International Journal of Educational Management: Article Information

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 15

International Journal of Educational Management

Social exchange outcomes of transformational leadership: Comparing male and female


principals of public primary schools in Iran
Hassan Reza Zeinabadi
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hassan Reza Zeinabadi, (2013),"Social exchange outcomes of transformational leadership", International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 27 Iss 7 pp. 730 - 743
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2012-0051
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 18 March 2016, At: 00:48 (PT)


References: this document contains references to 52 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 725 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mohammed Yasin Ghadi, Mario Fernando, Peter Caputi, (2013),"Transformational leadership and work
engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in work", Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 34 Iss 6 pp. 532-550 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110
Claire Mason, Mark Griffin, Sharon Parker, (2014),"Transformational leadership development: Connecting
psychological and behavioral change", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35 Iss 3
pp. 174-194 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2012-0063
Yingxiu Yang, (2014),"Principals’ transformational leadership in school improvement", International Journal
of Educational Management, Vol. 28 Iss 3 pp. 279-288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0063

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:604154 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

IJEM
27,7
Social exchange outcomes of
transformational leadership
Comparing male and female principals of
730 public primary schools in Iran
Received 12 April 2012 Hassan Reza Zeinabadi
Revised 20 November 2012 Department of Educational Administration, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
4 February 2013
Accepted 11 March 2013
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate gender differences in transformational
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

leadership and social exchange outcomes in public primary schools in Tehran, Iran.
Design/methodology/approach – A total number of 400 teachers and 77 principals completed
questionnaires. Multivariate analysis of variance was performed to determine gender differences in
transformational leadership dimensions including idealized influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Also, multiple regression was used to
identify the impact of dimensions on three social exchange outcomes including procedural justice,
trust in principal, and organizational citizenship behaviors of teachers.
Findings – Results showed that female principals as compared to male principals obtained significantly
higher scores on transformational leadership dimensions and the greater amount of transformational
behaviors displayed by them has accompanied with the greater prediction of social exchange outcomes.
Research limitations/implications – This study suggests that there are some benefits associated
with having female principals and schools could particularly benefit from developing principal
training programs that focus on developing female principals qualities. Some following limitations
could be avoided in future research: only relying on teacher rating of principal, possible effect of the
teacher’s gender on the relationship of transformational leadership with social exchange outcomes,
and principal-teacher gender mach limitation in rating principals.
Originality/value – Given the limited studies conducted on gender differences in transformational
leadership and social exchange outcomes in schools and in Iran, this study provides empirical insights
and extends this line of inquiry in public schools. This study confirms the results of previous studies
which they have found females as more transformational than male counterparts and also provides
new finding surrounding social exchange outcomes. These results could be influential in encouraging
Iranian policy makers to further acknowledge women administration in public schools.
Keywords Gender differences, Principals, Social exchange outcomes, Transformational leadership
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In Iran, education has been usually considered to be the foundation and support of
economic growth and development. This Islamic country has a centralized educational
system. The Ministry of Education is responsible for the administration of education.
The curricula are exactly the same in all schools. All students are taught the same
subjects and use the same textbooks. The budgets and the financial resources of the
schools are mostly allocated by the Ministry of Education. Schools are divided into
the pre-school, primary, middle, secondary, and pre-university levels. As a general rule,
International Journal of Educational all schools are single-sex and primary, middle, secondary, and higher education is free,
Management
Vol. 27 No. 7, 2013
although private schools and universities do exist and are permitted to charge tuition
pp. 730-743 fees. Regarding to the national rules, principals are appointed by the central authority.
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-354X
All of all-girl schools should have female teachers and all-boy primary schools can also
DOI 10.1108/IJEM-04-2012-0051 have female teachers.
Although the rapid modernization processes appear to have much influence upon Outcomes of
school leadership opportunities for females, but there are a smaller percentage transformational
of females in these positions and this situation is similar across the developed and the
developing countries (Oplatka, 2006). This situation in Iran is differing from other leadership
developing countries and females have great opportunity to become as a principal.
Regarding to the national rules of pre-university educational levels (primary, middle,
and high schools), all of all-girls schools should lead by female principals and all-boys 731
primary schools can also lead bye them. This condition has led to the more percentage
of school leadership positions for females in Iran. This means that they should face
more pressures from a wide range of stakeholders for accountability and effectiveness
than male counterparts. Similar to the non-Iranian researchers the increasing number
of females in school leadership positions created interest in studying gender differences
in leadership (e.g. Shams Mourkani, 2010) but the literature surrounding this issue,
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

especially in form of gender differences in new leadership styles, is very narrow (e.g.
Zeinabadi, 2010). There is not also any published study about gender differences
in transformational leadership and social exchange outcomes in primary schools.
This study contributes to the literature and could be influential in encouraging
policy makers to further acknowledge female leadership in all types of schools.
The aim of the present study is to compare male and female principals with regard to
the transformational leadership behaviors and also examines and compares the impact of
transformational leadership behaviors of male and female principals on social exchange
outcomes including procedural justice, trust in principal and organizational citizenship
behaviors of primary schools teachers.

Theoretical perspectives
In general, in leadership studies the issue of how males and females lead is an ongoing
and controversial and has been of interest to scholars for decades (Eagly and Johnson,
1990; Powell, 2011). Previous studies have tried to answer the key question that
whether male and female leaders display different leadership styles. The common
stereotype was that task orientation was a more masculine and relation orientation
was regarded as more feminine style (Bass and Riggio, 2006). With regard to this
classification, some researches which are largely influenced by feminist scholars,
argued that males and females behaved similarly, and their leadership position was
strongly influenced by executive role models that seemed to claim for masculinity
(Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). A meta-analysis by Eagly and Johnson (1990)
of studies from 1961 to 1987 showed that in actual work organizations there were no
significant differences between male and female leaders. Although there is scarce
evidence to support this notion that the requirements of the leadership role similarly
shape the style of female and male leaders, some researchers (e.g. Eagly, 2007) believe
that gender differences in leadership style are most likely to occur that are not closely
regulated by leader roles. This is due to the fact that leaders have some freedom
to choose the particular ways that they fulfill their roles and also have specific
characteristics and stereotypes which separate them from each other.
According to stereotypes which characterized male and female leaders, the
considerable body of research which acknowledged gender differences in leadership
has documented that females, more than males, manifested relatively relation oriented,
interpersonally oriented and democratic styles, and males, more than females, manifested
relatively task oriented and autocratic styles (Eagly and Johnson, 1990; Eagly and
Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). These results lead to this notion that the core style of male
IJEM and female in the same organizational role is strongly influenced by stereotypes.
27,7 According to Carless (1998) these results are congruent with gender-centered perspective
which proposes that females develop a feminine style which is characterized by caring
and nurturance, and males adopt a masculine style, which is dominating and task
oriented. Similarly, the social-role theory proposes that individuals behave in accordance
with societal expectations about their gender role. Therefore, relation and task-oriented
732 style is socially expected form female and male leaders, respectively (Carless, 1998).
Similar to other organizations, in the context of educational organizations, gender-
related issues in school leadership has attracted the attention of educational
researchers. In their investigations they have compared leadership style of male and
female principals with regard to the different styles including task and relation
oriented or feminine and masculine styles (Cubillo and Brown, 2003). Regarding to this
classification, they have also employed male and female stereotypes in their investigations
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

and reported that male principals tend to be more directive, bureaucratic, and task
oriented and females tend to be more collaborative, democratic, and relation oriented
(Shakeshaft, 1989; Eagly et al., 1992; Fennell, 1999; Oplatka, 2003).
In contrast to evidence which resist on gender differences in school leadership, some
other studies indicate no significant differences (e.g. Mertz and McNeely, 1998) and
some of them insist on female advantage in effective school leadership (e.g. Shakeshaft,
1989). On the other hand some evidence report that male principals are better for
school administration and female principals should equip themselves to male stereotype
or masculine styles to be an effective leader (e.g. Young and McLeod, 2001). Generally,
evidence surrounding gender issue in leadership style in both of educational and
non-educational organizations does not provide a comprehensive explanation of
differences in leadership styles of male and female leaders. Therefore, this issue needs to
further investigation.

Transformational leadership and social exchange outcomes


The shift of a considerable number of researchers and scholars to studying new style
of leadership reinforced educational and non-educational researcher to study
transformational leadership as a new line of inquiry for further investigations of
males and females leadership styles. Empirical evidence surrounding the gender
differences in transformational school leadership is relatively scarce and has yield
contradictory results.
Although Burns (1978) first introduced the idea of transformational leadership, the
concept has been considerably developed by Bass (1985). In Bass (1985) point of view,
transformational leaders motivate followers to performance beyond expectations
and activate their higher order needs. They also increase the follower awareness
and consciousness towards the importance of designated outcomes. Follower of
transformational leader feels trust, admiration, and loyalty towards the leader and
goes beyond self-interest for the sake of the organization (Bass, 1985). In contrast to
transactional leaders who obtain cooperation of follower by establishing economic
exchanges process, transformational leaders establish psychological and social
exchange process which bonds leader and followers within a collaborative change
process (Pillai et al., 1999).
The most important dimensions of the transformational leadership conceptualized
by Bass (1985) include idealized influence (leader serves as a role model and followers
idealize and emulate the behaviors of their trusted leader), inspirational motivation
(leader articulates a clear vision to followers and provides them with symbols and
emotional appeals directed at goal achievement), intellectual stimulation (leader Outcomes of
promotes creativity among followers through encouraging them to transform old transformational
ways of thinking and doing), and individualized consideration (leader addresses
needs of followers individually and delegates assignments to them to provide learning leadership
opportunities).
Transformational leadership has consistently shown advantageous effects on a
range of individual and organizational outcomes (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Based on 733
exchange process between leader and followers, social exchange theory provides the
new line of inquiry for researchers to investigate consequences of transformational
leadership in organizations (Pillai et al., 1999). According to this theory, there is a
continuum of exchange between leader and followers from lower-quality to higher-quality
exchanges. Lower-quality exchanges are economic exchanges which characterized by the
exercise of formal organizational authority. They are based on transactions and short-
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

term benefits. In these exchanges leader obtains routine and formal follower performance
and he/she usually emphasizes on providing rewards in exchange for meeting agreed
upon objectives. Higher-quality exchanges, on the other hand, are social, covenantal, and
psychological contracts which go beyond economic exchanges. In contrast to lower-
quality exchanges, higher-quality exchanges are friendly working relationships between
leader and followers (Deluga, 1994; Pillai et al., 1999).
Empirical studies demonstrated that organizational citizenship behavior is one
of the most important variables in a context in which higher-quality, social and
psychological exchange characterized the quality of leader-follower relationships
(Moorman et al., 1993; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Pillai et al., 1999; Aryee et al.,
2002). Organizational citizenship behavior is generally defined as a set of helpful,
discretionary, and extra-role behaviors exhibited by employees that are not directly or
clearly recognized by the formal reward system and have an overall positive effect on
the operation of the organization (Moorman et al., 1993). Previous studies also indicated
that in social exchange context, organizational citizenship behavior is the result of
follower trust in leader which is generally defined as faith in and loyalty to the leader
(Pillai et al., 1999; Aryee et al., 2002; Ertürk, 2007). Therefore, when there is trust
between the leader and the followers, the followers are more willing to engage in
organizational citizenship behaviors. Also, the review of the existing literature reveals
that in social exchange context, trust in leader is a result of follower’s procedural justice
perception (Pillai et al., 1999; Ertürk, 2007). Procedural justice is one of the facets of
organizational justice and refers to the idea of fairness in the processes that determine
and allocate resources. Followers, who feel that their leader has, or will, demonstrate
justice in the processes of resources allocation will reciprocate this sentiment in the
form of trust and organizational citizenship behavior (Deluga, 1994; Konovsky and
Pugh, 1994; Pillai et al., 1999; Ertürk, 2007).

Gender differences in transformational leadership and social exchange outcomes


Concerning that gender may; in fact, play a big role in transformational leadership
behaviors, the existing literature has offered more support for females (Bass and
Riggio, 2006). Although few studies report no significant differences (Maher, 1997;
Carless, 1998; Manning, 2002), authors mainly refer to transformational leadership as a
feminine leadership style (e.g. Carless, 1998; Yammarino et al., 1997; Eagly et al., 2003).
Rosener (1990) showed that females described themselves in ways that characterize
transformational leadership. Carless (1998) also found that female leaders were more
transformational than males, both when they rated themselves and when they were
IJEM rated by their followers. Regarding the gender of followers, Bass and Avolio (1991)
27,7 found that female leaders were rated as more transformational than males by both of
male and female followers. Similarly Druskat (1994) found that female leaders were
evaluated as being more transformational by female followers than male leaders who
were evaluated by male followers. On the other hand, studies refer to transactional
leadership as a masculine leadership style and believe that male leaders are more
734 transactional than females (Rosener, 1990; Bass et al., 1996; Eagly et al., 2003).
These studies generally offer similar explanations for their findings and report that
these gender differences might be due to actual differences between males and females
in their tendency to be nurturing and development of their followers.
Along with the evidence supporting females as transformational leader, two
different feminism perspectives also help shed light on females as transformational
leaders. According to gender reform feminism, males and females are similar in their
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

common humanity and any biological differences should be ignored to increase gender
equality in organizations (Lorber, 2001; Kark, 2004). On the bases of this perspective
several studies (e.g. Rosener, 1990; Eagly et al., 2003) have indicated that females are
perceived, and perceive themselves, as using transformational leadership styles more
often than males. The second perspective is gender resistance feminism which
emphasizes the positive value of qualities identified with females such as sensitivity,
nurturance and emotional expressiveness, and indicates that these qualities highlight
females’ position as leaders in organizations (Lorber, 2001; Kark, 2004). Kark (2004)
reports that majority of studies which found females as transformational leaders
emphasize on nurturing qualities of females and claim that this leadership style does
not fit the stereotypes described for males.
Regarding to female advantage in transformational leadership, it can be argued that
social exchange outcomes are highly expected from female leaders. As argued by
Eagly et al. (2003), transformational leadership tend to be associated with positive
outcomes and female leaders have better place in influencing different subordinate or
organizational-related outcomes than male counterparts.
In educational organizations, although empirical evidence regarding
transformational leadership is extensive (e.g. Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005; Leithwood
et al., 2008) but evidence surrounding gender differences in transformational school
leadership is relatively scarce and has yield contradictory findings. Some researchers
have found that female principals are rated higher in transformational leadership than
male principals (Young and McLeod, 2001; Eagly et al., 2003; Trinidad and Normore,
2005) and some studies (e.g. Rice, 1993; Baltrus, 2005) report no gender differences in
transformational school leadership. In general, the available evidence cannot provide
clear answer for following questions, hence current study attempts to probe them:
(1) Are female principals more transformational than males counterparts?
(2) Does one gender as a transformational leader has greater influence on social
exchange outcomes including procedural justice, trust in principal and
organizational citizenship behaviors of teachers?

Methodology
Sample
This quantitative study is implemented in public primary schools in Iran. The sample
group consisted of 77 principals (36 females and 41 males) and 400 teachers
(200 females and 200 males), which are randomly selected from 77 primary schools Outcomes of
located in five educational districts (north, south, east, west, and center) of Tehran. transformational
All of principals have been at their school for at least one year and all of teachers have
worked with their principal for at least a minimum period of one year. leadership
Instruments
Four questionnaires were used to collect data. These questionnaires have been shown 735
to be a valid and reliable instrument in different studies. All of items were presented in
Persian and were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). The original English version of the questionnaires were translated in
to Persian and then back translated in to English. The two versions were evaluated
by professors fluent in both language and the best items were selected. To ensure that the
questionnaires are readily interpretable for teachers and principals, pilot surveys were
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

administrated to samples of teachers and principals. Results indicated that Persian version
items were clear and meaningful to the respondents. In this study teachers responded to
transformational leadership, procedural justice, and trust in principals questionnaires and
principals responded to the organizational citizenship behaviors questionnaire.
Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership behaviors of principals
were assessed using the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) developed by
Bass and Avolio (1990). Because the focus of the current study is on transformational
leadership, four of the subscales of MLQ were selected. The subscales identifying
transformational leadership include: idealized influence behavior (eight items),
inspirational motivation (four items), intellectual stimulation (four items), and
individualized consideration (four items). The coefficient a per scale was as 0.84, 0.90,
0.87, and 0.82, respectively.
Teacher trust in principal. Teacher trust in principal was measured by Omnibus
T-scale developed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003). This scale contains 28 items
with three subscales. Only the eight-item trust in principal subscale was selected for
the analytical purposes of this study. For the sample of this study, coefficient a was
found 0.91. Factor analysis of this instrument revealed one dimension. Sample items
include: “I trust the principal,” “I am suspicious of most of the principal’s actions,”
“I have faith in the integrity of the principal.”
Procedural justice. Colquitt’s (2001) measure of organizational justice was used to
measure teacher’s procedural justice perception. This questionnaire has four subscales.
For the purpose of this study only the seven-item procedural justice subscale was
selected. Factor analysis of this instrument revealed one dimension and its coefficient
as in this study was 0.85. Example items include: “I have been able to express
my views and feelings during decision-making procedures,” “Those decision-making
procedures have been applied consistently,” “I have been able to appeal the outcome
arrived at by decision-making procedures.”
Organizational citizenship behaviors. To measure a teacher’s organizational
citizenship behaviors, the 12-item organizational citizenship behavior scale (OCBS)
developed by DiPaola et al. (2005) was modified to access principal’s beliefs about
teacher’s organizational citizenship behaviors at individual level. In this study the
coefficient a of adapted OCBS was found 0.87. Similar to other questionnaires in this
study, factor analysis of OCBS revealed one dimension as DiPaola et al. (2005) have
found. Sample items include: “This teacher serves on committees in this school,”
“This teacher helps students during his/her own time,” “This teacher is volunteer to
mentor and assist new teachers.”
IJEM Data collection and analysis
27,7 After receiving the permission from education office, cooperation of school principals
was sought by initially forwarding a letter explaining the nature of the study,
protection of the collected data, and projected outcomes. In each school, data were
collected by researcher during a separate faculty meetings with teachers and principal.
Before the teachers complete the questionnaires, they were encouraged to participate
736 and the researcher explained the purpose of the study and obtained their informed
consent. The teachers had the option of identifying themselves in the questionnaires;
however, strict confidentiality was promised and ensured. During data collection, some
difficulties in getting the complete data; it was impossible, for example, to survey all
the teachers at one school in a single visit. Given the number of schools studied, this
worked out to a lot of visits.
The collected data were analyzed using PASW Statistics 18 (formerly SPSS). Mean
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

scores and standard deviations were calculated for each variable. Pearson r statistics
were computed to determine correlations between variables. In order to respond to the
first research question multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed
to determine gender differences in four dimensions of transformational leadership.
In responding to the second research question standard multiple regression analysis
was used to identify relative effects of the dimensions of transformational leadership
style of male and female principals on procedural justice, trust in principal, and
organizational citizenship behaviors of teachers.

Results
Table I represents mean, standard deviation, and possible correlation between
variables. As it can be seen in this table, transformational leadership (as an overall
construct) is significantly and positively related to procedural justice (r ¼ 0.43;
po 0.01), trust in principal (r ¼ 0.65; po 0.01), and organizational citizenship behavior
(r ¼ 0.64; po 0.01). All four dimensions of transformational leadership were also
significantly and positively related to procedural justice (ranging from r ¼ 0.34 to 0.47;
po 0.01), trust in principal (ranging from r ¼ 0.41 to 0.67; po 0.01), and organizational
citizenship behavior (ranging from r ¼ 0.42 to 0.64; po 0.01).
The first research question seeks possible gender differences in transformational
leadership. To find these differences, computed MANOVA showed that there were
significant differences between male and female principals in overall transformational
leadership (Wilks’ L ¼ 0.93, F (4, 394) ¼ 7.55, po 0.05) and also in idealized influence

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Transformational leadership 4.03 0.71 1


2. Idealized influence 3.98 0.93 0.89** 1
3. Inspirational motivation 3.97 0.81 0.83** 0.61** 1
4. Intellectual stimulation 4.09 0.94 0.74** 0.57** 0.43** 1
5. Individualized consideration 4.05 0.89 0.73** 0.52** 0.48** 0.31** 1
6. Trust in principal 4.06 1.02 0.65** 0.67** 0.59** 0.45** 0.41** 1
7. Procedural justice 3.98 0.93 0.43** 0.47** 0.40** 0.46** 0.34** 0.40** 1
8. Organizational citizenship
Table I. behaviors 4.08 1.03 0.64** 0.64** 0.56** 0.42** 0.44** 0.79** 0.36** 1
Descriptive statistics
and correlations Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
(F (1, 397) ¼ 14.21, po 0.05), inspirational motivation (F (1, 397) ¼ 25.44, po 0.05), Outcomes of
intellectual stimulation (F(1, 397) ¼ 5.68, po 0.05), and individualized consideration transformational
(F (1, 397) ¼ 11.12, po 0.05) (see Table II). In general, female principals obtained
significantly higher scores on transformational leadership dimensions as compared to leadership
male principals.
Three multiple regression models for both of male and female principals were run to
respond to the second research question. In each model, dimensions of 737
transformational leadership were entered as predictor variables. The first regression
model included trust in principal as the criterion variable. In this model,
transformational leadership dimensions were found to be significant predictors of
trust in principal for both of male (R2 ¼ 0.50, F(4, 195) ¼ 49.96, po 0.05) and female
(R2 ¼ 0.34, F(4, 195) ¼ 38.05, po 0.05) principals. For female principals idealized influence
( b ¼ 0.28), inspirational motivation (b ¼ 0.17), intellectual stimulation (b ¼ 0.22), and
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

individualized consideration ( b ¼ 0.11) significantly contributed to trust in principal.


On the other hand for male principals of the four dimensions, idealized influence
( b ¼ 0.37) and intellectual stimulation ( b ¼ 0.19) found to be significant predictors
(see Table III).
In the second regression model procedural justice was entered as the criterion
variable. This model suggested that procedural justice was significantly explained
by four dimensions of transformational leadership style of male (R2 ¼ 0.11,
F (4, 195) ¼ 5.75, po 0.05) and female (R2 ¼ 0.20, F (4, 195) ¼ 11.39, po 0.05) principals.
For the female principals standardized regression coefficients revealed that procedural
justice was significantly explained by idealized influence (b ¼ 0.37), inspirational motivation
(b ¼ 0.16), intellectual stimulation (b ¼ 0.19), and individualized consideration (b ¼ 0.21).
Similar to the first model, for the male principals two of dimensions including idealized

Female principals Male principals


Variable Mean SD Mean SD F(1, 397)

Idealized influence 4.07 0.85 3.90 0.98 14.21*


Inspirational motivation 3.99 0.76 3.88 0.87 25.44*
Intellectual stimulation 4.16 0.75 3.84 0.84 5.68* Table II.
Individualized consideration 4.20 0.82 3.92 0.79 11.12* MANOVA on dimensions
of transformational
Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level leadership

Female principals Male principals


Variable b t b t

Idealized influence 0.28 4.02* 0.37 3.55*


Inspirational motivation 0.17 2.50* 0.07 1.43
Intellectual stimulation 0.22 2.56* 0.19 2.78*
Individualized consideration 0.11 2.05* 0.07 0.56 Table III.
R2 ¼ 0.34 R2 ¼ 0.50 Regression analysis
F(4, 195) ¼ 38.05* F(4, 195) ¼ 49.96* of transformational
leadership dimensions
Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level on trust in principal
IJEM influence (b ¼ 0.31) and intellectual stimulation (b ¼ 0.16) found to be significant predictors
27,7 (see Table IV).
The third regression model included organizational citizenship behavior as the
criterion variable. In this model four dimensions of transformational leadership were
found to be significant predictors of organizational citizenship behavior for both of
male (R2 ¼ 0.35, F (4, 195) ¼ 26.08, po 0.05) and female (R2 ¼ 0.55, F (4, 195) ¼ 61.24,
738 po 0.05) principals. According to the standardized regression coefficients, for the female
principals it was revealed that idealized influence (b ¼ 0.41), inspirational motivation
(b ¼ 0.12), intellectual stimulation (b ¼ 0.18), and individualized consideration (b ¼ 0.17)
significantly predicted organizational citizenship behavior. Similar to the first and the
second model, for the male principals just idealized influence (b ¼ 0.40) and intellectual
stimulation (b ¼ 0.17) found to be significant predictors (see Table V).
In general, analysis of the data shows that female principals have obtained
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

significantly higher scores on transformational leadership dimensions as compared


to male principals and the greater amount of transformational behaviors displayed by
them has accompanied with the greater prediction of trust in principal, procedural
justice, and organizational citizenship behavior of teachers.

Discussion
The results of this study initially confirm the results of previous studies which they
have found transformational leadership as a significant predictor of trust in leader
(e.g. Pillai et al., 1999; Ngodo, 2008; Zeinabadi and Rastegarpour, 2010), procedural
justice (e.g. Pillai et al., 1999; Ertürk, 2007; Ngodo, 2008; Zeinabadi and Rastegarpour,

Female principals Male principals


Variable b t b t

Idealized influence 0.37 3.33* 0.31 2.05*


Inspirational motivation 0.16 2.18* 0.07 1.13
Intellectual stimulation 0.19 2.29* 0.16 3.66*
Table IV. Individualized consideration 0.21 2.32* 0.08 1.14
Regression analysis R2 ¼ 0.20 R2 ¼ 0.11
of transformational F(4, 195) ¼ 11.39* F(4, 195) ¼ 5.75*
leadership dimensions
on procedural justice Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level

Female principals Male principals


Variable b t b t

Idealized influence 0.41 4.13* 0.40 2.85*


Inspirational motivation 0.12 2.15* 0.09 0.18
Table V. Intellectual stimulation 0.18 3.36* 0.17 3.97*
Regression analysis Individualized consideration 0.17 2.41* 0.05 1.14
of transformational R2 ¼ 0.55 R2 ¼ 0.35
leadership dimensions F(4, 195) ¼ 61.24* F(4, 195) ¼ 26.08*
on organizational
citizenship behaviors Note: *Significant at the 0.05 level
2010), and organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g. Pillai et al., 1999; Ngunia et al., Outcomes of
2006; Ngodo, 2008). According to Bass (1985), who clearly identifies transactional transformational
leadership based on economic exchange and transformational leadership based on
social exchange, much of previous studies indicate that transformational leadership leadership
establish a social exchange relationship with their followers and that the nature of this
relationship influences procedural justice, trust in leader, and organizational citizenship
behaviors as social exchange outcomes. 739
While some previous studies reported no gender differences in transformational
leadership (Maher, 1997; Carless, 1998; Manning, 2002) or reported that female leaders
frequently displayed two or three dimensions of transformational leadership more than
males (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly et al., 2003), the most important
finding of this study is the occurrence of the gender differences in all dimensions.
This result coupled with the previous findings in non-educational (Rosener, 1990; Bass
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

et al., 1996; Eagly et al., 2003) and educational (Young and McLeod, 2001; Eagly et al.,
2003; Trinidad and Normore, 2005) organizations and provides new support for the
claim that gender differences exist in transformational leadership style exist and
female leaders are more transformational than male counterparts. Although some
previous studies (Carless, 1998; Bass et al., 1996) reported that female leaders were
rated themselves as being more transformational than male leaders, the result of this
study is also congruent with previous studies (Eagly et al., 2003; Druskat, 1994; Bass
et al., 1996) which showed females leaders as more transformational than males when
they were rated by their followers. Following to this result, greater impact of female
principals as transformational leaders on social exchange outcomes is highly expected.
This finding is congruent with studies which introduce females as effective and good
leaders for follower and organizational related outcomes (e.g. Shakeshaft, 1989; Eagly
et al., 2003).
There are some possible explanations for the results of this study. Majority of
previous studies described female leaders as more relation oriented; more interested
in followers; more devoted to follower development; less self-serving authoritarians
and more socially sensitive than their male counterparts (Eagly and Johnson, 1990;
Komives, 1991; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Bass and Riggio, 2006). Similarly,
educational researchers (e.g. Shakeshaft, 1989; Fennell, 1999; Grogan, 1999; Sherman,
2000; Oplatka, 2003) look at qualities of female principals which shape them as
transformational leaders and report that female principals: are emotionally committed
to providing a democratic atmosphere; are oriented towards caring rather than rights;
are willing and tend to be people oriented; are emphasis on fairness; show no reliance
on force and frequently avoid authoritarian solutions and rely on their interpersonal
relations skill. Bass and Riggio (2006) believe that these qualities are more related to
transformational leadership and female leaders appear to display them.
Female principals in this study worked in all female dominated contexts and had
the power to control resources and formulate their own rules, norms, and interests.
According to Carless (1998) in a context where females held power, female leaders
displayed much more transformational leadership than male leaders in all male-
dominated contexts. Also Pounder and Coleman (2002) indicate that the leadership
of schools is defined much more in feminine terms. According to feminine nature
of primary school administration, the result of the present study may be due to
feminine nature of school administration position.
Another explanation can be made for follower gender. Druskat (1994) found that
female followers rate their female leaders as exhibiting more transformational than
IJEM male followers who evaluate their male leaders. Perhaps male and female teachers of
27,7 this study associated transformational leadership behaviors with female principals,
rather than male principals.

Practical implications and further studies


This study clearly indicates that female principals are more transformational than
740 male counterparts and they also produce higher levels of social exchange outcomes.
Generally, this study found that there are some benefits associated with having female
principals. Therefore, this study suggests that schools could particularly benefit from
developing principal training programs that focus on developing female principals
qualities which shape school principals as transformational leaders. Results of the
present study have also positive implications for the future of women in school
administration position and provide support for evidence (Shakeshaft, 1989; Pounder
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

and Coleman, 2002) which systematically questioned the issue of under representation
of women in school leadership positions. Although Iranian primary schools are
numerically dominated by women but the majority of principals are predominantly
men. The result of this study could be influential in encouraging policy makers to
support women administration in primary schools.
This study has some limitations such as only focussing on public primary schools,
using two self-report questionnaires and merely relying on teacher ratings of
principals. These limitations could be avoided in future research. Another important
limitation of this study can be explained based on gender differences in two of social
exchange outcomes. As previous studies explained, gender could be considered
a determinant of two criterion variables of this study as females might be expected to
place more value on procedural justice (Sweeney and McFarlin, 1997) and to exhibit
more organization citizenship behaviors than males (Kidder and McLean Parks, 2001).
Based on these findings, in the present study, the greater prediction of procedural
justice and organization citizenship behavior in female principals may be due to female
teacher advantage in these variables. Therefore, researcher should take into account
the moderate effect of the gender of teachers on the relationship of transformational
leadership with social exchange outcomes.
Finally, given the small, but significant gender differences in transformational
leadership and small differences between male and female transformational leadership
behaviors in prediction of some criterion variables, it would be unsuitable to firmly
conclude that female principals are superior in school administration. Pounder and
Coleman (2002) believe that today schools need to androgynous or balanced leadership
behaviors. According to this perspective principals, regardless of biological gender,
will be able to combine the best of male and female leadership traits to make proper
response to demands of environment and to increase school effectiveness.

References
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 267-285.
Baltrus, R.F.J. (2005), “Transformational leadership: analysis of gender leadership and
perceptions of mandated school reform”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1990), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for The
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, Outcomes of
New York, NY.
transformational
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1991), The Transformational and Transactional Leadership Behavior
of Women and Men as Described by the Men and Women Who Directly Report to Them, leadership
Center for Leadership Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton,
Binghamton, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 741
Inc, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. and Atwater, L. (1996), “The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 5-34.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Carless, S.A. (1998), “Gender differences in transformational leadership: an examination of
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives”, Sex Roles, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 887-902.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of
a measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Cubillo, L. and Brown, M. (2003), “Women into educational leadership and management:
international differences?”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 278-291.
Deluga, R.J. (1994), “Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 4,
pp. 315-326.
DiPaola, M., Tarter, C. and Hoy, W.K. (2005), “Measuring organizational citizenship in schools:
the OCB scale”, in Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (Eds), Leadership and Reform in American
Public Schools, Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 157-179.
Druskat, V. (1994), “Gender and leadership style: transformational and transactional leadership
in the Roman Catholic Church”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 99-119.
Eagly, A.H. (2007), “Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: resolving the
contradictions”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Eagly, A.H. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2001), “The leadership styles of women and men”,
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 781-797.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and Van Engen, M.L. (2003), “Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing men and
women”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 569-591.
Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B.T. (1990), “Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 233-256.
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J. and Johnson, B.T. (1992), “Gender and leadership style among school
principals: a meta-analysis”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 76-102.
Ertürk, A. (2007), “Increasing organizational citizenship behaviors of Turkish academicians,
mediating role of trust in supervisor on the relationship between organizational justice and
citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 257-270.
Fennell, H.A. (1999), “Power in the principalship: four women’s experiences”, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 23-49.
Grogan, M. (1999), “Equity/equality issues of gender, race, and class”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 518-536.
Hoy, W.K. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003), “The conceptualization and measurement of faculty
trust in schools: the omnibus T-scale”, in Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (Eds), Studies in
Leading and Organizing Schools, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 181-208.
IJEM Kark, R. (2004), “The transformational leader: who is (s)he? A feminist perspective”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 160-176.
27,7
Kidder, D.L. and McLean Parks, J. (2001), “The good soldier: who is s(he)?”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 939-959.
Komives, S.R. (1991), “Gender differences in the relationship and hall directors’ transformational
and transactional leadership and achieving styles”, Journal of College Student
742 Development, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 155-164.
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, D.S. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-669.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2005), “A review of transformational school literature research
1996-2005”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 177-199.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2008), “Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 27-42.
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

Lorber, J. (2001), Gender Inequality, Roxbury Publishing, Los Angeles, CA.


Maher, K.J. (1997), “Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional
leadership”, Sex Roles, Vol. 37 Nos 3/4, pp. 209-225.
Manning, T.T. (2002), “Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work
satisfaction”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 207-216.
Mertz, N. and McNeely, S.R. (1998), “Women on the job: a study of female high school principals”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 196-222.
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), “Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and procedural justice”, Employees Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 209-225.
Ngodo, O.E. (2008), “Procedural justice and trust: the link in the transformational leadership –
organizational outcomes relationship”, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 82-100.
Ngunia, S., Sleegers, P. and Denessen, E. (2006), “Transformational and transactional leadership
effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational
citizenship behavior in primary schools: the Tanzanian case”, School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-177.
Oplatka, I. (2003), “School change and self-renewal: some reflections from life stories of women
principals”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-43.
Oplatka, I. (2006), “Women in educational administration within developing countries: towards
a new international research agenda”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 604-624.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. and Williams, E. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators
for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 897-933.
Pounder, J. and Coleman, M. (2002), “Women-better leaders than men? In general and educational
management it still ‘all depends’”, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 122-134.
Powell, G.N. (2011), Women and Men in Management, 4th ed., Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Rice, J.B. (1993), “Transactional and transformational leadership: an analysis of male and female
leadership styles in Delaware public schools”, Abstract of EdD dissertation, Widener
University, Chester, PA.
Rosener, J.D. (1990), “Ways women lead: the command-and-control leadership style associated
with men is not the only way to succeed”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 6,
pp. 119-125.
Shakeshaft, C. (1989), Women in Educational Administration, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Outcomes of
Shams Mourkani, Gh. (2010), “Effectiveness of Iranian and Indian principals: role of gender and transformational
type of school”, New Educational Approaches, Vol. 5 No. 11, pp. 87-108.
Sherman, A. (2000), “Women managing/managing women”, Educational Management &
leadership
Administration, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 133-143.
Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1997), “Process and outcome: gender differences in the
assessment of justice”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 83-93. 743
Trinidad, C. and Normore, A.H. (2005), “Leadership and gender: a dangerous liaison?”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 574-590.
Yammarino, F.J., Dubinsky, A.J., Comer, L.B. and Jolson, M.A. (1997), “Women and
transformational and contingent reward leadership: a multiple-levels analysis
perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 205-222.
Young, M. and McLeod, S. (2001), “Flukes, opportunities, and planned interventions: factors
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 00:48 18 March 2016 (PT)

affecting women’s decisions to become school administrators”, Educational


Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 462-502.
Zeinabadi, H. (2010), “Transformational leaders in school: male or female principals”, Woman in
Development & Politics, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 107-135.
Zeinabadi, H. and Rastegarpour, H. (2010), “Factors affecting teacher trust in principal: testing
the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice”, Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 1004-1008.

About the Author


Hassan Reza Zeinabadi is a faculty member at the Kharazmi University, Iran. He is currently an
Assistant Professor in the Educational Administration Program, Department of Educational
Administration, and School of Education, Kharazmi University. He graduated from Kharazmi
University, where he earned his PhD in Educational Administration. His research interests
include leadership and gender, leadership styles. Hassan Reza Zeinabadi can be contacted at:
hzeinabadi@yahoo.com

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


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

You might also like