INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP

O N J O B S AT I S FA C T I O N
The Moderating Effects of Follower Individual-Level
Masculinity–Femininity Values

GHULAM MUSTAFA AND RUNE LINES

The current study examined whether employee individual-level masculinity–femininity values moder-
ate the relationship between leadership styles (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic)
and employee job satisfaction. Overall, the research provided support for the impact of individual-
level masculinity–femininity on follower reactions to various leadership behaviors. The findings
indicated that followers who scored high on feminine orientation perceived a weaker relationship
between all leadership behaviors and job satisfaction. Followers with more masculine values associ-
ated more perceptions of job satisfaction with human resource, political, and symbolic leadership
and viewed leaders’ structural behaviors as less important for satisfaction at work.

Introduction including leadership styles (Farh, Hackett, & Liang,

A growing body of research suggests that managers’
leadership behaviors are associated with the levels of
follower job satisfaction (Brown & Dodd, 1999; Butler,
Cantrell, & Flick, 1999; Kim, 2002). At the same time,
there exists a huge body of cross-cultural manage-
ment and leadership literature that reveals the effects
of leadership on follower outcomes, such as that job
satisfaction could be contingent on follower individual-
level values (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Nahum-Shani &
Somech, 2011; Thomas & Au, 2002; Walumbwa &
Lawler, 2003). This body of work indicates that
individual-level cultural values play an important role in
shaping follower reactions to the aspects of their work
2007; Walumbwa, Lawler, & Avolio, 2007; Wasti,
2003). The rationale that follower value orientations
serve as potential barriers or facilitators of the leader-
ship effects is founded in the idea that one’s individual
values can influence how one perceives, interprets, and
reacts to a given situation (Schwartz, 1996; Schwartz,
Sagiv, & Boehnke, 2000), such as how an employee
evaluates different leadership styles and the way he or
she reacts to them. Accordingly, it has been suggested
that followers will react better to leaders who engage
in behaviors that are consistent with followers’ indi-
vidually held cultural values, whereas they will respond
negatively in the form of lower positive outcomes when

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 7, Number 4, 2014

©2014 University of Phoenix
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com • DOI:10.1002/jls.21307 23
leader behaviors do not reflect follower individual value
emphasis (House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997). Thus, to
leverage the positive effects of leadership, leaders need
to learn how individual-level cultural values shape fol-
lower reactions to leadership, as well as how follower
workplace attitudes and behaviors are influenced by
the interaction between various leadership styles and
subordinate cultural value orientations.
The majority of studies on culture and leader-
ship, however, have focused on the individualism–
collectivism dimension as a key cultural moderator
(e.g., Jung, Yammarino, & Lee, 2009), and other cul-
tural value dimensions have received negligible attention
except a few studies that have investigated the interac-
tive effects of power distance and leadership (Kirkman,
Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009). Based on a review of
the literature, there exist no studies that have examined the
degree to which follower individual-level masculinity–femi-
ninity values moderate the effects of leadership. The mas-
culinity–femininity values refer to the extent to which
people associate priorities with assertiveness, competi-
tion, and success in contrast with a concern for quality
of life and warm and nurturing relationships (Hofstede,
1980). Given that masculinity and femininity orienta-
tion examines individuals’ beliefs about achievement
and advancement versus empathy, warmth, and nurtur-
ance in organizations, it is expected that the strength
of follower adherence to the masculinity–femininity
values will influence how followers will respond to dif-
ferent leadership styles in the form of more or lesser
job satisfaction. Thus the idea that followers who vary
in masculinity–femininity values may prefer different
leadership styles and that the effects of leadership styles
on follower job satisfaction may vary depending upon
the extent to which followers espouse masculinity–
femininity values warrants attention.
Second, much of the existing cross-cultural litera-
ture on leadership and culture has a strong research
base on transformational leadership, and there is scant
research that has empirically examined cultural val-
ues as potential moderators of other leadership styles,
such as supportive, participatory, political, ritualistic,
and task-oriented behaviors as they relate to employee
work-related outcomes. This is important in view of the
contention that little is known about the effectiveness
of transformational leadership across employees with
24 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
diverse cultural value orientations (Spreitzer, Perttula,
& Xin, 2005), which suggests that managers may need
to also engage in behaviors other than transforma-
tional leadership to motivate employees with differ-
ent cultural value sets (Kirkman et al., 2009). Thus,
interactive effects of employee cultural values warrant
examination with a broad range of leadership styles
instead of transformational leadership alone.
The purpose of the current investigation was to con-
tribute to a better understanding of the impact of fol-
lower individual level masculinity–femininity values on
the relationship between leadership styles and job satis-
faction. The article begins with a brief discussion of the
individual-level conceptualization of culture, leader-
ship styles, and effects of leadership on job satisfaction.
Next, the effects of masculinity–femininity values on
the leadership–job satisfaction relationship for struc-
tural, human resource, and political leadership styles
separately are discussed. Next, three hypotheses are
tested and the findings provide partial support for the
proposed relationships in the study. In the final section,
findings of the study are interpreted and implications
for management theory and practice are suggested.
Theoretical Background
I N D I V I D UA L  L E V E L
C O N C E P T UA L I Z AT I O N O F C U LT U R E
Traditionally, culture has been defined as a system
of shared values distinctive to members of different
national societies (Hofstede, 1980). Following this
notion of culture, earlier cross-cultural studies have
relied upon shared value scores to describe the value
emphasis of entire cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz,
1994). However, several other studies have called for an
approach that embodies the assessment of cultural vari-
ables at the individual level (Tyler, Lind, & Huo, 2000)
as manifested in the strength of a person’s adherence to
different cultural dimensions (Patterson, Cowley, &
Prasongsukarn, 2006; Triandis, 1995). It has been
argued that research studies that use only country-
level scores to explain relationships between constructs
overlook important intracultural variation (Au &
Cheung, 2004; Straub, Loch, Evaristo, Karahanna, &
Srite, 2002). That is, within each national society,
people may differ in their adherence to a particular
cultural value, such that the individually held values are
not likely to closely correspond with the nation’s mean
score (D. C. Thomas, 2002).
The reason for intracultural variation is that although
societal culture influences perceptions and values
of societal members (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Javidan &
House, 2001; Mustafa & Lines, 2013; Schwartz &
Bardi, 2001), so too do family members, coworkers and
one’s personal and professional affiliations (Hitlin &
Piliavin, 2004; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Hence, values
held by members of a society are partly a social phe-
nomenon and partly shaped by one’s distinct experi-
ences and makeup. As a result, there is expected to be
variability at the personal level in the degree to which
individuals espouse values that are characteristic of
their national culture (Brockner, 2003). According to
Triandis (1995), the macro-level cultural dimensions
have an individual analogue meaning that the cultural
syndromes evidenced at the societal level may also
manifest themselves at the individual level. To clarify
the distinction between societal- and individual-level
individualism/collectivism, Triandis (1995) introduces
separate terms of idiocentrism and allocentrism to cap-
ture the essence of individualist and collectivist values
at the individual level of analysis. The phenomenon of
within-country variability along different cultural value
dimensions exists to varying degrees in all societies.
For example, the United States is generally described
as an individualist society (Hofstede, 1980), but many
studies have noted that there exist both collectivists and
individualist tendencies at the individual level (Cross &
Madson, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This sug-
gests that a societal-level assessment of culture along
certain cultural dimensions is not necessarily similar to
what extent a particular individual demonstrates belief
in the same cultural dimensions, and individuals from
two countries may not always differ on the same pat-
tern the way their national cultures vary on a particular
value dimension.
The individual-level inference of culture diverges
from the majority of prior research that examines the
impact of national culture on aggregate and individual
behavior (e.g., Elenkov & Manev, 2005; Offermann &
Hellmann, 1997; Smith and Peterson, 1994). As
opposed to the analyses that assume that cultures
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
are homogenous and societal members equally share
the same cultural values (Hofstede, 1980), such an
approach provides insights into using individual scores
on all cultural dimensions to predict how culture can
manifest at the individual level and influence each indi-
vidual’s behavior and provide a means for interpreting a
situation and responding to it (Schwartz et al., 2000).
For example, Kirkman et al. (2009) suggested that
individuals possess different beliefs and values about
hierarchy and status in their organizations and their
reactions to leaders largely depend on their individual
cultural value orientations irrespective of the cultural
profile of their country. Such an outcome suggests
that assessing each individual’s cultural values is both
appropriate and meaningful for predicting individual-
level attitudes and behavior (Kirkman et al., 2001;
Lu, 2006; Matsumoto, 2003; Mustafa & Lines, 2012;
Ralston et al., 2009).
LEADERSHIP STYLES
Transformational leadership has been the focal lead-
ership style in much of the cross-cultural leadership
research concerned with examining the effects of lead-
ership behaviors on employee workplace outcomes. But
the question of whether transformational leadership
is effective both across cultures and individuals with
significant differences in value orientations has yet to
be answered (Spreitzer et al., 2005). This suggests that
transformational leadership offers a very limited set
of behaviors when it comes to assessing the effects of
leadership on work-related outcomes of followers with
substantially different cultural value profiles. Thus, to
understand the ability of a leader to elicit positive reac-
tions from employees with different value sets, it is
important to examine the influence of a broad range of
leadership styles instead of transformational leadership
alone.
Many researchers have offered alternate taxonomies
to describe leadership behavior, which sufficiently over-
come the limited utility of transformational and trans-
actional theories to be applied in cultural studies. For
instance, Bolman and Deal (1991, 2003) propose a
multiorientation model that involves structural, human
resource, political, and symbolic leadership styles. The
structural leadership emphasizes clear direction, poli-
cies, goals, and efficiency. The focus of human resource
25
 Figure 1. Conceptual model

Follower Individual–Level
Cultural Values
(Masculinity-femininity)

Leadership Styles Follower

(Structural, Human Job
resource, Political) Satisfaction

leadership is on employee growth and development
and attending to followers’ individual needs and pref-
erences. The political orientation involves actions that
relate to political tactics, such as networking, negotia-
tion and bargaining, and behaviors that involve per-
suasion and pressure. Symbolic leadership is about
capturing followers’ attention by utilizing the impor-
tant functions of various symbolic forms such as myths,
rituals, and ceremonies. In the current study, struc-
tural, human resource, and political leadership were
examined for their amenability to theoretical evaluation
in conjunction with the cultural value dimension of
masculinity.
L E A D E R S H I P A N D J O B S AT I S FAC T I O N
Job satisfaction represents the extent to which indi-
viduals feel positive or negative about their jobs. Locke
(1983) defined job satisfaction as a pleasure or posi-
tive affective state that results from an individual’s
appraisal of his or her work experience. Many past
studies found that managerial practices and behaviors
are associated with employee satisfaction and other
workplace outcomes (Bluestone & Bluestone, 1994;
Jackson, 1983; Peterson & Hillkirk, 1991). It has been
argued that leader characteristics and behaviors play
an important role in followers’ enhanced job satis-
faction and helping them develop a pleasant feeling
about their work (Emmert & Taher, 1992; London,
Larsen, & Thisted, 1999; Oldham & Cummings,
1996). Employees tend to produce positive workplace
outcomes when leaders show individualized consider-
ation (Butler, Cantrell, & Flick, 1999; Seltzer & Bass,
1990) and supervise followers in a supportive and
noncontrolling way (Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
In a sample of Japanese employees, Dorfman et al.
(1997) found that supportive leadership has a positive
impact on satisfaction with work. Findings of many
other studies show that leaders’ use of participative
behaviors is beneficial for follower satisfaction with
work (Dorfman et al., 1997; Kim, 2002; Miller &
Monge, 1986; Spector, 1986).
In earlier studies, managers’ task-oriented behaviors
such as task clarity (defining clear-cut tasks) (Ting,
1996) and contingent reward (Brown & Dodd, 1999;
Dorfman et al., 1997) have also been emphasized in
relation to employees’ increased job satisfaction. In cer-
tain other studies, it has been argued that leader politi-
cal behaviors influence subordinate outcome measures
such as organizational citizenship behavior and job
satisfaction (Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, &
Ammeter, 2004). Research has further demonstrated
that leaders’ use of political behaviors such as persua-
sion and consultation result in employee positive work-
related outcomes (Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl, Kim, &
Falbe, 1996).
Hypotheses Development
M O D E R AT I O N B Y M A S C U L I N I T Y 
F E M I N I N I T Y VA LU E S
The masculinity–femininity dimension of culture reflects
to what extent values such as assertiveness and ambition
as opposed to compassion, empathy, and tenderness
dominate in a culture (Hofstede, 2001). The cultural

26 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

syndromes of masculinity and femininity reflect the rela-
tive strength of one’s concern for earnings and advance-
ment versus a preference for harmony, collegial ties, and
quality of life (Randall, 1993). People high on masculine
orientation tend to place greater value on personal rec-
ognition, rewards, and advancement in the workplace
(Adler, 1997; Hofstede, 1998; Schuler & Rogovsky,
1998). They seek conditions that enhance more oppor-
tunities for competition to track personal accomplish-
ment, and tend to feel more affinity for leaders who offer
material inducements and foster a competitive work
environment (Hofstede, 2001). By contrast, people
with a dominant feminine orientation will be concerned
about quality of work life issues and will prefer a work
environment that fosters harmony and solidarity and
where employee well-being is reflected in management
practices (Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Jaeger, 1986).
The differing emphasis on instrumentality as opposed
to an affective concern manifested in the value orienta-
tions of masculinity and femininity (Bem, Martyna, &
Watson, 1976; Spence, 1984) may have implications for
the nature of the employee satisfaction with work. It was
proposed that masculinity–femininity explain the variance
in how followers respond to leadership styles related to
work-related outcomes. More specifically, it is suggested
that how structural, humanistic, and political leadership
styles affect follower job satisfaction partly depends on the
extent to which a particular leadership style is related to the
employee individual-level masculinity–femininity values.
S T RU C T U R A L L E A D E R S H I P A N D J O B
S AT I S FAC T I O N
Structural leadership emphasizes efficiency and pro-
ductivity and focuses on articulated goals and ratio-
nal goal-seeking behavior. Structural leaders organize
follower efforts through clarifying employee role and
task requirements, setting direction and pursuing clear
goals (Bolman & Deal, 1991). Structural leaders closely
monitor follower activities to ensure concrete outcomes
and tend to hold people accountable for lapses. Several
researchers (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Ting, 1996)
have argued that task clarity and clear understanding of
strategic goals help employees feel good about their jobs.
Given behaviors associated with structural leaders, it
is likely that individuals higher in masculine orientation
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
would react better to structural leaders in the form of
greater job satisfaction. The preferences of masculinity-
focused people lean in the direction of achievement,
competence, challenge, and ambition, and there is
greater centrality of work in the lives of such individu-
als (Hofstede, 1998). This is consistent with earlier
assertion that masculinity reflects instrumental traits
and individuals high on masculine orientation focus
on job accomplishment (Bem et al., 1976; Spence,
1984). According to Schuler and Rogovsky (1998),
organizational life that manifests work goals and prac-
tices such as management by objectives and merit and
performance-based rewards is consistent with mas-
culine values. Thus people high on masculinity tend
to favorably view a work environment that confronts
employees with the challenge of achieving goals and
targets and creates opportunities for high performance
and achievement (Hofstede, 1980; Newman & Nollen,
1996). In order to achieve the goals and expectations
that are linked to a quest for efficiency and productiv-
ity, followers with more masculine values tend to focus
on calculated strategies and behaviors (Yan & Hunt,
2005) and may become well organized, goal and detail
oriented, and cautious with making mistakes. This sug-
gests that behaviors associated with structural leader-
ship will be more congruent with masculine values, and
followers with a predominant masculine orientation
will report higher levels of job satisfaction when their
managers create high performance expectations and
exhibit behaviors that encourage followers to carry out
their work by stressing task requirements, avoiding
errors, and working hard to achieve goals.
In contrast, people who espouse feminine values tend
to be more concerned with the quality of interpersonal
relations and quality of work life issues (Newman &
Nollen, 1996; Schuler & Rogovsky, 1998). For such
individuals, harmony and quality of life may override
an emphasis on competition and a high drive to achieve
(Hofstede, 2001). This leads them to be attracted to
organizations that carry out operations in a consider-
ably flexible and less competitive environment and
to respond positively to the leaders who are consulta-
tive and considerate (Mead, 1993). For example, in
Scandinavian countries where value emphasis is on
feminine qualities (Hofstede, 1980), leadership pro-
cess is built on consultation and nurturing follower
27
ideas rather than structuring their activities through
setting and monitoring goals (e.g., Selmer & De Leon,
1996). This suggests that femininity-oriented individu-
als may see less of a link between job satisfaction and
structural leadership that has primary focus on high
productivity expectations, setting direction, pursuing
clear goals, and punitive corrective actions (Bolman &
Deal, 1991). Consequently, the following is suggested:
H1. Followers’ masculinity–femininity values mod-
erate the relationship between structural leadership
and job satisfaction, such that structural leadership is
positively related to job satisfaction to the extent
that followers are high on masculine (low feminine)
orientation.
H U M A N R E S O U RC E L E A D E R S H I P A N D
J O B S AT I S FAC T I O N
Human resource managers advocate openness, par-
ticipation, and empowerment by creating a participa-
tive environment and encouraging different views and
opinions. The managers who use a human resource
leadership style are mostly supportive in nature, appear
to be sensitive to the needs and aspirations of follow-
ers, and are interested in their development and growth
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). A satisfactory work experi-
ence results when employees feel that managers show
concern for followers’ personal needs and feelings, nur-
ture their ideas, and facilitate their skill development
(London, Larsen, & Thisted, 1999; Wagner, 1994).
It was expected that the influence of human resource
leadership may have a pronounced impact on job sat-
isfaction for employees with more feminine values.
Femininity represents the tendency to be supportive,
modest, and altruistic and ascribes high importance to
social exchanges, such as showing responsiveness and
sensitivity to others in interpersonal ties (Hofstede,
2001). Such an argument is consistent with many past
studies that argue that femininity reflects an affective
orientation (Spence, 1984), and affective traits, such
as tenderness, empathy and sensitivity fit the profile of
individuals who value femininity (Palan, 2001). Earlier
studies suggested that quality of life and consideration
for employees’ personal and social needs are the impor-
tant features of management practices endorsed in
feminine societies (Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Randal,
28 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
1998), which may be reflected at the individual level
by personal preference for a work environment that
promotes nurturance, modesty, and solidarity.
Thus, in femininity, a more social orientation is
expected in a leader–follower relationship, and fol-
lowers are more likely to value leader behaviors that
emphasize a strong concern for the well-being and
growth of subordinates. Evidence from Norway, where
feminine values are prevalent, suggested that employees
are more receptive to leaders who display high levels
of warmth (Hetland & Sandal, 2003), and engage in
behaviors that involve caring for subordinates (Sund &
Lines, in press). This suggests that the characteristics of
human resource leadership, such as caring for subor-
dinates, satisfying their individual feelings and needs,
and giving them nurturance and appropriate support
(Bolman & Deal, 2003) may be more congruent with
a feminine orientation, and followers with more femi-
nine values are likely to associate higher perceptions of
job satisfaction with human resource leadership.
People high on masculine orientation tend to be
overwhelmed by the motives of success and accom-
plishment (Hofstede, 1980; Kale & Barnes, 1992) and
might accord less importance to affiliation and belong-
ingness needs (Hofstede, 1980; Lam, Lee, & Mizerski,
2009). Hence, their satisfaction is likely to be rooted
more in individual material incentives than in social
exchanges such as attention, sensitivity, and nurtur-
ance (e.g., Hofstede, 1998). Earlier studies support this
view by arguing that masculine orientation is mani-
fest in being pragmatic (Rakos, 1991), and pursuing
a cost–benefit calculation in social exchange relations
(Randall, 1993). Employees with a masculine orienta-
tion tend to perceive a leader–follower relationship as
attractive so far as such a relationship has beneficial
impact on their drive for extrinsic rewards (Mustafa &
Lines, 2012; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Human
resource leadership stresses harmony, solidarity, and
belongingness (Bolman & Deal, 2003) and fosters a
workplace environment that is less likely to promote
opportunities for economic exchanges involving a
cost–benefit calculation, which suggests that follow-
ers with more masculine values will perceive lesser job
satisfaction when their managers use a human resource
leadership style. Based on the preceding discussion, the
following was proposed:
 H2. Followers’ masculinity–femininity values moder-
ate the relationship between human resource leader-
ship and job satisfaction, such that human resource
leadership is positively related to job satisfaction to
the extent that followers are high on feminine (low
masculine) orientation.
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND JOB
S AT I S FAC T I O N
Political leadership focuses on mapping the political
landscape of the work unit or organization and using
political strategies such as developing networks, coali-
tion and alliance building, negotiation, bargaining, and
pressure tactics to influence others at work (Bolman &
Deal, 1991, 2003; Ferris et al., 2007; Pfeffer, 1981;
A. B. Thomas, 2003). Ahearn et al. (2004) asserted
that leader political skill influences follower outcome
measures such as increased job satisfaction and citizen-
ship behavior. Ferris,Witt, and Hochwarter’s (2001)
findings supported the positive relationship between
leader political behaviors and employee work-related
outcomes.
Given the important facets of political leadership,
it was expected that followers high on masculine
orientation will better react to political behaviors.
Political leaders are adept at negotiation and bargain-
ing skills (Ferris et al., 2007), and negotiation and
bargaining entail defining constructive transactions
between the leader and follower. Leaders’ negotia-
tion and bargaining behaviors will be consistent with
values of masculinity oriented employees, because
masculinity represents an instrumental orientation
(Bem et al., 1976, p. 1016) and individuals high on
masculinity tend to insist upon calculated returns
in social exchanges (Randall, 1993). These qualities
may encourage members high on masculine values to
pursue self-interest for equitable outcomes through
associating and collaborating with others. In contrast,
followers with a dominant feminine orientation tend
to cherish nurturance, harmony, and solidarity at the
workplace and are likely to be receptive to leaders
who express a particularistic concern for employee
needs in both work and nonwork domains (Hofstede,
1984; Jackson & Schuler, 1995).
Political leaders may use rational persuasion and
pressure tactics as part of their influence strategies.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
However, these skills would be less consistent with
feminine values, because femininity represents a com-
munal orientation (Chang, 2006), which may be mani-
fested at the personal level by a greater preference for
modesty and tenderness and an affective concern for
the welfare of others (Palan, 2001; Spence, 1984). On
the other hand, individuals with a predominant mas-
culine orientation are more verbally assertive (Hogg &
Garrow, 2003) and tend to be less concerned about the
needs and preferences of others (Pornpitakpan, 2004).
Likewise, earlier studies suggest that people with a mas-
culine orientation tend to be objective in their judg-
ment (Srite & Karahanna, 2006) and are less receptive
to social influences (Morden, 1999; Rodrigues, 1998),
whereas femininity-oriented people are said to be more
sensitive to cultural cues (Venkatesh, Morris, Sykes, &
Ackerman, 2004). American managers tend to pre-
fer rational persuasion and factual evidence to resolve
conflicts and solve problems (Yukl et al., 1996), which,
as argued by Fu and Yukl (2000), is consistent with
placing high value on assertiveness in the United States.
This suggests that followers high on femininity will feel
less satisfied working with leaders who focus more on
rationality than emotionality and use pressure or other
assertive tactics to influence subordinates.
Political leaders’ networking and political astuteness
skills apparently seem to be compatible with employee
femininity orientation. Leaders’ networking skills
enable them to make valuable connections, and their
ability to understand the political landscape of the orga-
nization allows them to pay close attention to the sur-
rounding environment and shows sufficient flexibility
to adapt behavior in order to project the appropriate
social image (Ferris et al., 2007). Followers high on
femininity seem to view such leader behaviors favor-
ably because of their concern about socializing in the
work setting for developing and fostering interpersonal
relationships (Hofstede, 1984). Extrapolating from
Ferris et al.’s (2007) argument that political leaders
show apparent sincerity and use their political skills to
influence others to perform in a way that may benefit
leader’s private agenda and/or promote objectives of
the organization, it was expected that leader political
behaviors would be poorly related to increased member
job satisfaction for followers with more feminine values.
The explanation might be that political leadership is
29
concerned with enlightened self-interest and parties
initiate cooperation for instrumental reasons, whereas
in femininity, showing particularistic concern for the
other party is expected. It thus appears that com-
pared to their counterparts high on masculine values,
employees with more feminine values express lesser
job satisfaction when they believe that the actions and
behaviors of their managers are primarily motivated by
individual rationality and followers’ interests are not at
their heart. In the light of this discussion, the following
was proposed:
H3. Followers’ masculinity–femininity values moderate
the relationship between political leadership and job
satisfaction, such that political leadership is positively
related to job satisfaction to the extent that followers
are high on masculine (low feminine) orientation.
Method
PA RT I C I PA N T S
The data for the study were collected from a public
organization in Pakistan. The organization is respon-
sible for the administration of customs and taxation
at the federal level. Participants for the study were 160
employees working in subordinate positions, such as
inspectors, auditors, assistants, and clerks. The surveys
were administered by the first author in different field
offices of the organization during office hours. The
participants were randomly recruited, meaning that
the distribution was random and no individual or
group was specifically targeted while administering
the surveys. A total of 133 surveys were returned,
of which 120 surveys were retained for the analy-
sis. Surveys lacking demographic information and
with important data missing were not included in
the analysis. As with distribution, the surveys were
also collected on site. Wherever necessary, a senior
manager was requested to facilitate the distribution
and collection of the questionnaires. The sample was
predominantly represented by male respondents with
only 1.6% females. The average age and tenure was
47.3 and 22.9 years, respectively.Thirty percent of
respondents reported master’s-level education, 64%
had bachelor-level education, while 6% had below
bachelor degree education.
30 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
MEASURES
Masculinity–Femininity Values. To measure
masculinity–femininity values, Dorfman and Howell’s
(1988) adapted cultural scale was used. The scale is
designed to measure cultural values of power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, collectivism/individualism,
paternalism, and masculinity–femininity at the indi-
vidual level. Clugston, Howell, and Dorfman (2000)
used the scale successfully to explore the relationship
between culture and organizational commitment in
the United States. They concluded that the Dorfman
and Howell culture scales are adequate measures of
culture at the personal level. On the survey, five items
address masculinity–femininity. The authors reported
reliability coefficients for all cultural dimensions, and
masculinity–femininity yielded a coefficient of 0.86.
Participants were asked to rate each statement for its
importance in their personal lives by ranking the items
on a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The scores on each item were averaged
for each respondent and the higher scores reflected
a propensity toward masculine orientation, whereas
lower scores reflected more feminine tendencies.
Respondents with masculine tendencies were con-
sidered as the individuals who scored above median
on the scale, and the respondents with feminine ten-
dencies were defined as the individuals who scored
below the median. Sample items were solving organi-
zational problems that usually require an active forc-
ible approach, which is typical of men; men usually
solve problems with logical analysis and women
usually solve problems with intuition.
Leadership Behaviors. Bolman and Deal’s (1990) lead-
ership instrument was used with prior permission to
collect the leadership data. The instrument has two
forms, one for self-rating (Leadership Orientations-
Self ) and the other for superior, peer, and subordi-
nate rating (Leadership Orientations-Other). The first
section of the instrument (Leadership Orientations-
Other) was used to elicit subordinates’ responses
regarding the leadership behaviors of their unit man-
agers. The instrument addresses four different leader-
ship styles (structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic) with eight items representing each leadership
style. Items that address structural, human resource
and political leadership were used, and respondents
were asked to indicate how often their managers used
these behaviors. The items were to be ranked on a
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
The scores on all items representing each leadership
style were averaged for each respondent and higher
scores reflected more endorsement of the construct.
Sample items were: strongly believes in clear structure
and chain of command (structural), shows high levels
of support and concern for others (human resource),
and develops alliances to build strong base of support
(political). Bolman and Deal report coefficient alphas
ranging from .91 to .93 for structural, human resource,
political, and symbolic frames.
Subordinate responses to assess leadership behaviors
were used, which is consistent with the earlier asser-
tion that followers can give a better assessment of how
often a leader uses a particular behavior (Spreitzer
et al., 2005). In line with the earlier contention that
leaders may exhibit different behaviors across individu-
als that may lead to variation in perceptions regarding
the extent to which a leader exhibits a particular behav-
ior (Avolio & Yammarino, 1990; Walumbwa et al.,
2007), the leadership behavior was treated as an indi-
vidual level variable in the study.
Job Satisfaction. To capture the essence of job sat-
isfaction, Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh’s
(1983) three-item measure was used. The authors
reported scale reliability estimated with Cronbach’s
alpha as 0.77. Responses were made on a seven-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). The items addressed the extent
to which the respondents agreed or disagreed that they
were satisfied with their job. The higher scores on the
scale represent higher satisfaction. A sample item is: All
in all I am satisfied with my job.
FAC TO R A N A LY S E S A N D R E L I A B I L I T Y
TEST
Before proceeding with testing the hypotheses, the psy-
chometric properties of the scales used in this study
were examined in detail using SPSS 19.0 software.
Separate factor analyses using a principle compo-
nent analysis (PCA) was carried out for masculinity–
femininity, job satisfaction, and the four leadership
orientations. Prior to conducting PCA, the data were
assessed regarding suitability for factor analysis. A scru-
tiny of correlation matrix, Kaiser Measure of Sampling
Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity sup-
ported the factorability of the data. For a single factor
solution, items not loading highly (lower than 0.4) or
cross-loading were deleted from the analysis. Items for
all scales loaded quite strongly with the exception of
item 4 for masculinity–femininity, which was elimi-
nated before performing further analysis. Factor load-
ings except one item for masculinity–femininity ranged
from 0.57 to 0.82. Summary of factor loadings (PCA)
for each construct is presented in Table 1.
Next, reliability analysis was performed on all mea-
sures. A reliability coefficient for leaders’ values of

Table 1. Factor Loadings (PCA)

Structural leadership St 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.68 0.62 0.69 0.76 0.72 0.56 0.61 0.62
Human resource leadership Hr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.71 0.79 0.70 0.61 0.72 0.63 0.59 0.68
Political leadership Pol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.60 0.65 0.58 0.69 0.67 0.63 0.76 0.73
Masculinity–femininity M-f 1 2 3 4 5
0.32 0.82 0.76 0.79 0.72
Job satisfaction JS 1 2 3
0.81 0.65 0.72
N = 120.

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 31

 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients
Variable Mean
Structural leadership 4.53
Human resource leadership 4.45
Political leadership 4.07
Symbolic leadership 4.3
Masculinity–femininity 3.32
Job satisfaction 6.02
N = 120.
masculinity–femininity resulted in alpha of 0.79. For
leadership styles, coefficients as for structural, human
resource, and political leadership were 0.81, 0.83, and
0.82, respectively. The job satisfaction measure yielded
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.56. The moderate alpha value
may be due to fewer items on the scale, as it is quite
common to find comparatively low Cronbach values
for scales with fewer than 10 items (Pallant, 2010).
However, the scale had a mean interitem correlation of
0.3, which is acceptable (e.g., Briggs & Cheek, 1986).
Overall, these results suggest that the scales exhibit
adequate psychometric properties. Table 2 presents
descriptive statistics including reliability coefficients for
all constructs measured.
Because ratings of leadership, job satisfaction, and
masculinity–femininity from the same source had
been collected, Harman’s one factor test (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) to assess the
extent of common source bias in the study was
used. A factor analysis was performed by enter-
ing leadership, job satisfaction, and masculinity–
femininity scales together, and the analysis led to emer-
gence of more than one factor suggesting that common
source bias posed no serious issues to the current research.
Results and Hypothesis Testing
For testing the hypotheses, a moderated regression was
used as the main method of analysis. Separate sets of
regressions were conducted for the three leadership
styles. In the first step (model 1), control variables—
length of service, age, and level of education—were
entered. Each leadership style and job satisfaction was
added in the second step (model 2). The third step
(model 3) consisted of adding interaction term between
32 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Std. Deviation Cronbach’s alpha
0.44 0.81
0.51 0.83
0.65 0.82
0.56 0.85
0.84 0.79
0.93 0.56
masculinity–femininity and each of the four leader-
ship styles. Before proceeding with the analyses, the
variables that were part of an interaction terms were
standardized. To test the moderation effects, the signifi-
cance of the interaction terms were examined.
The results of moderated regression for structural
leadership indicated that the R-square change was not
significant when the interaction variable was added
(model 3). Under change statistics, R-square change
accounts for only 1.6% of additional variance in the
dependent variable (R² change = 0.015, F(1,112) =
2.33, p = 0.129) showing that employee masculin-
ity–femininity orientation is not important in the
relationship between the structural leadershipand job
satisfaction.
Next, regression analysis was applied to assess
whether masculinity–femininity moderates the influ-
ence of human resource leadership on job satisfac-
tion. The addition of the interaction term (model 3)
resulted in a significant increase in R square (R² change
= 0.046, F(1,112) = 7.14, p = 0.009), which indi-
cated that the relationship between human resource
leadership and job satisfaction was linked to employee
masculine–feminine tendencies.
Thereafter, a regression analysis was performed in
order to examine if masculinity–femininity is impor-
tant in the relationship between political leadership
and job satisfaction. The R-square change was sig-
nificant for political leadership, R² change = 0.10,
F(1,112) = 16.6, p < 0.0001. The significant interac-
tion indicated that masculinity–femininity matters in
employees’ job satisfaction when they are exposed to
political leadership.
As seen in Table 3, the significant interaction
effects are in the positive direction, which suggests
 Table 3. Results of Moderated Regression Analysis
Structural leadership
Independent variables Model 1
Controls
Age 0.101
Education level 0.149
Service length 0.120
Main effects
Structural leadership
HR leadership
Political leadership
Masculinity–femininity
Interaction effects
Structural leadership * Mas–fem
HR leadership * Mas–fem
Political leadership * Mas–fem
Dependent variable: Job satisfaction.
Entries are standardized Beta coefficients. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
that human resource (β = 0.22, t = 2.7, p < 0.01)
and political leadership (β = 0.32, t = 4.1, p <
0.001) styles are positively related to job satisfaction
for employees with more masculine values. Thus the
findings confirm H3 and provide no support for H1
and H2. For instance, no support is gained for H1
as individuals with more masculine tendencies did
not report higher job satisfaction when faced with
structural leadership. Likewise, H2 proposed that
individuals with feminine tendencies (low masculin-
ity) will report higher job satisfaction when exposed
to human resource leadership, but the findings did
not support the hypothesized direction. The results
provide support for H3 as individuals who scored high
on masculinity reported higher job satisfaction when
they perceived that their managers used a political lead-
ership style.
These findings indicate that followers who scored
high on feminine orientation perceived a weaker rela-
tionship between leadership behaviors (i.e., structural,
human resource, and political) and job satisfaction.
Followers who scored high on masculinity associ-
ated more perceptions of job satisfaction with human
resource and political leadership and viewed leaders’
structural behaviors as less important for satisfaction
at work.
HR leadership Political leadership
Model 2 Model 3 Model 2 Model 3 Model 2 Model 3
0.357***
0.400***
0.377***
−0.59 −0.111 −0.131
0.129
0.217**
0.323***
Discussion
In the current article an attempt was made to extend
the growing research on culture and leadership (e.g.,
Kirkman et al., 2009; Nahum-Shani & Somech, 2011;
Walumbwa et al., 2007) by empirically examining
whether individual-level masculinity–femininity ori-
entation plays an important role in shaping followers’
reactions to different leadership styles. The findings dem-
onstrate that individual-level differences in masculinity–
femininity orientation are important pertaining to
relationships involving leadership behaviors and fol-
lower job satisfaction. The study took the cross-cultural
leadership research a step forward from collectivism–
individualism as a focal cultural dimension by empiri-
cally testing a different cultural value and by providing
the conceptual development for why individual-level
masculinity–femininity differences are important regard-
ing the effects of leadership on follower job satisfaction.
The study makes another important contribution by
examining the interaction effects of individual-level cul-
tural values and three different sets of leadership styles
as compared to the previous focus on transformational
leadership. This is important in view of the reason that
theoretically different leadership styles are expected to
be consistent with a diverse set of cultural values.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 33
 The pattern of results is quite interesting. The find-
ings show that job satisfaction has a stronger relation-
ship with leadership behaviors for followers with more
masculine values. The prediction was that the relation-
ship between structural leadership and job satisfaction
would be stronger for employees who scored high on
masculinity, and such employees would report lesser
job satisfaction when exposed to human resource lead-
ership. Contrary to expectations, followers with more
masculine values expressed higher levels of job satisfac-
tion when they perceived that their managers used a
human resource leadership style and reported less of
a link between managers’ structural behaviors and sat-
isfaction at work. The reason why followers responded
to structural leadership with lesser job satisfaction
may be that individuals with masculine tendencies
are likely to resist narrower definitions of their work
roles and will feel affinity for a workplace environ-
ment that supports autonomous jobs (Hackman
& Oldham, 1980), which seems to be inconsistent
with structural leadership that tends to create a tight
workplace framework by clarifying role and task
requirements, setting direction, and closely monitor-
ing follower activities. Likewise, structural leadership
focuses on efficiency and productivity and tends to
hold people accountable for mistakes or failing to meet
the assigned targets (Bolman & Deal, 1991), but it
does not explicitly provide for any material exchanges
between leader and follower. This might have been
another reason why employees associated more per-
ceptions of job satisfaction with human resource lead-
ership than leaders’ structural behaviors. As argued
previously, people with a dominant masculine ori-
entation associate high importance to earnings and
economic gains that encourage individual achievement
tied to performance-based rewards (Hofstede, 1998).
Hence, their satisfaction at work is linked more with
material exchanges, and they are likely to be recep-
tive to leaders who reward them and recognize their
work. Human resource leadership focuses on fulfill-
ing employee workplace needs, including the ones
that involve employee growth and development in the
organization. Such leaders are likely to be sure that
employees are rewarded and praised for their good
work. Thus the very values that might be linked to low
levels of satisfaction when leaders tend to emphasize
34 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
certain aspects of human resource leadership, such as
workplace harmony, modesty, and sensitivity, are the
same values that might be related to higher satisfaction
when human resource leaders are perceived as reward-
ing and recognizing work well done.
The results with respect to the leadership–job sat-
isfaction relationship for followers with more femi-
nine values do not support our prediction. For human
resource leadership, higher levels of satisfaction was
postulated for followers with a feminine orientation;
however, the interaction term could not reach the
significance level. The reason is probably that human
resource leadership focuses more on coaching, skill
development, and fulfilling follower work-related
needs, and its other humanistic dimensions, such as
benevolence, nurturance, and extra role consideration
seem to be less magnified, which might be important
for workplace satisfaction of followers high on femi-
ninity. Femininity places high value on warm, caring,
and protective behaviors, and as such, expectations of
followers with more feminine values go beyond assis-
tance in professional matters to actually promoting
their well-being in both work and nonwork spheres. It
thus appears that unless leaders reach subordinates to
provide care, protection, and guidance pertaining
to task and extra role domains, subordinate perceptions
of satisfaction with work cannot be enhanced. The
explanation is consistent with earlier findings that sug-
gested that high levels of warmth linked to leadership
are especially important in countries such as Norway
(Hetland & Sandal, 2003), where people have a strong
tilt toward a feminine orientation (Hofstede, 1980).
The results of the current study revealed that the
effects of leadership styles on follower work-related out-
comes such as job satisfaction tend to be influenced by
the differences in masculinity–femininity values at the
individual level, which lends credence to the understand-
ing that cultural influences tend to operate at the indi-
vidual level of analysis. Thus it is important to consider
variation in individual-level cultural value orientations,
in addition to country-level cultural differences, to better
understand leadership effects within and across cultures.
Managerial Implications
A substantial body of cross-cultural leadership
research contends that to leverage the positive effects
of leadership, it is important that managers fit their
leadership styles with the extant national cultural val-
ues (Javidan, Dorfman, De Luque, & House, 2006;
Offermann & Hellmann, 1997; Pasa, 2000). The
present study suggests that individuals possess differ-
ent beliefs and values about competition, success and
performance as opposed to quality of life, emotional
involvement, warm and good working relationships,
and such differences affect their cognitive and behavioral
reactions to leaders, which necessitate understanding
the cultural values at the individual level. As our results
show, human resource and political leadership is impor-
tant for managers whose followers are high on masculine
values. The positive responses to human resource leader-
ship by followers high on masculinity might be due to
the dual nature of masculinity values. On the one hand,
such followers might resist practices incompatible with
higher masculinity values, and on the other hand, they
tend to react positively to leaders who reward them and
recognize their work. This suggests that managers may
need to also engage in behaviors other than structural
leadership to motivate employees with more masculine
values. For example, leaders of such followers may need
to also exhibit stronger contingent reward and politi-
cal behaviors that are likely to meet followers’ urge for
rewarding and recognizing productivity and efficiency
and negotiating deals and informal pacts aiming at equi-
table outcomes. Thus an important managerial impli-
cation of our findings is that employees with higher
levels of masculine orientation need to be led via human
resource and political leadership behaviors rather than
by a leadership style that is primarily task oriented, but
the focus of such leadership is more on accountability
and less on rewards and recognition.
The followers with more feminine values perceived
a weaker relationship between leadership behaviors
(i.e., structural, human resource, and political) and job
satisfaction, which implies followers who place greater
value on femininity need to be led via a supportive and
more benevolent leadership style that involve provid-
ing support and nurturance to subordinates, promot-
ing their well-being, and exhibiting concern for their
work- and nonwork-related problems (Pellegrini &
Scandura, 2006). This is in line with earlier assertions
that organizations in feminine societies place greater
value on employee welfare in both work and nonwork
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
domains (Jackson & Schuler, 1995), and subordinates
in such societies positively react to leaders’ benevolent
behaviors (Sund & Lines, in press).
This discussion indicates that employees may be with
varying levels of masculinity–femininity orientation in
groups, which warrants that leaders be aware of their
followers’ individual-level cultural inclinations and
enact different behaviors for specific individuals rather
than treating all individuals similarly.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future
Research
The current study demonstrated that individual-level
masculinity–femininity values are important in emp-
loyee reactions to leaders. The research, however, is
not without certain limitations. One limitation is that
the impact of follower masculinity–femininity orienta-
tion on leadership and follower job satisfaction linkage
using a sample of respondents representing only one
cultural context (Pakistan) was examined, which does
not allow cross-cultural variation in our sample and
raises some issues concerning the generalizability of
our findings. Thus the findings do not provide a strong
basis to assert that the pattern of follower responses
may hold across nations. More conclusive support for
whether the interaction between leadership and follower
individual masculinity–femininity values exert similar
effects would require testing the proposed relationships
in a sample of employees spanning a larger number of
societies. It is important that future research should
include more countries both with similar cultural pro-
files and with adequate between-country variation on
masculinity–femininity to ascertain that the effects
of masculinity–femininity are generalizable beyond a
single country. Including culturally similar and distinct
countries in any future study will shed light on the
effects of masculinity–femininity across countries.
Further, in the study effects of only individual-
level masculinity–femininity values were detected but
country-level effects were not examined. Future studies
should consider both individual and societal level dif-
ferences to assess the impact of masculinity–femininity
values on leadership process at the two levels of analyses.
This is important to advance the existing understanding
on the respective roles of individual- and societal-level
35
cultural values and suggest more accurate managerial
prescriptions regarding cross-level effects of culture.
A third limitation is that followers rated leadership
behaviors, masculinity–femininity orientation, and
job satisfaction, raising concerns about the potential
impact of common source variance. It would have been
beneficial to choose a design that could allow responses
of both leaders and followers. If there was some
agreement between manager and follower responses,
more confidence in the findings reported here would
be established. Conversely, if differences between these
two data sources surfaced, additional work would be
needed to determine why such discrepancies exist.
A final limitation of the present study concerns
inferences about causal priority. Although the current
study has carefully discussed relationships rather than
effects, one implication, for instance, is that individual-
level masculinity values strengthened the relationship
between leader behaviors and follower job satisfac-
tion. The fact is that the current research design does
not permit such assertions or implications, and it is
just as likely that followers who scored high on mas-
culinity reported higher job satisfaction when faced
with human resource and political leadership. Future
research designs need to address this issue in order to
discount such alternative interpretations of the results.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Lee G. Bolman for his permis-
sion to use the Leadership Orientations Survey.
References
Adler, N. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behav-
ior. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., &
Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader political skill and team performance.
Journal of Management, 30, 309–327.
Au, K., & Cheung, M. L. (2004). Intra-cultural variation and job
autonomy in 42 countries. Organization Studies, 25, 1339–1362.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Operationalizing char-
ismatic leadership using a levels-of-analysis framework. Leadership
Quarterly, 1, 193–208.
Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and
androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1016.
36 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Bluestone, B., & Bluestone, I. (1994). Negotiating the future: A
labor perspective on American business. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1990). Leadership orientations instru-
ment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management
effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource
Management, 30, 509–534.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Art-
istry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis
in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of
Personality, 54, 106–148.
Brockner, J. (2003). Unpacking country effects: On the need to
operationalize the psychological determinants of cross-national dif-
ferences. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 333–367.
Brown, F. W., & Dodd, N. G. (1999). Rally the troops or make
the trains run on time: The relative importance and interaction of
contingent reward and transformational leadership. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 20, 291–299.
Butler Jr., J. K., Cantrell, R. S., & Flick, R. J. (1999). Transfor-
mational leadership behaviors, upward trust, and satisfaction in
self-managed work teams. Organization Development Journal, 17(1),
13–28.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983).
Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members.
In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler III, M. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann
(Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures,
and practices (pp. 71–138). New York, NY: Wiley.
Chang, C. (2006). The influence of masculinity and femininity in
different advertising processing contexts: An accessibility perspec-
tive. Sex Roles, 55, 345–356.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cul-
tural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment?
Journal of Management, 26, 5–30.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-constru-
als and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national
culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited.
Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127–150.
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., &
Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries:
Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes
across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 233–274.
Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2005). Top management leader-
ship and influence on innovation: The role of sociocultural context.
Journal of Management, 31, 381–402.
Emmert, M. A., & Taher, W. A. (1992). Public sector profession-
als: The effects of public sector jobs on motivation, job satisfaction
and work involvement. American Review of Public Administration,
22, 37–48.
Farh, J.-L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level
cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–
employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of
power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal,
50(3), 715–729.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Doug-
las, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of
Management, 33, 290–320.
Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction
of social skill and general mental ability on job performance and
salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1075–1082.
Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence
tactics in the United States and China. Leadership Quarterly, 11,
251–266.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through
the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hetland, H., & Sandal, G. (2003). Transformational leadership in
Norway: Outcomes and personality correlates. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 147–170.
Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J. A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant
concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 359–393.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences
in work-related values (Vol. 5). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and
planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1, 81–99.
Hofstede, G. H. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo
dimension of national cultures (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hogg, M. K., & Garrow, J. (2003). Gender, identity and the con-
sumption of advertising. Qualitative Market Research: An Interna-
tional Journal, 6(3), 160–174.
House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural
research on organizational leadership. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez
(Eds.), New perspectives in international industrial organizational
psychology (pp. 535–625). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington.
Jackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in decision making as a strategy
for reducing job-related strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 3.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human
resource management in the context of organizations and their
environments. Strategic Human Resource Management, 46, 237–264.
Jaeger, A. M. (1986). Organization development and national
culture: Where’s the fit? Academy of Management Review, 178–190.
Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global
manager: Lessons from project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics,
29(4), 289–305.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J.
(2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leader-
ship from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives,
20, 67–90.
Jung, D., Yammarino, F. J., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Moderating role
of subordinates’ attitudes on transformational leadership and effec-
tiveness: A multi-cultural and multi-level perspective. Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 586–603.
Kale, S. H., & Barnes, J. W. (1992). Understanding the domain
of cross-national buyer-seller interactions. Journal of International
Business Studies, 23, 101–132.
Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction:
Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review,
62, 231–241.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B.
(2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reac-
tions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural exam-
ination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural
values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-
managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 557–569.
Lam, D., Lee, A., & Mizerski, R. (2009). The effects of cultural
values in word-of-mouth communication. Journal of International
Marketing, 17(3), 55–70.
Locke, E. A. (1983). Job satisfaction and role clarity among uni-
versity and college faculty. Review of Higher Education, 6, 343–365.
London, M., Larsen, H. H., & Thisted, L. N. (1999). Relationships
between feedback and self-development. Group & Organization
Management, 24, 5–27.
Lu, L. (2006). “Cultural fit”: Individual and societal discrepancies
in values, beliefs, and subjective well-being. Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 146, 203–221.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:
Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological
Review, 98, 224.
Matsumoto, D. (2003). The discrepancy between consensual-level
culture and individual-level culture. Culture & Psychology, 9, 89–95.
37
Mead, R. (1993). Cross-Cultural Management Communication.
London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, K. I., & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction,
and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management
Journal, 29, 727–753.
Morden, T. (1999). Models of national culture–A management review.
Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 6, 19–44.
Mustafa, G., & Lines, R. (2012). Paternalism as a predictor of
leadership behaviors: A bi-level analysis. Eurasian Business Review,
2(1), 63–92.
Mustafa, G., & Lines, R. (2013). The triple role of values in cultur-
ally adapted leadership styles. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 13, 23–46.
Nahum-Shani, I., & Somech, A. (2011). Leadership, OCB and
individual differences: Idiocentrism and allocentrism as modera-
tors of the relationship between transformational and transactional
leadership and OCB. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 353–366.
Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence:
The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal
of International Business Studies, 27, 753–779.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment
and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identifica-
tion, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Offermann, L. R., & Hellmann, P. S. (1997). Culture’s conse-
quences for leadership behavior national values in action. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 342–351.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity:
Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 607–634.
Palan, K. M. (2001). Gender identity in consumer behavior
research: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Mar-
keting Science Review, 10, 1–31.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data
analysis using SPSS. New York, NY: Open University Press.
Pasa, S. F. (2000). Leadership influence in a high power distance
and collectivist culture. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 21, 414–426.
Patterson, P. G., Cowley, E., & Prasongsukarn, K. (2006). Service
failure recovery: The moderating impact of individual-level cultural
value orientation on perceptions of justice. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 23, 263–277.
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2006). Leader–member
exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business
38 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37, 264–279.
Petersen, D. E., & Hillkirik, J. (1991). A Better Idea: Redefining the
Way American Companies Work. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations (Vol. 33). Marshfield,
MA: Pitman.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility:
A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.
Rakos, R. F. (1991). Assertive behavior: Theory, research, and train-
ing. London, UK: Routledge.
Ralston, D. A., et al. (2009). Ethical preferences for influencing
superiors: A 41-society study. Journal of International Business Stud-
ies, 40, 1022–1045.
Randall, D. M. (1993). Cross-cultural research on organizational
commitment: A review and application of Hofstede’s value survey
module. Journal of Business Research, 26(1), 91–110.
Rodrigues, C. A. (1998). Cultural classifications of societies and
how they affect cross-cultural management. Cross Cultural Manage-
ment: An International Journal, 5, 31–41.
Schuler, R. S., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Understanding compensa-
tion practice variations across firms: The impact of national culture.
Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 159–177.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996, July). Value priorities and behavior: Applying
a theory of integrated value systems. Paper presented at The Psychol-
ogy of Values: The Ontario Symposium.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cul-
tures taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 32, 268–290.
Schwartz, S. H., Sagiv, L., & Boehnke, K. (2000). Worries and
values. Journal of Personality, 68, 309–346.
Selmer, J., & De Leon, C. (1996). Parent cultural control through
organizational acculturation: HCN employees learning new work
values in foreign business subsidiaries. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 17, 557–572.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership:
Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16,
693–703.
Smith, P., & Peterson, M. (1994). Leadership as event-management:
A cross-cultural survey based upon middle-managers from 25 nations.
Paper presented at the Symposium on Cross-cultural studies of
Event Management 23rd International Congress of Applied Psy-
chology, Madrid, Spain.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-
analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work.
Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.
Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, femininity, and gender-related
traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research.
In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in Experimental
Personality Research (Vol. 13, pp. 1–97). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin, K. (2005). Traditionality
matters: An examination of the effectiveness of transformational
leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 26, 205–227.
Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cul-
tural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30, 679–704.
Straub, D., Loch, K., Evaristo, R., Karahanna, E., & Srite, M.
(2002). Toward a theory-based measurement of culture. In E. J.
Szewczak & C. R. Snodgrass (Eds.), Human factors in information
systems (pp. 61–82). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Sund, B., & Lines, R. (in press). Implicit theories of idiosyncratic
Norwegian leadership. Nordic Organization Studies.
Thomas, A. B. (2003). Controversies in management: Issues, debates,
answers: London, UK: Routledge.
Thomas, D. C. (2002). Essentials of international management: A
cross-cultural perspective: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomas, D. C., & Au, K. (2002). The effect of cultural differences
on behavioral responses to low job satisfaction. Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies, 33, 309–326.
Ting, Y. (1996). Analysis of job satisfaction of the federal white-
collar work force: Findings from the Survey of Federal Employees.
American Review of Public Administration, 26, 439–456.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism (Vol. 5). Boul-
der, CO: Westview Press.
Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and
authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across
cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 64, 1138–1164.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Sykes, T. A., & Ackerman, P. L.
(2004). Individual reactions to new technologies in the workplace:
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
The role of gender as a psychological construct. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 34, 445–467.
Wagner, J. A. (1994). Participation’s effects on performance and
satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of
Management Review, 19, 312–330.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective orga-
nizations: Transformational leadership, collectivist orientation,
work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging
economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
14, 1083–1101.
Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Leadership,
individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross-culture
investigation. Applied Psychology, 56, 212–230.
Wasti, S. A. (2003). The influence of cultural values on antecedents
of organisational commitment: An individual-level analysis. Applied
Psychology, 52, 533–554.
Yan, J., & Hunt, J. G. J. (2005). A cross cultural perspective on
perceived leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 5, 49–66.
Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives
in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140.
Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influ-
ence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309.
Ghulam Mustafa is a research scholar at the Department
of Strategy and Management at the Norwegian School of
Economics, Bergen, Norway. He holds a PhD in Business
Administration. His research interests include leader-
ship, work attitudes, and cross-cultural management.
Dr. Mustafa can be reached at Ghulam.Mustafa@nhh.no.
Rune Lines is a professor in the Department of Strategy and
Management at Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen,
Norway. He holds a doctorate in Business Administration.
His research focuses on emotions and their relationship to
attitudes and behaviors in organizations and the role of
personal values in employee reactions to leadership and
other aspects of work, particularly within a context of
organizational change. Dr. Lines can be reached at Rune.
lines@nhh.no.
39