10 page Leadership Research Paper

Gender Differences in Social and Emotional Skills and Charismatic Leadership

Kevin S. Groves California State University

The relationships among leader gender, social and emotional skills, and charismatic leadership were examined from a dataset of 108 senior leaders and 325 of their direct followers in numerous organizations, including universities, government agencies, and for-profit companies. Results showed that female leaders scored higher on social and emotional skills, and follower ratings of charismatic leadership, while social and emotional skills mediated the relationship between leader gender and charismatic leadership. Surprisingly, leader tenure predicted leader social skills but was unrelated to leader emotional skills, which demonstrated the strongest relationship to leader gender and charismatic leadership. Implications for theory, practice, and future research are discussed.

The study of charismatic leadership has received considerable attention from

leadership scholars, practitioners, and other writers in recent years. Recent empirical studies and meta-analytic reviews demonstrate the powerful effects of charismatic leadership in organizations, including positive outcomes at the individual, group, and organization levels of analysis. For example, research has shown that charismatic leadership positively affects net profit margin (Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001), stock value (Agle, 1993), top management team motivation and cohesion (Agle & Sonnenfeld, 1994), and follower perceptions

of leadership effectiveness (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Furthermore, recent empirical evidence suggests the universality of charismatic leadership across national cultures, indicating that a relatively culture-free charismatic leadership profile may indeed exist (Carl & Javidan, 2001). Given the convincing empirical support for the impact of charismatic leadership on positive organizational outcomes, many scholars have recently turned their attention to examining the interpersonal skills and competencies that may explain the effectiveness of charismatic leadership.

A recent trend in leadership theory and research is the examination of social and emotional competence as key components of charismatic leadership. Since Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) seminal work on emotional intelligence, many leadership scholars have attempted to discern the relative contribution of interpersonal competencies to charismatic leadership. For example, Sosik and Megerian (1999) and Sosik (2001) found that self-awareness, a key aspect of emotional intelligence, predicted charismatic leadership and managerial performance. Research has also demonstrated that self-

monitoring and social control are key interpersonal competencies that predict charismatic leadership (Groves, 2002; Sosik & Dworakivsky, 1998). Furthermore, several studies have linked aspects of emotional and social intelligence to transformational leadership, which includes charisma as its most dominant dimension

(Bass, 2002; Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000).

31

Although research continues to support the relationship between social and emotional competencies and charismatic leadership, very few studies have specifically addressed the impact of gender differences on this relationship. Indeed, Eagly and Johnson’s (1990) influential meta-analysis of gender and leadership style noted that ingrained sex differences in personality traits and behavioral tendencies may explain the superiority of women’s interpersonal skills compared to their male counterparts. However, recent research on the social and emotional competencies of charismatic leaders has failed to adequately address the role of gender as a powerful individual difference. The present study addresses this gap in the leadership literature by examining gender differences in social and emotional competencies and charismatic leadership. Specifically, this study tests the extent to which leader gender predicts charismatic leadership and the mediating role of leader social and emotional

competencies.

Gender and Charismatic

Leadership

A review of the leadership literature reveals several theories that address the critical role of charisma in the leadership process. While theories of charismatic

leadership (e.g., House, 1977; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Bass, 1985) identify a range of leadership behaviors that contribute to positive organizational outcomes, three primary components cut across the core theoretical perspectives: vision, vision implementation, and charismatic communication style (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). According to these main theories, charismatic leaders utilize a vision that is

highly discrepant from the status quo to arouse followers’ needs and values and

inspire exceptional follower performance (House, 1977; Conger & Kanungo, 1987). Charismatic leaders also demonstrate a

variety of other behaviors to demonstrate their commitment to the vision and followers’ roles in vision implementation.

For example, charismatic leaders act as a role model for followers (Bass, 1985; House, 1977), demonstrate individualized consideration and recognize follower accomplishments (Bass, 1985), display unconventional behavior (Conger & Kanungo, 1987), and demonstrate personal risk regarding their vision for the organization (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). Finally, charismatic leaders are theorized to communicate with followers in a very powerful, confident, and dynamic manner (Bass, 1985), including frequent use of rhetorical methods and power nonverbal communication (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987). For a comprehensive review of charismatic leadership theory, see Conger (1999).

While considerable attention has been

recently devoted to studying charismatic leadership and its effects in organizations, very few theoretical or empirical studies have examined the differences between men and women charismatic leaders. In fact, the only theoretical or empirical research to date has examined gender differences of transformational leadership, which includes charisma as its most dominant dimension

(Bass, 1985; Lowe et al., 1996). Many authors speculate on possible gender differences in transformational leadership by suggesting that women may be more likely to display transformational and charismatic leadership because they are socialized to perform nurturing and developmental behaviors (Bass, 1998; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996). Clearly, these behaviors are very similar to several critical elements of charismatic leadership, including the ability to show sensitivity to member needs (Conger & Kanungo, 1987), provide individualized consideration (Bass, 1985), and recognize follower accomplishments (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Bass, 1985). Thus, there is some conceptual evidence that suggests women are more likely to display charismatic leadership behaviors than men.

Several recent empirical studies also provide evidence that women may be more likely to enact charismatic leadership than men. Bass, Avolio, and Atwater (1996)

32

found that men are more likely to display transactional leadership than women, while women tend to perform transformational leadership behaviors, particularly individualized consideration, more often than men. In a study of over 300 branch managers at an international bank, Carless (1998) found that superiors evaluated female managers as more transformational than male managers, while female managers rated themselves as more transformational than their male counterparts. Hackman, Hills, Fumiss, and Paterson (1992) also found strong support for gender effects across transformational leadership dimensions; however, the authors utilized Bem’s (1974) measure of androgyny rather than biological sex a measure of gender. Hackman et al.’s results showed a strong positive relationship between femininity and transformational leadership, particularly charisma and individualized consideration. The authors speculated that individualized consideration and charisma could be classified as interpersonal characteristics that match the feminine stereotype.

Although limited and certainly in need of further research, the conceptual and empirical evidence presented above suggests that female leaders may be more apt to perform the core charismatic behaviors compared to their male counterparts. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Female leaders will be rated higher on charismatic leadership than male leaders.

Gender and Social/Emotional

Competencies

A growing trend in leadership theory and research, particularly transformational and charismatic leadership, is the extent to which a leader’s social and emotional

competencies contribute to effective leadership behavior. Recent theoretical work (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; George, 2000) and empirical studies (Sosik, 2001; Sosik & Megerian, 1999; Sosik &

Dworakivsky, 1 998) provide support for the ’

Dworakivsky, 1998) provide support for the relationship between a leader’s social and emotional competencies and the propensity for charismatic leadership. In short, leaders with greater social and emotional ability are more likely to display charismatic leadership behaviors, which demonstrate impressive effects at the organizational, group, and individual levels of analysis. However, gender differences regarding social and emotional ability and their effects on charismatic leadership are largely absent from the literature despite a wealth of evidence suggesting that women possess significantly better interpersonal abilities than men (e.g., Eagly, 1987; Riggio, 1986). A key goal of the present study is to address this research gap by demonstrating that superior social and emotional abilities explain women’s propensity for charismatic leadership.

Across a range of theoretical

perspectives and measures of social, emotional, and related interpersonal abilities, there is an interesting and strong pattern of gender differences. Specifically, women demonstrate greater social and emotional abilities than men. In an assessment of people’s abilities to communicate through nonverbal channels, an integral component of interpersonal emotional ability, Riggio (1986) found that women are far more skilled at encoding and decoding nonverbal messages than are males. For example, women have superior ability to spontaneously send emotional messages through facial cues and correspondingly maintain sensitivity to others’ facial expressions of emotion. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that women are more nonverbally expressive than men, including superior ability to express emotions with their faces (Riggio & Friedman, 1986), display greater frequency of smiling and facial animation (Hall, 1985), and pose facial expressions of emotion (Friedman, Riggio, & Segall, 1980). In terms of nonverbal decoding skills, women tend to pay greater attention to visual cues, particularly facial cues (DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1979). Indeed, many of these

33

skills are essential to performing key charismatic behaviors, such as communicating visionary messages to followers using powerful rhetorical methods and nonverbal communication (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987).

In addition to measures of nonverbal communication skills, women have demonstrated superior ability on several other measures of emotional competency. For instance, Petrides and Furnham (2000) developed a measure of emotional intelligence based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) original model and found that women scored significantly higher than men on social skills, a key component of emotional and interpersonal competency. When compared with men as a group, Eagley (1987) found that women can be described as expressive, socially sensitive, and genuinely interested in other people. Similarly, Argyle (1990) found that women demonstrated greater perceptiveness, empathy, and adaptability than men, while Shutte et al.’s (1998) validation study of an emotional intelligence measure demonstrated that women score significantly higher than men. In short, there is ample empirical evidence to suggest that there are robust gender differences with respect to social and emotional competencies. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Gender will predict social skills such that female leaders will score higher on social skills than male leaders.

Hypothesis 3: Gender will predict emotional skills such that female leaders will score higher on emotional skills than male leaders.

Social/Emotional Competence and Charismatic Leadership

The last decade of leadership research, particularly transformational and charismatic theories, has seen a sharp increase in studies addressing the role of

social and emotional intelligence. Both theoretical and empirical studies provide strong evidence for the relationship between leader social and emotional competencies and charismatic leadership. In a recent theoretical article, Ashkanasy and Tse (2000) describe transformational leadership as the management of emotion, outlining several aspects of emotional intelligence that contribute to transformational leadership behavior in organizations. They assert that transformational leaders engage followers and convey an inspiring vision through emotional language and communication. Furthermore, Ashkanasy and Tse suggest that transformational leaders have an

understanding and intuition about followers’ needs and values, which leads to greater interpersonal sensitivity and higher quality relationships with followers. Similarly, George (2000) describes how aspects of emotional intelligence, including the appraisal and expression of emotion, knowledge about emotions, and management of emotions, facilitate a leader’s ability to develop collective goals with followers, communicate the importance of work activities to followers, and motivate followers by generating enthusiasm, confidence, and trust. Recently, Bass (2002) noted that several aspects of emotional intelligence are critical for transformational leaders who score highly on charisma and individualized consideration.

In addition to the theoretical evidence described above, there is also empirical support for the relationship between emotional competence and charismatic leadership. Self-awareness, a key component of Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) original emotional intelligence model, has received considerable attention in the

leadership literature. Sosik and Megerian (1999) found that self-awareness, defined as agreement between self and other leadership ratings, predicted follower perceptions of transformational leadership. The authors suggested that &dquo;self-awareness may support a leader’s translation of purpose and

meaning in life into invigorating challenges for followers&dquo; (p. 384). Another study by

34

Sosik (2001) found similar results in that self-aware managers were more likely to display charismatic leadership and receive positive ratings managerial performance by their superiors. Overall, many authors agree that self-awareness is the central component of emotional intelligence because it influences the manifestation and impact of other aspects of emotional intelligence (e.g., empathy, social skills, self-monitoring, etc.) on transformational and charismatic

leadership behavior (Sosik, 2001; Caruso, Mayer, & Salovey, 2002).

Another key aspect of social and emotional competence that research has linked to charismatic leadership is the ability to monitor and control one’s expressive behavior. While there are several measures of this ability, Snyder’s (1974) self- monitoring has received considerable attention in the leadership literature. Defined as a concern for social

appropriateness, sensitivity to social cues, and an ability to control one’s behavior in response to those cues, self-monitoring has been linked to leader emergence (Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991), leadership status (Hall, Workman, & Marchioro, 1998), and leadership effectiveness (Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford, 1991). Recently, Sosik and Dworakivsky (1998) found that self- monitoring was positively related to charismatic leadership, corroborating other research that demonstrated charismatic leaders are skilled in self-control of

expressive behavior (Bass, 1990; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). These findings suggest that a key ingredient of charismatic leadership is a leader’s ability monitor contextual cues, and enact a range of behavioral responses as

required by the situation and follower characteristics (e.g., needs, values, attitude s) .

The research reviewed above suggests that a range of interpersonal competencies facilitate a leader’s ability to enact charismatic leadership behaviors, and that women consistently demonstrate superior social and emotional skills compared to men. To test whether superior social and emotional abilities may explain women’s

propensity for charismatic leadership, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Social skills will partially mediate the relationship between leader gender and charismatic leadership. Hypothesis 5: Emotional skills will partially mediate the relationship between leader gender and charismatic leadership.

Method

Participants, Sample Organizations, and Procedures

A total of 433 respondents, both managers and their direct followers (e.g., direct reports, work team members, etc.) from four organizations participated in this study. The managers in the sample included 67 males (62%) and 41 females (38%), for a total of 108 leaders. The ethnic breakdown of the managers was as follows: White (n =

70, 65%), Asian-American (n = 10, 9%), African-American (n = 10, 9%), Hispanic (n = 14, 13%), and Other (n = 4, 4%). The managers were employed at their current management position for a significant number of years (M = 5.59, _SD =5.89). There were a total of 325 followers in this

study, with approximately three followers per manager (M = 3.32, _SD = 1.42) and a range of two to seven followers per manager.

Sample organizations

Participants in the present study were drawn from four sources: a professional health sciences university, a public services and works government agency, a

professional association of US medical colleges, and a community-based leadership development program. The professional health sciences university participants included 24 institutional leaders at several

management levels, including senior vice- presidents (n = 4, 17%), deans (n = 5, 21%), and functional managers (n = 15, 62%). Participants from the public services and

35

works government agency included 22 engineering managers responsible for a range of public services such as environmental services and flood control

engineering. Participants from the professional association of medical colleges included 12 presidents and chief executive officers (CEOs) of US osteopathic medical schools. Finally, participants from the community-based leadership development program included 50 general managers from a wide range of local organizations, including governmental agencies, for-profit businesses, universities, and non-profit organizations.

Procedures The procedure for questionnaire

administration at the sample organizations differed slightly. For the health sciences university, government agency, and professional association of medical colleges, an invitation to participate in the study was sent via email to managerial personnel, enclosed with a questionnaire measuring social skills, emotional skills, and demographic variables (’leader questionnaire’ hereafter). Of the 31 health science university leaders who were sent invitations, 24 agreed to participate for a response rate of 77%. Twenty-two out of 30 engineering managers from the public works agency agreed to participate for a response rate of 73%. Finally, 12 out of 18 medical college presidents and CEOs agreed to participate for a response rate of 67%. After leader participants identified the members of their departments, work groups, or units, each was sent a questionnaire measuring their respective manager’s charismatic leadership behavior and leadership effectiveness (’follower questionnaire’ hereafter).

The questionnaire administration procedure for the community-based leadership development program differed slightly. After identifying the names and mailing addresses of 162 local business leaders who had participated in the program during the last three years, the researcher sent a package to each leader that included

an invitation to participate in the study, the leader questionnaire, and five separate envelopes that each included the follower questionnaire. The leaders were instructed to deliver the separate envelopes to their respective followers (e.g., direct reports, work group team members, etc.). Of the 162 leaders who received the packet of materials, 50 agreed to participate for a response rate of 31 %. The overall response rate for all sample organizations in the present study was 45%.

Measures

Social and emotional skills Leader social and emotional skills were

measured by an abbreviated version of Riggio’s (1989) Social Skills Inventory, a self-assessment instrument that measures an individual’s repertoire of social and emotional interpersonal skills. To help limit the potential for inflated self-assessments, this section of the leader survey was entitled

&dquo;self-description inventory&dquo; and leader participants were instructed to rate a series of statements that &dquo;... indicate an attitude or behavior that may or may not be characteristic or descriptive of you&dquo; (Riggio, 1989). Thus, leader participants had no reason to believe they were self-assessing social and emotional skills, which is critical given research suggesting that individuals tend to overrate their abilities and skills on self-assessments (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). On a Likert-type scale ranging from &dquo;not at all like me&dquo; (1) to &dquo;exactly like me&dquo; (5), leaders were asked to provide a self-report of their social and emotional skills.

Example items include &dquo;I can easily adjust to being in just about any social situation&dquo; and &dquo;My facial expression is generally neutral&dquo;. The overall reliability of the 35- item SSI was acceptable, with an alpha of .72. The final alphas for the six SSI sub- scales are the following: social expressivity (4 items, cm = .77), social sensitivity (5 items, a = .75), social control (5 items, a = .75), emotional expressivity (10 items, a = .70),

36

emotional sensitivity (5 items, a = .72), and emotional control (6 items, a = .70).

Charismatic leadership The leaders’ charismatic leadership

behavior was measured by Conger and Kanungo’s (1994) charismatic leadership questionnaire. This 25-item instrument asked followers to comment on the extent to which their leader exhibits a series of

leadership behaviors. The C-K model defines charismatic leadership as a process of transforming followers from an existing present state to an improved future state through the following behavioral dimensions: sensitivity to member needs, environmental sensitivity, vision and articulation, personal risk, and unconventional behavior. A leader’s demonstration of these behavioral dimensions results in follower attribution of charismatic qualities to the leader. On a Likert-type scale ranging from &dquo;very uncharacteristic&dquo; (1) to &dquo;very characteristic&dquo; (7), followers were asked to indicate the extent to which a series of statements were characteristic of their leader. An example item includes &dquo;Provides inspiring strategic and organizational goals&dquo;. The alpha for the overall scale was .90, while each of the sub- scales also demonstrated acceptable reliability: vision and articulation (6 items, cm = .91), environmental sensitivity (7 items, a = .81), unconventional behavior (3 items, a = .70), personal risk (4 items, a = .87), sensitivity to member needs (3 items, _a = .81), and does not maintain status quo (2 items, a = .66).

Control variables Leader tenure and organization were

used as control variables in the present study. Because the extent of a leader’s prior work experience with followers may be related to perceptions of charismatic leadership or interpersonal skills, number of years at the current position was used as a control variable. Also, given the diverse range of organizations and industries from which the leaders were drawn, the sample

organizations were dummy coded according to their principle source (university, government agency, professional association, or community development organization) and included as control variables.

Analyses

Level of analysis Leader-follower groups were chosen as

the unit of analysis for the present study. Items that measured the leader variables

(e.g., social and emotional skills) were averaged to create scale scores for each leader participant. Consistent with previous research on charismatic leadership (e.g., Waldman et al., 2001), follower variables were operationalized at the group level of analysis. To justify the aggregation of follower ratings to create group-level measures, intraclass correlations and within/between analysis of variance (WABA) procedures (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984) were utilized. WABA procedures indicated that the variation in overall charismatic leadership and the six sub-scales was primarily between groups, while intraclass correlations for overall charismatic leadership and the six sub-scales were acceptable. Overall, these results provide support for aggregation of follower scores to create group measures of charismatic leadership and all six sub-scales.

Results

Correlation, hierarchical regression, and Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation analyses were utilized to test the hypotheses. Prior to performing these analyses, the data screening procedure recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) was conducted. Data were screened for out-of-

range values, implausible means and standard deviations, univariate outliers, skewness, and kurtosis. Other assumptions were tested to ensure the accuracy of the

analyses, including range restriction, heterogeneous sub-samples, and multicollinearity. The aforementioned

37

statistical assumptions were satisfied for the variables and related analyses.

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables in this study. As expected, leader gender was related to follower ratings of charismatic leadership (r = .22, ~ < .05) as women were rated as more charismatic than their male counterparts. Consistent with previous research, leader gender was also related to overall social skills (r = .24, n < .05), social expressivity (r = .22, p < .05), and social control (r = .20, ~ < .05). Furthermore, leader gender was associated with overall emotional skills (r = .32, p <

.01), emotional sensitivity (r = .30, p < .01), and emotional expressivity (r = .33, p < .01). Surprisingly, leader tenure was associated with overall social skills (r = .27, ~ < .01), social sensitivity (r = .22, p < .05), and social control (r = .19, p < .05), but was not related to any dimension of emotional skills. As predicted, overall social skills (r = .25, ~ < .05) and overall emotional skills (r = .27, p < .01) were related to charismatic leadership, particularly social control (r = .29, ~ < .01), social expressivity (r = .20, ~ < .05), and emotional expressivity (r = .20, p < .05).

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

n = 108 a 1 = male, 2 = female.

*p<.05 **p<.O1

***p<.001

38

Hypothesis Testing

Gender and charismatic leadership Hypothesis I predicted that female

leaders would be rated as more charismatic

by their followers than male leaders. In addition to significant zero-order correlations between leader gender and follower ratings of charisma, results of regression analyses provide support for the relationship between gender and charismatic leadership. Table 2 shows that after entering

leader tenure and organization as control variables, leader gender explains an additional 5% of the variance in charismatic

leadership (F = 4.60, ~ < .05) and produces a significant final beta weight (D = .23, p < .05). Furthermore, leader gender was a significant predictor of several dimensions of charismatic leadership, including environmental sensitivity (r = .27, p < .01), personal risk (r = .24, ~ < .05), and sensitivity to member needs (r = .23, ~ < .05). Thus, Hypothesis I was supported.

Table 2 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Charismatic Leadership’

............. 11 ...... - , -- .. -

n = 108 a Standardized regression coefficients are shown.

b Organization l, 2, and 3 are k-1 dummy variables for k different organizations in the study. Organization 1 =

university, organization 2 = government agency, and organizational 3 = professional association. * p < .05 **p<.Ol 1

Gender and social/emotional skills

Hypotheses 2 and 3 predicted that women leaders would possess greater social and emotional skills than their male

counterparts. Table 3 illustrates results from separate regression analyses predicting social and emotional skills, which show that leader gender is a significant predictor after leader tenure and organization are entered into the model. For overall social skills,

leader gender added 5% to R2 (F = 5.95, p < .05) and was a significant predictor in the final model (~3 - .24, ~ < .05). The predictive validity of gender was stronger for emotional skills, as gender added 10% to R2 (F = 10.91, n < .01) and was a highly significant predictor in the final model (A = .33, p < .01). Thus, support was also found for Hypotheses 2 and 3.

39

Table 3 Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Social and Emotional Skills

n = 108

a Organization 1, 2, and 3 are k-1 dummy variables for k different organizations in the study. Organization 1 = university, organization 2 = government agency, and organizational 3 = professional association.

*p<.05 **p<.O1 1

Mediating effects of sociallemotional skills

Hypotheses 4 and 5 predicted that social and emotional skills would partially mediate the relationship between leader gender and charismatic leadership. To test for mediation, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) suggested regression analyses were utilized for both social skills and emotional skills.

According to Baron and Kenny, mediation occurs under the following conditions: ( 1 ) the independent variable significantly predicts the mediator, (2) the independent variable significantly predicts the dependent variable, and (3) the relationship between the independent and dependent variables becomes non-significant when the mediator

is entered into the model. Table 4 illustrates the results of these analyses and shows that all three conditions for mediation were met for both social and emotional skills. When leader gender and social skills are entered in model 3, the significant relationship between gender and charisma in model 2 (fl = .23, p < .05) is rendered non-significant (fl = .18, p = .09) while overall social skills remains significant (fl = .20, p < .05). Similarly, when gender and emotional skills are entered in model 3, the significant relationship between gender and charisma in model 2 becomes non-significant (j3 = .16, p - .13) while overall emotional skills remains a strong predictor of charisma (fl = .21, p =

.05). Thus, Hypotheses 4 and 5 were supported.

40

Table 4 Results of Mediation Analyses for Social and Emotional Skills

n = 108 aBaron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation analyses using regression equations. Statistical controls for leader tenure and organization were included in each regression model.

*p < .05 **p<.01 1

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to delineate the connections between leader

gender, social and emotional skills, and charismatic leadership. In an effort to demonstrate that women’s superior social and emotional skills contribute to a greater proclivity for charismatic leadership, several important findings emerged from this research. First, consistent with previous theoretical work (e.g., Bass, 1998) and limited empirical findings (Bass et al., 1996; Carless, 1998), women leaders in the present study were more likely to enact charismatic leadership. This finding is important because previous attempts to link leader gender with charisma (e.g., Hackman et al., 1992; Carless, 1998) utilized Bass’s (1985) transformational leadership model, which includes charisma as just one of five dimensions. By utilizing Conger and Kanungo’s (1994) comprehensive measure of charismatic leadership, the present study extends leadership theory by linking gender

to several key charismatic behaviors. Specifically, women were more likely to demonstrate environmental sensitivity, such as recognizing constraints in their respective organization’s social and cultural environment (cultural norms, lack of grass roots support, etc.) and identifying the abilities, skills, and limitations of organizational members. Furthermore, women leaders were also more likely to demonstrate sensitivity to organizational members’ needs and feelings, including the ability to influence followers by developing mutual liking and respect. Clearly, future research in other settings is needed to corroborate these findings.

In addition to providing needed empirical support for the relationship between gender and charismatic leadership, the present study demonstrated women leaders’ superiority in social and emotional competencies compared to their male counterparts. In line with previous research (e.g., Eagly, 1987; Riggio, 1986), the results of this study showed that women possessed

41

greater social and emotional skills overall, as well as several specific skill sets that facilitate charismatic leadership behaviors. Women leaders demonstrated greater social control, social expressivity, and emotional expressivity, all of which were related to follower ratings of charismatic leadership. Women’s superior skills in regulating verbal expression and playing various social roles, nonverbal expression of emotions, sensitivity to followers’ nonverbal behavior, and the ability to control nonverbal messages facilitated their ability to enact charismatic leadership. Although prior research has established the relationship between gender and social/emotional competencies (Eagly, 1987; Petrides & Fumham, 2000), the present study demonstrated women’s disposition for specific social and emotional skill sets that facilitate charismatic leadership.

Another important finding of the present study was the mediating effects of social and emotional skills on the

relationship between leader gender and charismatic leadership. The results of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation analyses showed that the relationship between leader gender and charismatic leadership behavior can be partially explained by women’s superior social and emotional skills. Specifically, the mediation analyses showed that the significant relationship between gender and charismatic leadership disappeared once social or emotional skills were entered into the model. These findings have important theoretical implications for charismatic leadership theory and research. First, future research on the relationship between gender and charisma should include theoretical models that account for key interpersonal competencies and other potential mediating variables. Given that the data support partial mediation, leadership theory and research would benefit from efforts to uncover other variables that

may explain the relationship between gender and charismatic leadership. Second, the examination of specific social and emotional skill sets provides great promise for delineating the interpersonal competencies

that contribute to charismatic leadership. Indeed, previous research on charisma and social/emotional competencies has focused on dispositional attributes (e.g., self- awareness) as measures of emotional intelligence (Sosik & Megerian, 1999; Sosik, 2001) rather than specific skill sets or behaviors that may reveal the power of charismatic leadership.

The finding that specific emotional skills were associated with charismatic

leadership warrants further discussion, as several scholars have suggested that nonverbal skill is a critical element of charisma (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Riggio, 1992; Holladay & Coombs, 1994). Of particular relevance in the present study was the role of emotional expressivity skills, which demonstrated the strongest relationship to both gender and charismatic leadership. Previous studies have examined emotional expressivity by analyzing the relative impact of vision content (visionary and nonvisionary) and vision delivery (weak and strong) on perceptions of leader charisma (Holladay & Coombs, 1994). These laboratory studies operationalized vision delivery by manipulating eye contact, use of hand and physical gestures, vocal variety, and facial expressiveness, which are all components of emotional expressivity. While Holladay and Coombs found that strong delivery had a greater impact on perceptions of charisma than visionary content, the present study found similar results in that emotional expressivity predicted overall charismatic leadership and particularly vision and articulation behaviors. Post hoc analyses demonstrated a positive relationship between emotional expressivity and the vision/articulation dimension of charismatic leadership (r = .28, 12 < .01), suggesting that these critical charismatic behaviors (e.g., public speaking, presenting to a group, articulating the importance of followers’ roles in the vision) are facilitated by leader nonverbal communication skills.

An interesting and unexpected finding of the present study was the differing effects of leader tenure and gender on social and

42 J

emotional skills. Surprisingly, leader tenure was strongly related to overall social skills, social expressivity, and social control, but unrelated to all of the emotional skill scales. These results suggest that significant work experience in a leadership position may enable an individual to develop the ability to express oneself verbally, engage followers in social interaction, regulate verbal expression, and gain valuable experience playing various social roles. However, leader tenure was unrelated to overall emotional skills and any of the emotional skill scales, suggesting that emotional competencies may be more trait-based than their social counterparts. Furthermore, across all the social and emotional skill

scales, gender demonstrated the strongest relationship to emotional skills, particularly emotional expressivity and emotional sensitivity. Overall, these findings suggest that women may have a trait-based

advantage for superior emotional, nonverbal competencies that lay the groundwork for charismatic leadership. However, further research is needed to delineate the relative contribution of traits and work experience to interpersonal competencies.

Implications for Organizations

The findings from the present study suggest key implications for organizational selection, promotion, and placement processes. Rather than relying exclusively on interviews for selection of managerial employees, which is most often the case (Dipboye, 1992), findings from the present investigation suggest that organizations would benefit from using social and emotional skill levels as selection criteria for

managerial employees. Indeed, recent research has shown that using measures of specific interpersonal skill dimensions greatly improves the prediction of job performance (Riggio & Taylor, 2000). Furthermore, social and emotional skill measurement may also improve assessment center techniques as a means to promote the best managers to executive-level positions. Findings from the present study suggest that

traditional assessment center methods should be coupled with an assessment of participants’ social and emotional skills. z Thus, organizations will capture a more accurate evaluation of participants’ ability to perform the role of change agent at the highest levels of the organization.

An important trend in the executive development literature is the increasing need of organizations to improve executives’ social and interpersonal skills. Social competence and interpersonal skill development have been identified by many researchers and practitioners as primary reasons for implementing executive development programs (Filipczak, 1998; Koonce, 1994). Findings from the current study suggest that social and emotional skills are critical for enacting several core charismatic leadership behaviors, particularly vision and articulation, environmental sensitivity, and sensitivity to follower needs. Consequently, organizations stand much to gain by tailoring their executive development programs to the specific needs of participants, such as creating social and emotional skill profiles for executive personnel and providing training and development opportunities for individuals with underdeveloped skill sets.

Finally, the finding that women’s exceptional social and emotional competencies facilitate charismatic leadership behaviors has important implications for the advancement of women in leadership roles. Given the powerful effects of charismatic leadership on follower attitudes and performance (Lowe et al., 1996), work group cohesion (Agle & Sonnenfeld, 1994), and organizational performance (Waldman et al., 2001; Agle, 1993), women may indeed possess a decided advantage regarding the interpersonal skills and behaviors necessary for effective

leadership in modem, change-oriented organizations (Rosener, 1990; Hegelsen, 1990). Also, outdated beliefs about the skills and behaviors necessary for effective

leadership, such as confidence, task-

43

orientation, competitiveness, and assertiveness (Schein, 1975; Stogdill, 1974), have long been viewed as masculine characteristics while many charismatic

leadership models contain those skills and behaviors traditionally viewed as feminine, including sensitivity to follower needs (Conger & Kanungo, 1994), individualized consideration (Bass, 1985), and follower development and empowerment (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). As employees’ implicit theories and organizations’ explicit models of effective leadership continue to integrate charismatic leadership behaviors that demand strong social and emotional skills, women may have a decided advantage regarding employment selection and promotion decisions for leadership roles and development opportunities. For example, behavioral models of effective leadership utilized by human resource management professionals to select, promote, and develop managerial employees contain many behavioral dimensions

traditionally considered feminine. Indeed, Rosener’s survey research on second-

generation managerial women found that many of them are succeeding in obtaining and progressing in leadership positions as a result of those leader characteristics once considered too feminine for effective

leadership.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the relationships among leader gender, social/emotional skills, and charismatic leadership received empirical support in the present study, several limitations must be noted. First, the cross- sectional nature of the study’s research design precludes causal conclusions regarding the relationships among the variables of interest. Furthermore, lack of longitudinal data in the present study casts some doubt as to the role of social and emotional skills as mediating the relationship between gender and charismatic leadership. Clearly, longitudinal studies would provide much needed support for the

mediating role of social and emotional competencies. Furthermore, future research on gender, charismatic leadership, and social/emotional skills would benefit from alternative measures of gender, such as Bem’s (1974) measure of masculinity and femininity. Indeed, a different pattern of relationships may result when examining leaders who display a combination of masculine and feminine characteristics

(Hackman, et al., 1992). Finally, some research suggests that people tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities and skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999), and that skill self-assessment data tend to be inflated.

However, this concern was partially mitigated by the fact that leaders in the present study were unaware that they were assessing their social and emotional skills. Clearly, the utilization of alternative social and emotional skill assessments in future studies would improve our understanding of charismatic leadership.

As leadership scholars continue investigating the relationships among social/emotional competencies and charismatic leadership behaviors, it will be increasingly important to uncover the powerful effects of leader gender. If theoretical and empirical efforts continue supporting the role of social and emotional skills as critical predictors of charismatic leadership, then women leaders may have a decided advantage over their male counterparts in terms of the many positive outcomes of charismatic leadership.

References

Agle, B. R. & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 1994. Charismatic chief executive officers: Are

they more effective? An empirical test of charismatic leadership theory. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings.

Agle, B. R. 1993. Charismatic chief executive officers: Are they more effective? An empirical test of charismatic leadership theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.

Argyle, M. 1990. The psychology of interpersonal behavior. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

44 J

Ashkansay, N. M., & Tse, B. 2000. Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkansay & C. E. Hartel (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 3-18). Westport, CT: Quorum Books/Greenwood Publishing Group.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1171-1182.

Bass, B. M. 2002. Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence of transformational leaders. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership: 105-118. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M. 1998. Transformational leadership: industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. 1996. The transformational and transactional

leadership of men and women. International Review of Applied Psychology, 45: 5-34.

Bem, S.L (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42: 155-162.

Carl, D. E. & Javidan, M. 2001. Universality of charismatic leadership: A multi-nation study. Academy of Management Best Paper.

Carless, S. A. 1998. Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles, 39: 887-904.

Caruso, D. R., Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. 2002. Emotional intelligence and emotional leadership. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, and F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12: 637-647.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. 1994. Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 439-452.

Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 145-179.

Dipboye, R. L. 1992. Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati: South- Western Publishing.

DePaulo, B. M. & Rosenthal, R. 1979. Ambivalence, discrepancy, and deception in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal (Ed.) Skill in nonverbal communication: Individual differences (pp. 204-248). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.

Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. 1990. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108: 233-256.

Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Filipczak, B. 1998. The executive coach: Helper or healer?. Training, 35: 30-36.

Friedman, H. S., Prince, L. M., Riggio, R. E., & DiMatteoe, M. R. 1980. Understanding and assessing nonverbal expressiveness: The affective communication test. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 333-351.

Friedman, H. S., Riggio, R. E., & Segall, D. O. 1980. Personality and the enactment of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5: 35-48.

Gardner, W. L. & Avolio, B. J. 1998. The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23: 32-58.

George, J. M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53: 1027-1055.

Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.

45

Groves, K. 2002. An examination of leader social intelligence and follower openness to organizational change as key components of charismatic leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University.

Hackman, m. Z., Furniss, A. H., Hills, M. J., & Paterson, T. J. 1992. Perceptions of gender- role characteristics and transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75: 311-319.

Hall, R. J., workman, J. W., & Marchioro, C. A. 1998. Sex, task, and behavioral flexibility effects on leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74: 1-32.

Hall, J. A. 1985. Male and female nonverbal behavior. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.) Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 195-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hegelsen, S. 1990. The female advantage: Women’s way of leadership. New York: Doublesay/Currency.

Holladay, S. & Coombs, W. 1994. Speaking of visions and vision being spoken. Management Communication Quarterly, 8: 165-189.

House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge: 189- 207. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Kent, R. L. & Moss, S. E. 1994. Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1335-1346.

Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. 1996. Direct and indirect effects on three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 36-51.

Koonce, R. 1994. One on one. Training & Development, 48: 34-40.

Kruger. J. & Dunning, D. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in

recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 1121-1134.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385-425.

Petrides, V. & Furnham, A. 2000. Gender differences in measured and self-estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles, 6: 449-461.

Riggio, R. E. 1986. Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 649-660.

Riggio, R. E. 1989. Social Skills Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Riggio, R.E. 1992. Social interaction skills and nonverbal behavior. In R.S. Feldman (Ed), Applications of nonverbal behavioral theories and research (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Riggio, R. E. & Taylor, S. J. 2000. Personality and communication skills as predictors of hospice nurse performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15: 351-359.

Riggio, R. E. & Friedman, H. S. 1986. Impression formation: The role of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 421-427.

Rosener, J. 1990. Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68: 119-125.

Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9: 185-211.

Schein, V. E. 1975. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 340- 344.

Schutte, N., Malouff, J., Hall, E., Haggerty, D., Cooper, J., Golden, D., & Dornheim, 1. 1998. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25: 167-177.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M.B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic

leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4: 577-594.

Snyder, 1974. The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 526-537.

Sosik, J. J. & Megerian, L. E. 1999. Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance. Group and Organization Management, 24: 367-390.

Sosik, J. J. 2001. Self-other agreement on charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Management, 26: 484-511.

46

Sosik, J. J. & Dworakivsky, A. C. 1998. Self concept based aspects of the charismatic leader: More than meets the eye. Leadership Quarterly, 9: 503-526.

Stogdill, R. M. 1974. Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper.

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 134-143.

Waldman, S. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. 1990. Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Studies, 15: 381-394.

Weber, M. 1947. Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. 1991. Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 308- 315.

Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D. 1991. Leadership and social intelligence: Linking social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 2: 317-342.

Zaccaro, S. J. 2002. Organizational leadership and social intelligence. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership: 29- 54. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.