policy, there was agreement that
finding different ways of doing things was an important skill that employees required,
and that should policy need to be changed, these leaders would take that step.
Some interesting differences across contexts were also evident. Although
government leaders reported almost twice as many directive examples (male 20.7
per cent; female 17.4 per cent) as business leaders (male 11.5 per cent;
female 10.4 per cent), men and women within each of these contexts were
surprisingly similar in their reports about the way they enacted intellectual
stimulation. In contrast, men and women in the military seemed to diverge more,
with female leaders reporting almost twice as many directive examples (20 per cent)
as male leaders (7.7 per cent). Future research will need to determine why female
leaders might be twice as likely to report being directive as male leaders in this
particular context. Given the masculine nature of the environment at least two
explanations seem apparent in hindsight: first, a selection bias: women who make
it to the top in the military may be more likely to be directive to begin with; or
second, if women are most likely to be perceived as poor problem solvers in
masculine contexts (Catalyst, 2005), it is possible that, to the extent women are aware
of this, they felt the need to own problem solving behaviour in order to receive
credit for it.
Regarding the three different contexts, we had delineated the potential for
contradictory predictions. One line of previous research suggested that female leaders
would be more participative across contexts in order to gain buy in. This proposition
did not garner as much support as the alternative propositions suggested by the
literature focused on environments characterized as strong situations, and around
ideas regarding professional identity. This line suggested that male and female
leaders would be similar in their descriptions of intellectual stimulation. In these
situations, gender might be a secondary influence on behaviour. In the government
and business samples, gender may well be secondary to occupational identity, given
that there was little difference between male and female leaders in either their
participative or directive intellectually stimulating transformational leadership
behaviour. However, predictions were only partially supported by our data in the
military context, where there was in fact the greatest gender difference. It may also be
that the military is such a unique environment that it is outlier. For example, past
meta-analytic research on the gender of leaders and links to effectiveness found that
military studies deviated strongly from all other classes of studies with men having
higher effectiveness ratings than women in this setting and means in this setting
deviating from means in other settings (e.g. education, business, government)
and laboratory studies (Eagly et al., 1995, p. 135). Future work will be necessary to
investigate this potential explanation.
Because women are expected to be participative as part of the feminine stereotype,
they may not get credit for enacting problem solving behaviours that engage others.
When engaging in participative intellectual stimulation women may be perceived
as just doing what women do (Fletcher, 2004). This implication is based on the body
of research showing that women do not get credit for workplace behaviours that are
perceived as feminine (Heilman and Chen, 2005; Loughlin et al., 2009, 2012). Yet at the

same time research shows that women are penalized for success at behaviours that are
perceived as masculine (Heilman and Okimoto, 2007; Heilman et al., 2004). If women
engage in more transformational behaviours, but do so in participative ways, the end
result may be that they do not get credit for these behaviours. In certain masculine
environments female leaders may need to enact transformational behaviours in
directive ways in order to be rewarded for them. Our findings in the military
sample, while tentative, would support this counterintuitive hypothesis. Of course, at
the same time, this directive approach may result in negative evaluations of
likeability (e.g. Heilman et al., 2004), a key aspect of moving up to senior leadership
levels. Given our limited sample size these suggestions will need to be tested in
future research.
While Bass and colleagues may be correct that either participative or directive
transformational leadership is effective for men (transformational leadership theory
was developed using male participants), little is known about the effectiveness of
participative vs directive approaches for women. Researchers have noted that women
are subject to slower leadership progression rates than males (Eagly and Carli, 2007a)
despite being rated as engaging more frequently in transformational behaviour than
male leaders (Eagly et al., 2003). Overlaying the participatory and directive processes
on each component of transformational leadership might help us gain insight into at
least one piece of this puzzle.
Strengths, limitations and future research
The differences we found should be interpreted with caution given our limited sample
size. However, the fact that we asked leaders to tell us, in their own words, how
they encouraged employees to think in different ways is also a strength of the study as
there are no gender balanced published accounts of how leaders enact this type of
leadership behaviour. In addition, our sample covers three different contexts. While
the number of leaders within each context could be larger, this study is on par with
qualitative work in other areas of inquiry (e.g. Friede et al., 2008). As mentioned, it is
also a much more balanced sample than is typically the case in the leadership
literature. Balanced samples can be difficult to find due to small number of female
leaders at these organizational levels (e.g. Harding et al., 2011, where only one in
38 was women).
As with any study this one has limitations. First, the males in our sample were on
average older than the females, and had more management experience. Future research
should look at different generational cohorts and attempt to discern how these
leadership behaviours develop over time. For example, did the males in our sample
begin their careers being more directive and then later become more participative?
Did the women always engage in participative behaviours or was this also an
evolution and development of their leadership style? Do women and men develop
leadership behaviours at different times in their leadership experiences and
careers?
Second, our results are from the leaders perspectives. Self-report data may be
subject to a social desirability bias (Paulhus, 1984) and therefore we might find
different results if we had asked followers to rate their leaders on how often they
engaged in specific behaviours related to participative and directive intellectual
stimulation. Our focus was on how much leaders believed they engaged in each of
these different styles. Future investigations such as this could consider how similar
leader perceptions are to follower perceptions of these types of behaviours.

Intellectual
stimulation
in leaders
79

LODJ
34,1

80

Besides looking at how leaders actually behave, it is important to empirically assess

how others perceive and evaluate their behaviour. Future work could investigate the
question of whether the dimensions of transformational leadership are evaluated and
rewarded equally when enacted by male and female leaders in participative vs
directive ways. This work should consider each component of transformational
leadership separately due to the different congruence with sex role stereotypes for each
component. For example, intellectual stimulation is congruent with the masculine
stereotype and hence findings could be different for components more aligned with the
feminine stereotype (e.g. individual consideration). Experimental studies would be well
suited to answer these questions given their high-internal validity allowing causation
to be tested.
We also believe it is plausible that our findings might have implications for other
aspects of transformational leadership for example inspirational motivation (creating
and communicating an organizational vision). Investigating ratings of effectiveness
of senior female leaders across a number of leadership behaviours, Ibarra and Obodaru
(2009) found that vision was a key leadership behaviour on which women were rated as
less effective than men. When the researchers interviewed the senior women in their
study, they uncovered one possible reason for this difference. They proposed that
perhaps these women take employee input into consideration when making decisions
more so than men; they come to their visions in a less directive way than men do
(Ibarra and Obodaru, 2009, p. 67). Perhaps the reason that these women did not get
credit for their vision activities was due to the participative process that they were
more likely to utilize. Although these researchers were not addressing differences in
participative vs directive leadership, this observation, in addition to our own findings,
would certainly seem to support the empirical investigation of such differences in the
inspirational motivation component of transformational leadership.
While being participative may be seen as exceptional for male transformational
leaders this behaviour may simply not be seen as exceptional for women. If indeed
female leaders are damned if they do and damned if they dont (Catalyst, 2007, p. 1),
each aspect of transformational leadership may need to be examined for its interaction
with participative and directive approaches and their impact on perceptions and
evaluations of the leaders in question.
Perhaps with the exception of the military, the overall findings here regarding
intellectually stimulating transformational leadership appear to support the similarity
hypothesis (Hyde, 2005). Despite the fact that:
stories in the popular press reinforce misconceptions of women leaders by speculating about
how different they are from men. These stories sell because they resonate with popular beliefs
about women and men. Although provocative, the stories are dangerous. They reinforce
perceptions that are dead wrong perceptions that are rooted in gender stereotypes
perceptions that maintain the gender gap in leadership itself (Catalyst, 2005, p. 1).

Researchers may often be complicit in reinforcing this bias, because finding no gender
difference can be construed as just not that interesting. However, as we have outlined
in this study, relationships between gender and leadership are much more nuanced
than this, and can be impacted by not only how one enacts transformational leadership
(i.e. in a participative vs directive way) but in what context one does so (e.g. business,
the government or the military). It would appear that despite the abundance of
research done on leadership to date we still have much to learn about how women and
men enact leadership across different contexts.

Notes
1. Findings related to other aspects of transformational leadership from this national interview
study supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada have
been published (e.g. Arnold and Loughlin, 2010).

Intellectual
stimulation
in leaders

2. Participants are labelled by gender (M male, F female), context (B business,

G government, M military), and numbered to indicate different individuals within
each of these categories. For example, FB9 female business participant No. 9.

81

References
Antonakis, J. (2012), Transformational and charismatic leadership, in Day, D.V. and
Antonakis, J. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, 2nd ed., SAGE, Washington, DC,
pp. 256-88.
Arnold, K.A. and Loughlin, C. (2004), Female transformational leaders: new directions for
research, paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, New Orleans, LA,
6-11 August.
Arnold, K.A. and Loughlin, C. (2010), Individually considerate transformational leadership
behaviour and self sacrifice, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31
No. 8, pp. 670-86.
Atwater, L.E., Brett, J.F., Waldman, D.A., DiMare, L. and Hayden, M.V. (2004), Mens and
womens perceptions of the gender typing of management subroles, Sex Roles, Vol. 50
Nos 3/4, pp. 191-9.
Avolio, B.J. (1999), Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations,
SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Avolio, B.J. (2011), Full Range Leadership Development, 2nd ed., Sage, Washington, DC.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass & Stodgills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial
Applications, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M. (1999), Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2008), The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and
Managerial Applications, 4th ed., Free Press, Toronto, ON.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associated, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Data: Thematic Analysis and Code Development,
SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Butler, J. (1990), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge Chapmen &
Hall, London.
Catalyst (2005), Women Take Care, Men Take Charge: Stereotyping of US Business Leaders
Exposed, CATALYST, New York, NY.
Catalyst (2007), The Double-Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Damned If You Do,
Doomed If You Dont, CATALYST, New York, NY.
Cooper, W.H. and Withey, M.J. (2009), The strong situation hypothesis, Personality and Social
Psychology Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 62-72.

LODJ
34,1

82

Daley, D.M. and Lovrich, N.P. (2007), Assessing the performance of supervisors: lessons for
practice and insight into middle management resistance to change, Public Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 313-41.
Desvaux, G. and Devillard-Hoellinger, S. (2008), Women Matter 2: Female Leadership,
A Competitive Edge For The Future, McKinsey & Company, Paris.
Duriau, V.J., Reger, R.K. and Pfarrer, M.D. (2007), A content analysis of the content analysis
literature in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological
refinements, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-34.
Eagly, A.E. and Carli, L.L. (2007a), Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women
Become Leaders, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Eagly, A.E. and Carli, L.L. (2007b), Women and the labyrinth of leadership, Harvard Business
Review, September, pp. 63-71.
Eagly, A.E. and Johnson, B.T. (1990), Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 223-56.
Eagly, A.E. and Karau, S.J. (2002), Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders,
Psychological Review, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 573-98.
Eagly, A.E., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and van Engen, M.L. (2003), Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and
men, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 569-91.
Eagly, A.E., Karau, S.J. and Makhijani, M.G. (1995), Gender and the effectiveness of leaders:
a meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 125-45.
Fletcher, J.K. (2004), The paradox of postheroic leadership: an essay on gender, power, and
transformational change, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 647-61.
Fondas, N. (1997), Feminization unveiled: management qualities in contemporary writings,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 257-82.
Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (2005), The interview: from neutral stance to political involvement, in
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed.,
Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 695-727.
Ford, J. (2006), Discourses of leadership: gender, identity and contradiction in a UK public sector
organization, Leadership, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 77-99.
Friede, A., Ernst Kossek, E., Dean Lee, M. and Macdermid, S. (2008), Human resource manager
insights on creating and sustaining successful reduced work-load arrangements, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 707-27.
Garcia-Morales, V.J., Matias-Reche, F. and Hurtado-Torres, N. (2008), Influence of
transformational leadership on organizational innovation and performance depending
on the level of organizational learning in the pharmaceutical sector, Journal of Change
Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 188-212.
Gardner, W.L., Lowe, K.B., Moss, T.W., Mahoney, K.T. and Cogliser, C.C. (2010), Scholarly
leadership of the study of leadership: a review of The Leadership Quarterlys second
decade, 2000-2009, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 922-58.
Hackman, M.Z., Furniss, A.H., Hills, M.J. and Paterson, T.J. (1992), Perceptions of gender-role
characteristics and transformational and transactional leadership behaviours, Perceptual
and Motor Skills, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 311-9.
Harding, N., Lee, H., Ford, J. and Leamonth, M. (2011), Leadership and charisma: a desire that
cannot speak its name?, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 927-49.
Heilman, M.E. and Chen, J.J. (2005), Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to mens
and womens altruistic citizenship behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3,
pp. 431-41.

Heilman, M.E. and Eagly, A.E. (2008), Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy
producing workplace discrimination, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1
No. 4, pp. 393-8.
Heilman, M.E. and Okimoto, T.G. (2007), Why are women penalized for success at male
tasks?: the implied communality deficit, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 81-92.
Heilman, M.E., Block, C.J. and Martell, R.F. (1995), Sex stereotypes: do they influence perceptions
of managers?, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 237-52.
Heilman, M.E., Wallen, A.S., Fuchs, D. and Tamkins, M.M. (2004), Penalties for success:
reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 416-27.
Helgesen, S. (1990), The Female Advantage: Womens Ways of Leadership, Doubleday Currency,
Toronto, Ontario.
Hyde, J.S. (2005), The gender similarities hypothesis, American Psychologist, Vol. 60 No. 6,
pp. 581-92.
Ibarra, H. and Obodaru, O. (2009), Women and the vision thing, Harvard Business Review,
January, pp. 62-70.
Janis, I.L. (1982), Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos, 2nd ed.,
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Johns, G. (2006), The essential impact of context on organizational behavior, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 386-408.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2000), Five factor model of personality and transformational
leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 751-65.
Lim, B.-C. and Ployhart, R.E. (2004), Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor
model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 610-21.
Loughlin, C., Arnold, K.A. and Bell Crawford, J. (2009), Lost opportunity: is transformational
leadership accurately recognized and rewarded in all managers?, paper presented at the
Academy of Management Conference, Chicago, IL, 6-11 August.
Loughlin, C., Arnold, K.A. and Bell Crawford, J. (2012), Lost opportunity: is transformational
leadership accurately recognized and rewarded in all managers?, Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 43-64.
Lowe, K.B. and Gardner, W.L. (2000), Ten years of the leadership quarterly: contributions and
challenges for the future, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 459-514.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,
2nd ed., SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mischel, W. (1977), On the future of personality measurement, American Psychologist, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 246-54.
Moore, D. (1999), Gender traits and identities in a masculine organization: the Israeli police
force, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 49-68.
Moss, S.A. and Ritossa, D.A. (2007), The impact of goal orientation on the association between
leadership style and follower performance, creativity and work attitudes, Leadership,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 433-56.
Paulhus, D.L. (1984), Two-component models of socially desirable responding, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 598-609.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual
and empirical extensions, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-54.

Intellectual
stimulation
in leaders
83

LODJ
34,1

84

Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), Refining individual consideration: distinguishing
developmental leadership and supportive leadership, Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 37-61.
Sauer, S.J. (2011), Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team
performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 574-87.
Schein, V.E. (1973), The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 95-100.
Schein, V.E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T. and Liu, J. (1996), Think manager think male: a global
phenomenon?, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 33-41.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003), Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
evidence from Korea, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 703-14.
Silva, J.M. (2008), A new generation of women? How female ROTC candidates negotiate the
tension between masculine military culture and traditional femininity, Social Forces,
Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 937-60.
Stake, R.E. (2005), Qualitative case studies, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 443-66.
Vinkenburg, C.J., Van Engen, M.L., Eagly, A.E. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2011), An
exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: is transformational leadership
a route to womens promotion, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 10-21.
Weber, R. (1990), Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Corresponding author
Kara A. Arnold can be contacted at: kara.arnold@mun.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints