Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Gender and personality in transformational leadership context : An examination of

leader and subordinate perspectives
Tiina Brandt, Maarit Laiho,
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Tiina Brandt, Maarit Laiho, (2013) "Gender and personality in transformational leadership context: An
examination of leader and subordinate perspectives", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol.
34 Issue: 1, pp.44-66, https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731311289965
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731311289965
Downloaded on: 08 October 2017, At: 00:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 98 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9113 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"Ethical and empowering leadership and leader effectiveness", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 28 Iss 2 pp. 133-146 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941311300252">https://
doi.org/10.1108/02683941311300252</a>
(2006),"Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model in action", Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 38 Iss 1 pp. 23-32 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850610646016">https://
doi.org/10.1108/00197850610646016</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543713 []
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/0143-7739.htm

LODJ
34,1
Gender and personality in
transformational leadership
context
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

44 An examination of leader and

subordinate perspectives
Tiina Brandt
Department of Management, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland, and
Maarit Laiho
Department of Management, University of Turku,
Turku School of Economics, Turku, Finland

Abstract
Purpose – There are many studies of personality and leadership and gender and leadership, but only
few leadership studies have taken into account both personality and gender. That may partly be due to
the fact that there are relatively few female leaders, however, the aim of this paper is to discover if
similar personality types exhibit the same kind of leadership behavior irrespective of gender.
Design/methodology/approach – The quantitative analysis involves 459 leaders (283 men and 176
women) and 378 subordinates working in various fields. Leaders rated their leadership behavior and
subordinates also appraised them.
Findings – Results indicated differences in leadership behavior by gender, in that women exhibited
more enabling behavior, and men more challenging behavior. Further, gender and personality had an
impact on leadership behavior, as viewed by both leaders and subordinates. For example, extraverted
and intuitive male leaders along with those exhibiting the perceiving dimension regarded themselves
as more challenging than their introverted, sensing and judging male counterparts, a view confirmed
by subordinates in the case of perceiving male leaders.
Research limitations/implications – As limitations, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator offers only
one view of the personality, and future studies would be needed with different methods. Also the study
did not control confounding factors, and it should be taken into account with the study.
Practical implications – From a practical view point, this study offers specific knowledge for people
seeking to develop themselves as leaders.
Originality/value – Very few studies have concentrated on the relationship between personality
and gender in the transformational leadership context, and this study provides a new perspective on
this area.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Personality, Gender, Leadership
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
There is a huge number of studies on transformational leadership (TF-leadership) and
the benefits it can bring to business life. Benefits cited have included higher
productivity, lower employee turnover rates, greater job satisfaction. Well-being and
Leadership & Organization motivation are also said to be more strongly connected to TF-leadership than either
Development Journal
Vol. 34 No. 1, 2013
transactional or non-TF-leadership (e.g. Arnold et al., 2007; Clover, 1990; Deluga, 1992;
pp. 44-66 Marshall et al., 1992; Masi and Cooke, 2000; Medley and Larochelle, 1995; Sparks
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
and Schenk, 2001). Owing to the incontrovertible nature of the business benefits of
DOI 10.1108/01437731311289965 TF-leadership, there is a need to examine TF-leadership from different viewpoints, in order
 to offer broader knowledge when developing leaders. Contemporary challenging Gender and
business environments with their constant need to simultaneously increase profit personality in
and maintain employee well-being create a demand for better leaders and for the
knowledge of how to grow as a leader. As Bennis (2009) states, quality of life depends leadership
on the quality of our leaders.
Research supports the notion that high self-awareness among leaders is connected
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

to effectiveness (Atwater and Yammarino, 1992; Bass and Yammarino, 1991). 45

Improving self-awareness involves examining one’s personality and behavior,
and leaders undertaking that process will benefit the fact that TF-leadership and
personality have gained a considerable amount of attention recently (Bono and Judge,
2004; Brown and Reilly, 2009; Carroll, 2010; Hautala, 2008; Hetland and Sandal, 2003;
Judge et al., 2002; Northouse, 2007).
Male and female leaders may be viewed differently due to stereotypes and different
expectations and also due to personality types. According to Eagly et al. (1995;
Northouse, 2007) women and men were more effective in leadership roles congruent
with their gender. Generally, men are socialized to be assertive, independent, rational
and decisive, while women are expected to show concern for others, warmth, to be
helpful and to nurture (Hoyt et al., 2009). Female leaders were evaluated more harshly
for using autocratic styles than their male counterparts (Eagly et al., 1995). Also,
Neubert and Taggar (2004) state that women who are not behaving according to their
socially defined roles may receive negative feedback. Therefore, the gender stereotypes
can be particularly damaging for women in leadership roles, since masculine
attributes are considered more essential than feminine ones (Kunda and Spencer, 2003).
This may be the reason for some studies indicating that women are under valued by
male subordinates and colleagues, even when applying a TF-leadership style
(Northouse, 2007).
There are studies that indicate that women are more transformational in their
leadership style than men (Bass, 1999; Carless, 1998; Northouse, 2007) and also studies
that suggest that there are no differences in leadership attributable to gender (Brown
and Reilly, 2008; Kent et al., 2010; Manning, 2002; Oyster, 1992). Some studies indicate
that some personalities are more masculine than others (Hautala and Rissanen, 2002),
thus it is to be expected that personality impacts on leadership ratings even more than
gender. It may be that the contradictory results of previous studies have not found
compelling evidence, because there are more aspects than just gender that may impact
on transformational leadership. One of these aspects may be personality.
This area of gender, personality and leadership is the focus of this study. The
purpose is to find out if personality affects gender and leadership style – do female and
male leaders with similar personalities behave differently? The research also
incorporates followers’ views to discern if they evaluate their leaders behavior
differently according to personality and gender.
The main research question of this study is “Are there differences in TF-leadership
styles between genders when personality has been taken into account?”
In addition, this study tries to answer the following sub-questions:

Q1. Are personality types equally distributed between the genders?

Q2. Are there differences of leadership style due to gender?

Q3. Does personality impact female and male TF-leadership behavior differently?
 LODJ Q4. Within the same gender, does personality impact on leadership behavior?
34,1 Q5. Do leaders appraise their own TF-leadership style differently than their
subordinates do?

The purpose is to discover the different views about the impact of gender and
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

46 personality on the behavior of leaders and to gain some new insights into how this
information could be used. This knowledge would benefit leaders seeking
self-understanding and enhance their understanding of how others may view their
behavior and so could encourage their personal development.
The current study uses the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) as a measurement
of personality. There are several other measurement options, but MBTI has gained
much attention in the area of personality and leadership recently (Brown and Reilly,
2009; Carroll, 2010; Hautala, 2008), and therefore it is applied in this study as well.

2. Theoretical background and earlier studies

2.1 Transformational leadership
Since the time of Burns’ (1978) seminal research, several researchers have studied
and defined TF-leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kouzes and Posner,
1988; Tichy and Devanna, 1990) and operationalized the concept (e.g. Bass and Avolio,
1990; Kouzes and Posner, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Roush, 1992). Common elements
in definitions of TF-leadership are visioning, challenging, consideration and being an
example (Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kouzes and Posner, 1988; Tichy and
Devanna, 1990).
The solid position of TF-leadership in research is due to it being connected to
several positive outcomes. These include improved productivity, reduced employee
turnover rates, greater job satisfaction and motivation; all of which are more strongly
associated with TF-leadership than with more transactional or non-TF-leadership
(e.g. Clover, 1990; Deluga, 1992; Marshall et al., 1992; Masi and Cooke, 2000; Medley
and Larochelle, 1995; Sparks and Schenk, 2001). Lately studies of TF-leadership have
also focussed on areas of well-being (Arnold et al., 2007), ethical sides (Bass and
Steidlmeier, 1999) and psychological capital (Nielsen et al., 2009).
This research is based on Kouzes and Posner’s (1988) view of transformational
behavior. They discovered that executives who persuaded others to join them followed
the model they termed vision-involvement-persistence (VIP). The model comprises five
more specific dynamics: challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling
others to act, modeling the way and encouraging the heart (Kouzes and Posner, 1988).
They are described more specifically in the section on methods.

2.2 Personality – the MBTI

The MBTI is the dynamic and positive measurement of personality, and has solid
theory behind it. This indicator has quickly become one of the most widely used tools
when defining personality (Myers et al., 1998, p. 9). Due to its usefulness and
comprehensible approach it has become a common method when studying leadership
(see e.g. Gallén, 1997; McCarthy and Garavan, 1999; Müller and Turner, 2010; Walck,
1997) and thus it is used in this study as well.
The MBTI is based on Jung’s (1921) work on psychological types and has been
further developed by Briggs and Myers. The MBTI is based on eight different
preferences, which encompass different orientations of energy (extraversion, E and
 introversion, I), processes of perception (sensing, S and intuition, N), processes of Gender and
judging (thinking, T and feeling, F) and attitudes toward dealing with the outside personality in
world (perceiving, P and judging, J). These preferences result in 16 different personality
types, among them: introversion-sensing-thinking-judging (ISTJ), extraversion- leadership
intuition-thinking-perceiving (ENTP) (McCaulley, 1990; Myers and Myers, 1990).
In this study, the focus is on the eight preferences of the MBTI and their links to the
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

appraisals of transformational behavior. These eight preferences are as follows (Myers 47

and Myers, 1990; Myers et al., 1998):
. Extraverted (E) people tend to be social, and energized by other people.
Introverted (I) people will lose energy when around others for a long time, and
thus they need to spend more time alone than extraverts.
. Sensing (S) types usually live in the “here and now” and they tend to gather
information via their five senses. They approach work step-by-step and focus on
the small things more than intuitive people. Intuitives (N) prefer to use their
imagination and ability to see the big picture.
. Thinking (T) people tend to make decisions using impersonal points of logic.
Feeling (F) types adopt the logical use of their personal values when deciding.
They are usually better at taking other people’s feelings into account than
thinking types.
. Judging (J) types prefer order and closure whereas perceiving (P) types tend to be
flexible and their lifestyle reflects a tendency to go with the flow.

2.3 Gender and leadership

The gender-centered perspective proposes that women develop a feminine style
of leadership and men adopt a masculine style of leadership (Eagly et al., 1992).
According to social role theory individuals behave in accordance with societal
expectations of the gender role (Eagly, 1987). The structural perspective emphasizes
an organization’s expectations, and proposes that people behave according to these
expectations and gender has no effect (Eagly et al., 1992; Kanter, 1977). Lastly, the fit
between leadership position and gender has been suggested to have an impact. For
example, military leadership positions are defined in more masculine terms than
feminine (Eagly et al., 1995).
Effective leadership has been perceived to require traits stereotyped as masculine
(e.g. Brenner et al., 1989; Schein, 1973a, b, 1975; Powell and Butterfield, 1979, 1984,
1989), but recent leadership literature has stressed more feminine behavior. Masculine
traits are typically employed in the initiation of structure, whereas feminine traits
are more employed in demonstrating consideration (Spence and Helmreich, 1978;
Williams and Best, 1982). Initiation of structure consists of the behavior of setting and
defining goals, structuring and defining work behavior and maintaining a strong task
orientation. Consideration includes showing concern for subordinates’ feelings,
participation, satisfaction and friendship. Men have been found to be somewhat more
self-assertive, aggressive and coarse in their manner and language than women.
Women, in contrast, have been found to be more expressive of emotion and compassion
(Chesler, 2001; Simmons, 2002). It has been found that feminine leadership qualities
are more highly valued by subordinates, while masculine qualities are more valued by
managers (Cann and Siegfried, 1987). TF-leadership consists of both feminine and
masculine qualities, the feminine consist of behavior connected with encouraging,
 LODJ rewarding and enabling others, and the more masculine are connected with visioning
34,1 and challenging.
Hall et al. (1998) demonstrated that androgynous individuals (measured for example
with the Bem Sex-Role Inventory) capture an aspect of behavioral flexibility necessary
for successful leadership in the eyes of those appraising them. However, evidence on
whether an androgynous style is an optimal managerial style remains inconclusive
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

48 (Powell et al., 2002). Eagly and Johnson (1990, p. 233) concluded that female and male
leaders did not differ in the two leader styles of interpersonal orientation and task
orientation within organizational studies. However, these two aspects of leader style
were found to be gender stereotypic.

2.4 Summary – gender and personality in the TF-leadership context

The personality characteristics regarded as belonging to transformational leaders
include for example: creativity, novelty, innovativeness, a tendency to risk, courage,
believing in people, being value-driven, being life-long learners, pragmatism,
nurturing, feminine attributes and self-confidence (Bass, 1985; Tichy and Devanna,
1990; Ross and Offerman, 1997).
Several studies have concentrated on transformational leaders’ personalities,
adopting different personality measures. The five-factor model (FFM) of personality
has been applied to support the correlation of extroversion (Bono and Judge, 2004;
Judge and Bono, 2000; Ployhart et al., 2001), agreeableness ( Judge and Bono, 2000) and
openness (Ployhart et al., 2001) with TF-leadership. However, Bono and Judge (2004)
opined after a meta-analysis, that associations between the FFM and TF-leadership
were weak. The FFM explained 12 percent of the variability in charisma and only
5 and 6 percent of the variability in ratings of intellectual stimulation and individual
consideration, respectively.
In the case of 16PF, conformity was predictive of transformational behavior when
superiors rated participants. However, subordinates estimated intelligence to be
connected with TF-leadership (Atwater and Yammarino, 1993). Hetland and Sandal
(2003) studied four scales of 16PF (warmth, reasoning, openness to change and tension)
finding warmth to be the strongest personality correlate. A significant negative
relationship occurred between tension and TF-leadership. Moreover, each of the
four scales significantly but modestly explained the variance of TF-leadership,
according to the subordinates quizzed. Further, according to superiors, the openness to
change was predictive when they were rating participants.
To return to the MBTI, most of the studies of leaders’ self-ratings indicate that
extraversion, intuition and perceiving preferences are more related to TF-leadership
than their counterparts: introversion, sensing and judging (Church and Waclawski,
1998; Hautala, 2006). Some do not include extraversion (Van Eron and Burke, 1992) in
this list, and some exclude both extraversion and intuition (Brown and Reilly, 2009).
Concerning subordinates’ appraisals of their leaders’ behavior the results are more
contradictory. Some studies did not find a relationship at all (Brown and Reilly, 2009),
some appraisals reported results similar to the leaders’ self-ratings (Church and
Waclawski, 1998; Roush, 1992) and some produce totally opposed results indicating
that sensing (Hautala, 2006; Roush and Atwater, 1992) and feeling preferences
(Atwater and Yammarino, 1993; Roush and Atwater, 1992) were strongly associated
with TF-leadership.
Several studies indicate that women are more transformational leaders than men
(e.g. Bass et al., 1996; Doherty, 1997; Turner et al., 2004). In general, the meta-analysis
 of Eagly et al. (2003) revealed that, compared with male leaders, female leaders were Gender and
more transformational and applied the concept of contingent reward. In the sample of personality in
2,000 follower reports on 161 managers (116 men and 45 women) in the same
organization, there was no support for the proposition that men and women differ in leadership
any respect in their use of TF-leadership behaviors (Brown and Reilly, 2008) Kabacoff’s
(1998) study indicated that men tended to more often report aspects of vision creation,
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

while women reported more vision implementation and follow-through, as well as 49

employee and team development. According to Carless’ (1998) study, their superiors
evaluated female managers as more transformational on interpersonally oriented
subscales than male managers, and this was consistent with their own ratings.
However, subordinates evaluated their female and male leaders equally. Using Kouzes
and Posner’s Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI) questionnaire, also produced
contradictory results. According to both self-ratings and subordinates’ appraisals
female managers were more likely than male managers to practice “modeling the way,”
which means that a leader is behaving in accordance with the values she/he espouses,
and “encouraging the heart,” which represents giving positive feedback (Posner and
Kouzes, 1993). On the contrary, Manning (2002) did not find differences in the TF-
leadership of women and men, nor did Kent et al. (2010) or Mandell and Pherwani
(2003). Finally, Yammarino et al. (1997) have stated that studies that report significant
differences between male and female leaders, have very small effect sizes, and they
argued that there is no practical difference between the behavior of female and
male leaders.
Recently, one study has recently focussed on women’s TF-leadership and
personality in a healthcare organization (Carroll, 2010). There self-ratings indicated
extraversion, intuition, feeling and perceiving marked the more transformational
leaders. However, addressing the lack of studies of gender, personality and TF-
leadership, the current paper starts by placing the focus on these three areas.
In the current study, the sample represents organizations operating in widely different
areas, so the organizational setting (masculine/feminine) has not had an impact
on this study.

3. Methodology
This study uses the Finnish version of Kouzes and Posner’s (1988) LPI when
measuring TF-leadership. It is a widely used tool among researchers (see e.g. Carroll,
2010; Hautala, 2008). Personality is described through the MBTI.

3.1 Samples
The study concentrated on 459 leaders whose MBTI type was measured and 378
subordinates’ appraisals of their leaders whose MBTI type was measured. Since the
study aims to compare leaders’ self-ratings to subordinates views of their leaders’
behavior, the data on TF-leadership were collected from both leaders and subordinates.
Most of the leaders appraised by subordinates (sample b) also belonged to the sample
of self-rating leaders (sample a). Therefore, the demographics of both samples were
quite similar and the samples comparable (see Table I).
(a) The sample of those leaders who evaluated themselves (n ¼ 459): the gender
distribution was as follows: 62 percent of the leaders were male and 38 percent
were female. The leaders’ mean age was 43, and their mean amount of work experience
was 11 years, and the average number of subordinates per leader was 38. The leaders’
fields of activity were information and technology (13 percent), teaching and education
 LODJ Ratings that leaders
34,1 Leaders self-ratings received by followers
Men Women Total Men Women Total
n % n % n % n % n % n %

Persons who were rated (TF) 322 60 212 40 534 230 60 154 40 384
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

50 Persons for whom MBTI type

was measured 283 62 176 38 459 230 61 148 39 378
Extraversion (E) 209 74 130 74 340 74 161 70 91 61 252 67
Introversion (I) 74 26 46 26 120 26 69 30 57 39 126 33
Sensing (S) 166 59 102 58 268 58 132 57 79 53 211 56
Intuitive (N) 117 41 74 42 191 42 98 43 69 47 167 44
Thinking (T) 232 82 99 56 331 72 204 89 68 46 272 72
Table I. Feeling (F) 51 18 77 44 128 28 26 11 80 54 106 28
Personality distribution Judging ( J) 221 78 134 76 355 77 172 75 107 72 279 74
of the samples Perceiving (P) 62 22 42 24 104 23 58 25 41 28 99 26

(12 percent), trade (11 percent), health and welfare (10 percent) and the metal industry
(9 percent). The majority of the leaders labeled themselves as either engineers
(16 percent), technicians (14 percent), graduates of a Finnish commercial institute
(11 percent), graduated engineers (8 percent) and Masters of Science (Econ.) (6 percent).
(b) The sample of leaders who were evaluated (n ¼ 378): the sample comprised
61 percent male leaders. The leaders mean age was 41, their mean work experience as
leaders was ten years and the average number of subordinates was 40. The leadership
appraisals were provided by three subordinates of each leader in the study. The
leaders’ fields of activity were health and welfare (15 percent), teaching and education
(13 percent), metal industry (9 percent), paper industry (7 percent), services (7 percent)
and trade (6 percent). The leaders were mostly engineers (19 percent), graduates
of a Finnish commercial institute (12 percent) and graduate engineers (11 percent).
The subordinates who evaluated the leaders were mostly female (55 percent),
while 37 percent were male and in the case of 29 (8 percent) of the respondents it was
not possible to determine the respondents’ gender. The mean age of the subordinates
was 43.

3.2 Procedure
Data were collected from 459 leaders and 378 subordinates during the years 1996-2010.
Whenever feasible and always with the permission of the leaders, the data were
collected during training and development sessions throughout the time span. The
leaders participated in the training sessions in order to enhance their leadership skills.
In this study, they have been defined as leaders on the basis of their own understanding
that they have subordinates and they consider themselves as leaders. Both leaders and
subordinates were asked to fill in questionnaires honestly, and subordinates were
reassured that their individual appraisals would not be communicated to their leaders.
The LPI and the MBTI questionnaires were usually completed by the leaders before
the start of training sessions. Leaders were given the resulting assessments of their
personality and leadership style on the following training day. Participation was
voluntary but very popular.
Subordinates only filled in the LPI when appraising their leaders. In a training
session leaders were asked to give the LPI form to at least three of their subordinates
 selected in alphabetical order, to avoid the possibility that leaders would select Gender and
subordinates who would respond favorably. Subordinates returned the assessment personality in
forms directly to the researchers, so that leaders could not see their subordinates’
answers. Researchers calculated mean responses for each leader, so each leader leadership
received one collective appraisal of their leadership style.
Data were processed with the PASW Statistics 18-program. The gender of each
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

respondent was assessed by referring to their first name. The male respondents were 51
coded with number 1, and the female respondents with the number 2. If the gender
of leader was not known, the questionnaire was removed from the study. After the data
were reviewed and prepared for the actual data analysis. Principal component
factoring with Varimax rotation was performed to ensure the validity of the
TF-leadership dimensions. Distribution of personality types between genders (Q1) was
analyzed by using cross-tabulation with the w2-test. An independent samples t-test was
used to identify differences between genders (Q2: male leaders vs female leaders and
Q3: extraverted female leaders vs extraverted male leaders, etc.) and personalities
(Q4: introverted female leaders vs extraverted female leaders, etc.) in TF-leadership
behavior. Levene’s test was used together with the t-test to determine the equality
of variances. Further, to test whether leaders appraise their own TF-leadership style
differently than their subordinates do, the abovementioned analyses were conducted
separately to the sample a (leaders’ self-ratings) and sample b (followers’ appraisals
of their leaders). Sample a was obtained by selecting leaders, who had filled in both the
TF-leadership and MBTI questionnaires. Sample b included leaders, who had received
one or more subordinate appraisals and who had filled in the MBTI questionnaire.

3.3 Instruments
LPI. The LPI is based on interviews with managers. This inventory is well suited to the
appraisal of leadership behavior by both leaders and subordinates (e.g. Herold and
Fields, 2004). It is noteworthy that the LPI also consists of the rewarding dimension
(encouraging the heart), even though contingent rewards have usually been included in
transactional leadership (Bass, 1985). According to Goodwin et al. (2001) rewarding
behavior is part of the appropriate behavior of both transformational and transactional
leaders, and that is why some researchers include contingent reward in TF-leadership
(e.g. Barling et al., 2000). The Finnish version of the LPI used in this study has been in
use since 2005 (for further information see Brandt, 2010).
The items in the questionnaire were rated on a Likert scale with options ranging
from “very rarely if at all” (1) to “frequently if not constantly” (5). Factor analysis was
performed on sample of responses from 914 leaders and subordinates to ensure the
questionnaire’s dimensions were correct. This sample of leaders and subordinates
included also leaders whose MBTI type was not measured during the data collection
process and who were therefore excluded from the samples a and b that were described
earlier. The factor model accounted for 52.2 percent of the variance. The factor analysis
also supports earlier studies made with similar factors in Finland (e.g. Hautala, 2005).
In order to form the leadership dimensions for subsequent analysis, five composite
variables were constructed on the basis of factor scores. The five factors in this Finnish
version characterize the TF-leadership as visioning, challenging, enabling, modeling
and rewarding. Additionally, overall transformational profile (TFP) was constructed
by averaging the factor score variables. Cronbach’s a were as following; visioning
(measured with five items) 0.686, challenging (four items) 0.639, enabling (ten items)
0.869, modeling (four items) 0.591 and rewarding (two items) 0.829. Despite some of the
 LODJ alphas being rather modest, the reliability of the instruments can be considered
34,1 adequate, since other studies have reported similar a values. For example, in Brown
and Posner’s (2001) study a’s ranged from 0.66 to 0.84. In Posner and Kouzes’ study the
a values were, however, reported to be at least 0.70.
Visioning can be described as presenting the ideal future to others, making sure
that people hold common values and communicating the view about the best way to
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

52 lead the organization. Challenging includes risk taking, introducing innovations

to improve an organization, and seeking challenging tasks. Enabling means respecting
others, giving them freedom to make their own decisions, creating a trusting
atmosphere and making others feel projects are their own. Modeling includes
consistency of organizational values and confidence in the philosophy of how to lead,
and confirmation of planning and goal setting. Rewarding means celebrating
accomplishments.
MBTI. The MBTI is a self-assessment instrument, where the respondent selects one
of two options for every item. The MBTI includes scores on four bipolar dimensions:
extraversion-introversion (E/I), sensing-intuition (S/N), thinking-feeling (T/F) and
judging-perceiving ( J/P). Every item has two alternatives for the respondents to choose
from. An individual is assigned a “type” classification based on one of 16 possible
categories. In this study the focus is on the eight preferences not on the whole type.
Overall, the validity of the MBTI has been proved at the four preferences level, as
well as at the type level. Internal consistency is high when both the split-half and
coefficient a reliabilities are measured. More recently, internal consistency and
construct validity have been proved by several researchers (see e.g. Gardner and
Martinko, 1996; Myers et al., 1998). Gender, age, membership of a minority ethnic group
and developmental level are just some of the topics that have been researched when
testing the reliability of the MBTI (see Myers et al., 1998).
In this study, the Finnish research “F-version” was used. The construct validity
and reliability of this form have been proved during a validation process lasting
several years (see e.g. Järlström, 2000). Järlström (2000) reported an internal
consistency (Pearson’s correlation coefficients) of 0.65 to 0.76 and (Cronbach’s
coefficient a) of 0.79 to 0.86.

4. Results
Most leaders shared the extraverted, sensing, thinking and judging preferences (see
Table I). According to Routamaa et al. (1997) Finnish leaders and managers share
mostly thinking and judging preferences, so the samples of this study correspond
closely with Finnish managers’ MBTI types. Between genders there were statistically
significantly (w2 ¼ 35,720, df ¼ 1, po0.001) more thinking preferences among men
(82 percent) than among women (56 percent) and likewise more feeling types among
female (44 percent) than among male (18 percent) leaders. In the following chapters the
results of differences between female and male leaders are presented, and the
differences when personality preferences within the gender are compared.

4.1 Genders in comparison

In this section, the female and male leaders are compared. First, only the gender
differences of TF-leadership are presented. Male leaders appraised themselves as more
challenging than their female counterparts, whereas female leaders rated themselves
more enabling and rewarding than their male colleagues. The followers’ appraisals of
their leaders’ transformational behavior indicated similar results (see Table II).
 Followers’ appraisals of
Gender and
Leaders’ self-ratings their leaders personality in
Mean SD n Mean SD n leadership
Men Visioning 0.084 0.90 321 Visioning 0.149 1.09 227
Women t ¼ 0.788 0.022 0.89 211 t ¼ 1.373 0.014 1.19 149
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Men Challenging*** 0.261 0.97 321 Challenging* 0.068 1.04 227 53

Women t ¼ 4.216 0.095 0.92 211 t ¼ 2.378 0.323 0.99 149
Men Enabling*** 0.138 0.70 321 Enabling** 0.523 1.19 227
Women t ¼ 5.793 0.491 0.67 211 t ¼ 2.611 0.195 1.19 149
Men Modeling 0.113 0.96 321 Modeling 0.161 1.14 227
Women t ¼ 0.280 0.090 0.86 211 t ¼ 0.299 0.127 1.00 149
Men Rewarding* 0.016 0.96 321 Rewarding* 0.191 0.97 227
Women t ¼ 2.554 0.203 0.98 211 t ¼ 2.118 0.037 1.10 149
Men Overall TFP 0.071 0.38 321 Overall TFP 0.154 0.56 227 Table II.
Women t ¼ 1.055 0.106 0.38 211 t ¼ 1.733 0.068 0.40 149 Gender differences of
transformational
Notes: *po0.05, **po0.01, ***po0.001 leadership dimensions

Leaders’ self-ratings (Table III, column 1). Here the interest is in knowing if
both genders having the same personality preferences behave similarly. Table III
presents the statistically significant results by indicating which of the compared
personality preferences or preference-gender combinations received the greater score
in the TF-leadership dimension in question. The specific mean value comparisons
are provided in the appendices.
Leaders did not differ by gender when looking at the overall TFP of leaders’
self-ratings. In the TF-leadership dimensions, women regarded themselves as more
enabling, and men saw themselves as more challenging. The statistically significant
results occurred in every preference in these two dimensions. Personality did impact on
rewarding, when female intuitive and feeling personalities regarded themselves more
rewarding than male intuitive and feeling personalities.
Subordinates’ appraisals (Table III, column 2). In the eyes of their followers, female
leaders with extraversion, thinking and judging were more enabling than males
with similar preferences. Additionally, women with extraversion and intuition were
regarded as more rewarding than their male colleagues. Male leaders with a perceiving
preference were regarded as more challenging than their female counterparts. Overall
the TFP indicated female intuitive and judging leaders are more transformational than
male intuitive and judging leaders.

4.2 Personality preferences in comparison

Leaders’ self-ratings – personality preferences compared by gender (Table III, columns 3
and 4). Here the interest is to see if personality has an impact on leadership within
gender; if female introverted leaders are different from extraverted ones, etc. Female
extraverted and intuitive leaders thought themselves as being more transformational
overall than introverted and sensing female leaders. Quite similarly extraverted,
intuitive and perceiving male leaders regarded themselves as more transformational.
In visioning, the male leaders found no difference due to personality, whereas women in
the thinking and judging categories regarded themselves as more visioning.
In challenging and rewarding, the genders rate themselves quite similarly.
Extraverted and intuitive women rated themselves higher than introverted and
 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

54
34,1
LODJ

Table III.

comparisons
gender and gender
results of preference-
Statistically significant
Similar preferences in Women in Men in Women in Men in
Similar preferences in comparison women vs comparison with comparison with comparison with comparison with
comparison women vs men subordinates’ leaders’ self- leaders’ self- subordinates’ subordinates’
men leaders’ self-ratings appraisals ratings ratings appraisals appraisals

Visioning T4F* S4N*

J4P*
Challenging Emen4E women** P men4P women*** E4I** E4I** P4J***
I men4I women* N4S*** N4S***
S men4S women** P4J***
N men4N women**
T men4T women**
F men4F women**
J men4J women**
P men4P women***
Enabling Ewomen4Emen*** Ewomen4Emen* F4T* E4I** T4F* F4T*
Iwomen4Imen*** Twomen4Tmen***
Swomen4Smen*** Jwomen4Jmen*
Nwomen4Nmen***
Twomen4Tmen**
Fwomen4F men***
Jwomen4Jmen***
Pwomen4Pmen***
Modeling
Rewarding N women4N men* E women4E men* P4J* E4I** E4I* S4N**
F women4F men* N women4N men** P4J**
Overall TFP Nwomen4Nmen* E4I*** E4I*** E4I* S4N**
Jwomen4Jmen* N4S* N4S*
P4J*

Notes: E, extraversion, I, introversion, S, sensing, N, intuition, T, thinking, F, feeling, P, perceiving and J, judging. 4, which of the compared personality
preferences or preference-gender combinations received greater score in the TF-leadership dimension in question
 sensing ones, and the story was similar with men, and moreover perceiving men rated Gender and
themselves higher than judging ones in this dimension. Concerning rewarding, personality in
perceiving women ranked themselves higher than judging ones and similarly with
men, and also extraverted men regarded themselves as more rewarding than leadership
introverts. Lastly, in enabling, female feeling personalities regarded themselves as
behaving more in this way than thinking ones. In the case of men, extraverted men
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

thought themselves as being more enabling than their introverted counterparts. 55

Overall, personality did have a different effect due to gender in leaders’ self-ratings.
For the women, the thinking-feeling dimensions were separating female leaders in
visioning and enabling, and also judging-perceiving preferences in visioning
and rewarding. In addition, extraverted and intuitive women were more challenging
than their sensing and introverted counterparts, and the same applies to the Overall
TFP. For the men, extraversion-introversion was separating them in the enabling,
rewarding and challenging dimensions and overall TFP. Judging-perceiving
separated men in the challenging and rewarding dimensions and overall TFP.
Further, intuitive men were more challenging than sensing ones and they were more
transformational overall.
Subordinates’ appraisals – personality preferences compared by gender (Table III,
columns 5 and 6). Subordinates reported that personality also impacts on leaders’
behavior, but slightly less than the leaders themselves thought. Extraverted female
leaders were regarded as having a higher Overall TFP and being more rewarding than
introverted ones, and sensing men were thought of as having a higher Overall TFP and
being more rewarding than intuitive types. Thinking female leaders were appraised
as being more enabling than feeling ones. On the contrary, feeling male leaders
were regarded as being more enabling than thinking ones. Further, sensing men were
regarded as more visioning and rewarding than their intuitive colleagues. Finally,
perceiving men were regarded as being more challenging than judging ones.

5. Discussion
If we now address the questions at the heart of the study, Q1: Are personality types
equally distributed between the genders? The answer is yes, only thinking-feeling
preferences were slightly differently distributed between the sexes.
Q2: Are there differences of leadership style due to gender? Using the dimensions,
women regarded themselves as more enabling and rewarding, and men saw
themselves as more challenging. Subordinates’ appraisals were consistent with the
leaders’ self-ratings. Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) suggests that women are expected
to be communal (e.g. helpful, nurturing, gentle) while men are expected to be what is
termed agentic (this means assertive, controlling, confident) (Eagly, 1987; Heilman,
2001). The results of this study support social role theory, since enabling and
rewarding can be regarded as feminine behavior amongst the TF-leadership
dimensions. These dimensions represent taking care of everybody, creating an
approving atmosphere in the workplace and arranging small reward events when
goals are met. Challenging, in turn, expresses more masculine behavior, meaning
questioning old methods, maybe sometimes in a rather aggressive way, and this may
be more suitable behavior for men according to the social role theory. The results of
this study also support Eagly et al.’s (2003) study, as their meta-analysis showed that
women employed more contingent reward behavior. Interestingly, this study found no
support for the notion that women are more transformational leaders that many other
studies have indicated (Turner et al., 2004; Doherty, 1997).
 LODJ Q3: Does personality impact female and male TF-leadership behavior differently?
34,1 When examining personality and gender, the results did show that personality affects
both self-ratings and subordinates’ appraisals differently with male and female leaders,
therefore the answer is yes. Women with intuitive and feeling preferences were more
rewarding than their male counterparts, and this was the opinion of both subordinates
and the leaders themselves. In some parts female self-ratings were consistent with
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

56 Carroll’s (2010) study of female leadership and MBTI. The similarity was in the case of
challenging, and also to a degree in Overall TFP.
Looking at the subordinates’ views in isolation, there were differences too:
extraversion, thinking and judging female leaders were regarded as more enabling
than men with similar preferences and perceiving men were regarded as more
challenging than female leaders. Perceiving types tend to be more challenging than
judging ones according to earlier studies also (Hautala, 2006). They are described as
more prone to risk taking, and for example there are more entrepreneurs to be found
with perceiving than with judging preferences (Routamaa and Miettinen, 2007). As
stated earlier, challenging behavior is considered a masculine trait, and it may be that
male leaders with perceiving preferences were regarded as more challenging from
their subordinates’ point of view too. In addition, it is probably more appropriate for
males to behave in a challenging way. In the case of the Overall TFP, female intuitive
and judging types were regarded as more transformational than men.
Q4: Within the same gender, does personality impact on leadership behavior?
and Q5: Do leaders appraise their own TF-leadership style differently than their
subordinates do? The answer to both is yes. Both self-ratings and subordinates’
appraisals indicated that personality impacts on leadership behavior, and interestingly,
not equally for men and women. Additionally, there were differences between how
leaders themselves saw their behavior and how subordinates interpreted it.
The most interesting differences were seen in the challenging and enabling
dimensions. In terms of challenging, the extraverted and intuitive female leaders
ranked themselves higher than their introverted and sensing counterparts. The
situation was similar with men, and additionally perceiving male leaders regarded
themselves as more challenging than judging ones. Subordinates saw the difference
only in the case of the perceiving-judging dimension; perceiving men were regarded as
more challenging than judging ones. It seems that perceiving men are very challenging
in their behavior; a finding this study points to from many angles.
Concerning enabling, female feeling leaders ranked themselves higher than
thinking female leaders did. Extraverted men regarded themselves as more enabling
than their introverted counterparts, and according to the subordinates, the thinking
women and feeling men were more enabling. These results are very intriguing.
According to theory and earlier studies, we might expect that feeling leaders
would be more enabling, due to their natural tendency to appreciate harmony,
give positive feedback and take others into consideration. Thinking personalities
are more straightforward and critical (Myers and Myers, 1990). For example Berr et al.
(2000) found that feeling senior managers were regarded as being better at giving
feedback and recognition to others by both direct reports and peers. So the MBTI
theory and earlier studies support only in the cases of female feeling types’ self-ratings
and subordinates’ appraisals of feeling male leaders. Interestingly, subordinates saw
thinking female leaders as more enabling, which is very contradictory to the theory.
When looking at the overall TFP, extraverted and intuitive women scored
themselves higher, and additionally in the case of men, the intuitive and perceiving
 ones regarded themselves as more transformational. These self-ratings support the Gender and
earlier studies (Carroll, 2010; Church and Waclawski, 1998; Hautala, 2006). According personality in
to followers, in the case of female leaders, the extraverted were more transformational
and in the case of men, the sensing were more transformational. leadership
Earlier studies report that extraverts have a tendency to overrate themselves (Berr
et al., 2000; Van Velsor and Fleenor, 1994; Wilson and Wilson, 1994). However, when
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

looking at the overall results of this study, this tendency seems to be more true in the 57
case of male leaders. Male extraverts ranked themselves higher than introverts in four
dimensions of TF-leadership (including TFP), but subordinates did not see this
difference.
According to earlier studies (Hautala, 2006; Roush and Atwater, 1992), intuitive
types also tend to overrate themselves in terms of transformational leadership, and
this is reinforced in this study as well, in the case of male leaders. Both male and female
intuitive types thought themselves more challenging and having a stronger overall
TFP than sensing personalities, but when women and men were compared,
subordinates appraised intuitive female leaders as having stronger overall TFPs than
intuitive men. In addition, subordinates thought male sensing leaders were more
transformational and more visioning and rewarding. According to MBTI theory,
intuitive types are future oriented, imaginative, and have a natural tendency to be
initiators, inventors, promoters and to be enterprising (Myers and Myers, 1990, p. 63).
The tendency for intuitive types to be more positive in their own appraisals can be due
to their more positive self-image developed early in life and reinforced by the views of
their own supervisors (Berr et al., 2000; Myers et al., 1998, pp. 268-84). According
to Berr et al. (2000) intuitive senior managers received higher ratings from their
co-workers and supervisors on certain management behavior, whereas their
subordinates disagreed.

Conclusions and further studies

This study applies a focus to the relationships between gender, personality,
and transformational leadership. Personality was defined with the MBTI and
TF-leadership by the Finnish version of the LPI. The dimensions of the Finnish LPI
version are: visioning, challenging, enabling, modeling and rewarding. The results
indicated that both gender and personality have an impact on leadership behavior, and
accordingly this study supported previous studies stating that there are differences in
leadership according to gender.
Women regarded themselves as more enabling and rewarding, and men saw
themselves as more challenging. This partly may be explained by the social role
theory, and by the different kinds of expectations placed on female and male leaders.
Subordinates regarded female intuitives and judging types as more transformational
than men with similar preferences. Challenging behavior was clearly emphasized in the
leadership behavior of perceiving male leaders. This study confirms that from several
angles. Some contradictory results were found in the cases of feeling and thinking
preferences. Subordinates appraised male feeling types as more enabling (which
supports the theory) and female thinking types as also being more enabling. The latter
result does not support the theory. The tendency to overrate seems to be true in the
cases of extraverted and intuitive male leaders.
The results could be used to enhance leaders’ self-understanding, for example in
leadership development programs. Their own thoughts about their behavior do not
necessarily accord with those of their subordinates. For example, “feeling” female
 LODJ leaders thought that they behaved in a more enabling fashion than their “thinking”
34,1 female counterparts, but their subordinates interpreted the “thinking” women’s
behavior as more enabling. Once they have understood the leadership behavior
tendencies of certain personalities, leaders could concentrate on making their own
leadership more visible and clear to all their subordinates. Knowing one’s personality
is helpful when evaluating one’s own behavior, both its strengths and weaknesses.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

58 Furthermore, being conscious of different personalities helps interaction with and

understanding of others. This study concentrated on personality preferences which
form the personality type. It would require a huge amount of data to compile more
information on all 16 personality types and leadership.
Future studies would do well to take into account the number of subordinates.
If there is a large number of subordinates (perhaps 30 or more), the relationship cannot
be very close and then the subordinates’ appraisals may be non-specific. This study
could be tested also within the context of Leader-Member Exchange theory (LMX),
which takes subordinates’ in-group and out-group membership in relation to their
leader into consideration. In addition, interviews with female and male leaders
and their subordinates would be helpful when analyzing the personality differences
further. Furthermore incorporating subordinates’ gender and personality types into
the analysis would surely produce further interesting results.
With regard to limitations, the MBTI offers only one view of the personality, and
future studies would be needed with different measures. Also we did not control for
confounding factors, and that should be taken into account when the results of the
current study are evaluated. In summary, our study added new perspectives on this
field of research and also raised some interesting research areas that should be tackled
in the future.
References
Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and McKee, M.C. (2007), “Transformational
leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful work”, Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 193-203.
Atwater, L. and Yammarino, F. (1992), “Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions
moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 141-64.
Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1993), “Personal attributes as predictors of superiors’
and subordinates’ perceptions of military academy leadership”, Human Relations, Vol. 46
No. 5, pp. 645-68.
Barling, J., Slater, F. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000), “Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: an exploratory study”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 157-61.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1999), “Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-218.
Bass, B.M. and Yammarino, F. (1991), “Congruence of self and others’ leadership ratings of
naval officers for understanding successful performance”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 40
No. 4, pp. 437-54.
 Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. and Atwater, L. (1996), “The transformational and transactional Gender and
leadership of men and women”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 5-34. personality in
Bennis, W. (2009), On Becoming A Leader, Basic Books, New York, NY. leadership
Bennis, W.G. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper and Row,
New York, NY.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Berr, S.A., Church, A.H. and Waclawski, J. (2000), “The right relationship is everything: linking 59
personality preferences to managerial behaviors”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 133-57.
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2004), “Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 901-10.
Brandt, T. (2010), “Personality and Leadership: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and
Transformational Leadership - Perspectives of Subordinates and Leaders”, LAP Lambert
Academic Publishing. ISBN-10: 3838328574.
Brenner, O.C., Tomkiewicz, J. and Schein, V.E. (1989), “The relationship between sex role
stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 662-9.
Brown, F.W. and Reilly, M.D. (2008), “Emotional intelligence, transformational leadership and
gender: correlation and interaction possibilities”, The Journal of International
Management Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Brown, F.W. and Reilly, M.D. (2009), “The Myers-Briggs type indicator and transformational
leadership”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 916-32.
Brown, L. and Posner, B.Z. (2001), “Exploring the relationship between learning and leadership”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 274-80.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Cann, A. and Siegfried, W.D. (1987), “Sex stereotypes and the leadership role”, Sex Roles, Vol. 17
Nos 7/8, pp. 401-8.
Carless, S.A. (1998), “Gender differences in transformational leadership: an examination of
superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives”, Sex Roles, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 887-902.
Carroll, G.K. (2010), “An examination of the relationship between personality type, self
perception accuracy and transformational leadership practices of female hospital leaders”,
dissertation, Bowling Green State University and OhioLINK, Ohio.
Chesler, P. (2001), Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, Nation Books, New York, NY.
Church, A.H. and Waclawski, J. (1998), “The relationship between individual personality
orientation and executive leadership behavior”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 99-125.
Clover, W.H. (1990), “Transformational leaders: team performance, leadership ratings, and
firsthand impressions”, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership,
Leadership Library of America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 171-83.
Deluga, R.J. (1992), “The relationship of leader-member exchanges with laissez-faire,
transactional, and transformational leadership in naval environments”, in Clark, K.E.,
Clark, M.B. and Campbell, D.P. (Eds), Impact of Leadership, Center for Creative Leadership,
Greensboro, NC, pp. 237-47.
Doherty, A. (1997), “The effect of leaders characteristics on the perceived transformational/
transactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic administrators”, Journal of
Sports Medicine, Vol. 11, pp. 275-85.
Eagly, A.H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
 LODJ Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B.T. (1990), “Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, pp. 233-56.
34,1
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and van Engen, M. (2003), “Transformational,
trasactional, and laissez-faire leadership: a meta-analysis comparing women and men”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 95, pp. 569-91.
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J. and Makhijani, M.G. (1995), “Gender and the effectiveness of leaders
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

60 manage: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 1117, pp. 125-45.

Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G. and Klonsky, B.G. (1992), “Gender and the evaluation of leaders:
a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 111, pp. 3-22.
Gallén, T. (1997), “The cognitive style and strategic decisions of managers”, Management
Decision, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 541-51.
Gardner, W.L. and Martinko, M.J. (1996), “Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator to study
managers: a literature review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 45-83.
Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C. and Whittington, J.L. (2001), “A theoretical and empirical extension
to the transformational leadership construct”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22,
pp. 759-74.
Hall, R.J., Workman, J.W. and Marchioro, C. (1998), “Sex, task, and behavioral flexibility effects
on leadership perceptions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 74, pp. 1-32.
Hautala, T. (2008), “TJ leaders as transformational leaders: followers’ and leaders’ appraisals”,
Journal of Psychological Type, Vol. 9, pp. 68-88.
Hautala, T.M. (2005), Personality and Transformational Leadership. Perspectives of Subordinates and
Leaders, Acta Wasaensia, No. 145, Business Administration 61 Universitas Wasaensis, Vaasa.
Hautala, T.M. (2006), “The relationship between personality and transformational leadership”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 777-94.
Hautala, T.M. and Rissanen, A.-L. (2002), “Personality type and gender role”, Proceedings,
Working Creatively: Conference with Type and Temperament, Sydney.
Heilman, M. (2001), “Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s
ascent up to organizational ladder”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 657-74.
Herold, D.M. and Fields, D.L. (2004), “Making sense of subordinate feedback for leadership
development. Confounding effects of job role and organizational rewards”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 686-703.
Hetland, H. and Sandal, G.M. (2003), “Transformational leadership in Norway: outcomes and
personality correlates”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 147-71.
Hoyt, C.L., Simon, S. and Reid, L. (2009), “Choosing the best (wo)man for the job: the effects of
mortality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 233-46.
Järlström, M. (2000), “Personality preferences and career expectations of Finnish business
students”, Career Development International, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 144-54.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2000), “Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 751-66.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. and Werner, M.W. (2002), “Personality and leadership.
A qualitative and quantitative review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4,
pp. 765-80.
Jung, C.G. (1921), Psychological Types, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
 Kabacoff, R.I. (1998), “Gender differences in organizational leadership”, Proceedings, 106th Annual Gender and
Convention of the American Psychological Association in San Francisco, CA, August 14-18.
personality in
Kanter, R. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Kent, T.W., Blair, C.A., Rudd, H.F. and Schuele, U. (2010), “Gender differences and
leadership
transformational leadership behavior: do both German men and women lead in the
same way?”, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 52-66.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1988), The Leadership Challenge, 6th ed., Jossey-Bass, 61
San Francisco, CA.
Kunda, Z. and Spencer, S.J. (2003), “When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color
judgement. A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 522-44.
McCarthy, A.M. and Garavan, T.N. (1999), “Developing self-awareness in the managerial career
development process: the value of 360-degree feedback and the MBTI”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 437-45.
McCaulley, M. (1990), “The Myers-Briggs type indicator and leadership”, in Clark, K.E. and
Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership Library of America, West Orange,
NJ, pp. 381-418.
Mandell, B. and Pherwani, S. (2003), “Relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style: a gender comparison”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 387-404.
Manning, T.T. (2002), “Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work
satisfaction”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 207-16.
Marshall, S., Rosenbach, W.E., Deal, T.E. and Peterson, K.D. (1992), “Assessing transformational
leadership and its impact”, in Clark, K.E., Clark, M.B. and Campbell, D.P. (Eds), Impact of
Leadership, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC, pp. 131-48.
Masi, R.J. and Cooke, R.A. (2000), “Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate
motivation, empowering norms, and organizational productivity”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 16-47.
Medley, F. and Larochelle, D.R. (1995), “Transformational leadership and job satisfaction”,
Nursing Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 64-5.
Müller, R. and Turner, R. (2010), “Leadership competence profiles of successful project
managers”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 437-48.
Myers, I. and Myers, P. (1990), Gifts Differing, 13th ed., Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Myers, I., McCaulley, M., Quenk, N.L. and Hammer, A.L. (1998), Manual: A Guide to the
Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 3rd ed., Consulting
Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Neubert, M.J. and Taggar, S. (2004), “Pathways to informal leadership: the moderating role of
gender on the relationship of individual differences and team member network centrality
to informal leadership emergence”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 175-94.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R. and Munir, F. (2009), “The mediating effects of team and self-
efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and
psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional questionnaire
survey”, Nursing Studies, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1236-44.
Northouse, P.G. (2007), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Oyster, C.K. (1992), “Perceptions of power”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 527-33.
Ployhart, R., Lima, B.-C. and Chan, K.-Y. (2001), “Exploring relations between typical and
maximum performance ratings and the five factor model of personality”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 809-43.
 LODJ Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
34,1 citizenship behaviors”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 107-42.
Posner, B. and Kouzes, J. (1993), “Psychometric properties of the leadership practices inventory –
updated”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 53, pp. 191-9.
Powell, G.N. and Butterfield, D.A. (1979), “The ‘good manager’: masculine or androgynous?”,
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

62 Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 395-403.

Powell, G.N. and Butterfield, D.A. (1984), “If ‘good managers’ are masculine, what are ‘bad
managers’?” Sex Roles, Vol. 10, pp. 477-84.
Powell, G.N. and Butterfield, D.A. (1989), “The ‘good manager’: did androgyny fare better
in the 1980’s?”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 216-33.
Powell, G.N., Butterfield, D.A. and Parent, J.D. (2002), “Gender and managerial stereotypes: have
the times changed?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 177-93.
Ross, S.M. and Offerman, L.R. (1997), “Transformational leaders: measurement of personality
attributes and work group performance”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1078-86.
Roush, P.E. (1992), “The Myers-Briggs type indicator, subordinate feedback, and perceptions
of leadership effectiveness”, in Clark, K.E., Clark, M.B. and Campbell, D.P. (Eds), Impact of
Leadership, Greensboro, Center for Creative Leadership, NC, pp. 529-43.
Roush, P.E. and Atwater, L. (1992), “Using the MBTI to understand transformational leadership
and self-perception accuracy”, Military Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 17-34.
Routamaa, V. and Miettinen, A. (2007), “Awareness of entrepreneurial personalities: a prerequisite
for entrepreneurial education”, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, NCGE
Working Paper No. 019, available at: www.ncge.org.uk (accessed September 18, 2011).
Routamaa, V., Honkonen, M., Asikainen, V. and Pollari, A.-M. (1997), “MBTI types and leadership
styles. Subordinates’ view”, Proceedings of the Leadership and the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator, Second International Conference, Washington, DC, April 2-4, 2007.
Schein, V.E. (1973a), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 95-100.
Schein, V.E. (1973b), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60,
pp. 340-4.
Schein, V.E. (1975), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 340-4.
Simmons, R. (2002), Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls, Harcourt Brace,
New York, NY.
Sparks, J.R. and Schenk, J.A. (2001), “Explaining the effects of transformational leadership: an
investigation of the effects of higher-orders motives in multilevel marketing
organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 849-69.
Spence, J.T. and Helmreich, R.L. (1978), Masculinity and Feminity: Their Psychological
Dimensions, Correlates, and Antecedents, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1990), The Transformational Leader – The Key to Global
Competitiveness, John Wiley and Sons.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V. and Milner, C. (2004), “Transformational
leadership and moral reasoning”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 304-11.
Van Eron, A.M. and Burke, W.W. (1992), “The transformational/transactional leadership model.
A study of critical components”, in Clark, K.E., Clark, M.B. and Campbell, D.P. (Eds),
Impact of Leadership, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC, pp. 149-67.
 Van Velsor, E. and Fleenor, J. (1994), “Leadership skills and perspectives, gender and the MBTI”, Gender and
Proceedings of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Leadership: An International
Research Conference, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, January 12-14. personality in
Walck, C.L. (1997), “Using the MBTI in management and leadership. A review of the literature”, leadership
in Fitzgerald, C. and Kirby, L.K. (Eds), Developing Leaders, Davies-Black Publishing, Palo
Alto, CA, pp. 63-114.
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Williams, J.E. and Best, D.L. (1982), Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Thirty Nation Study, Sage, 63
Beverly Hills, CA.
Wilson, J.L. and Wilson, C.L. (1994), “Exploring MBTI type relationships to management skills”,
Proceedings of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Leadership: An International
Research Conference, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, January 12-14.
Yammarino, F.J., Dubinsky, A.J., Comer, L.B. and Jolson, M.A. (1997), “Women and
transformational and contingent reward leadership: a multiple-levels-of-analysis
perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 205-22.

Further reading
Blass, E. and Hackston, J. (2008), “Future skills and current realities: how psychological
( Jungian) type of European business leaders relates to the needs of the future”, Futures,
Vol. 40 No. 9, pp. 822-33.
Norusis, M.J. (1994), SPSS. SPSS 6.1 Base System User’s Guide. Part 2, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL.
Posner, B. and Kouzes, J.M. (1990), “Leadership practices: an alternative to the psychological
perspective”, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership
Library of America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 151-69.
Schullery, N.M., Knudstrup, P., Schullery, S.E. and Pfaff., L.A. (2009), “The relationship between
personality type and 360-degree evaluation of management skills”, Journal of
Psychological Type, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 141-54.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

64
34,1
LODJ

Table AI.

self-ratings)
Similar preferences
in comparison (leaders’
Appendix

Extraversion Introversion Sensing Intuitive Thinking Feeling Judging Perceiving

mean mean mean mean mean mean mean mean
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M

Visioning 0.107 0.148 0.103 0.038 0.059 0.070 0.045 0.141 0.170 0.120 0.100 0.007 0.126 0.118 0.187 0.032
Challenging 0.014 0.364 0.506 0.054 0.332 0.013 0.175 0.636 0.045 0.258 0.214 0.237 0.154 0.121 0.001 0.726
Enabling 0.506 0.203 0.395 0.116 0.475 0.142 0.485 0.088 0.390 0.107 0.596 0.178 0.449 0.147 0.577 0.023
Modeling 0.016 0.036 0.186 0.272 0.091 0.050 0.026 0.166 0.099 0.055 0.019 0.290 0.001 0.047 0.276 0.279
Rewarding 0.227 0.079 0.034 0.290 0.125 0.015 0.232 0.065 0.086 0.002 0.280 0.108 0.064 0.111 0.517 0.313
Overall TFP 0.168 0.152 0.087 0.154 0.047 0.033 0.182 0.127 0.100 0.086 0.109 0.005 0.097 0.046 0.126 0.163
 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

Extraversion mean Introversion mean Sensing mean Intuitive mean Thinking mean Feeling mean Judging mean Perceiving mean
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M

Visioning 0.102 0.081 0.167 0.307 0.106 0.008 0.123 0.339 0.184 0.153 0.168 0.117 0.014 0.139 0.038 0.179
Challenging 0.248 0.029 0.416 0.161 0.369 0.110 0.243 0.012 0.349 0.066 0.277 0.085 0.253 0.237 0.473 0.423
Enabling 0.164 0.553 0.271 0.455 0.131 0.462 0.290 0.606 0.025 0.585 0.413 0.048 0.155 0.478 0.341 0.655
Modeling 0.040 0.166 0.304 0.149 0.207 0.248 0.062 0.044 0.092 0.180 0.183 0.0126 0.157 0.113 0.092 0.300
Rewarding 0.219 0.126 0.221 0.342 0.161 0.051 0.095 0.379 0.049 0.197 0.145 0.146 0.095 0.158 0.064 0.287
Overall TFP 0.010 0.125 0.154 0.223 0.034 0.077 0.100 0.258 0.093 0.164 0.039 0.077 0.028 0.180 0.165 0.080
leadership

appraisals)
Similar preferences in
Gender and

Table AII.
65

comparison (subordinates’
personality in
 LODJ Mean Mean Mean Mean
34,1 Extraversion Introversion Sensing Intuitive Thinking Feeling Judging Perceiving

Visioning 0.107 0.103 0.059 0.045 0.170 0.100 0.126 0.187

Challenging 0.014 0.506 0.332 0.175 0.045 0.214 0.154 0.001
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

66 Enabling 0.506 0.395 0.475 0.485 0.390 0.596 0.449 0.577

Modeling 0.016 0.186 0.091 0.026 0.099 0.019 0.001 0.276
Table AIII.
Women in comparison Rewarding 0.227 0.034 0.125 0.232 0.086 0.280 0.064 0.517
(leaders’ self-ratings) Overall TFP 0.168 0.087 0.047 0.182 0.100 0.109 0.097 0.126

Mean Mean Mean Mean

Extraversion Introversion Sensing Intuitive Thinking Feeling Judging Perceiving

Visioning 0.148 0.038 0.070 0.141 0.120 0.007 0.118 0.032

Challenging 0.364 0.054 0.013 0.636 0.258 0.237 0.121 0.726
Enabling 0.203 0.116 0.142 0.088 0.107 0.178 0.147 0.023
Table AIV. Modeling 0.036 0.272 0.050 0.166 0.055 0.290 0.047 0.279
Men in comparison Rewarding 0.079 0.290 0.015 0.065 0.002 0.108 0.111 0.313
(leaders’ self-ratings) Overall TFP 0.152 0.154 0.033 0.127 0.086 0.005 0.046 0.163

Mean Mean Mean Mean

Extraversion Introversion Sensing Intuitive Thinking Feeling Judging Perceiving

Visioning 0.102 1.167 0.106 0.123 0.184 0.168 0.014 0.038

Challenging 0.248 0.416 0.369 0.243 0.349 0.277 0.253 0.473
Enabling 0.164 0.271 0.131 0.290 0.025 0.413 0.155 0.341
Table AV. Modeling 0.040 0.304 0.207 0.062 0.092 0.183 0.157 0.092
Women in comparison Rewarding 0.219 0.221 0.016 0.954 0.050 0.145 0.095 0.643
(subordinates’ appraisals) Overall TFP 0.010 0.154 0.034 0.100 0.093 0.039 0.028 0.165

Mean Mean Mean Mean

Extraversion Introversion Sensing Intuitive Thinking Feeling Judging Perceiving

Visioning 0.081 0.307 0.008 0.339 0.153 0.117 0.139 0.179

Challenging 0.029 1.161 0.110 0.125 0.066 0.085 0.237 0.423
Enabling 0.553 0.455 0.462 0.606 0.584 0.481 0.478 0.655
Table AVI. Modeling 0.166 0.149 0.248 0.044 0.180 0.126 0.113 0.299
Men in comparison Rewarding 0.126 0.342 0.051 0.379 0.197 0.146 0.158 0.287
(subordinates’ appraisals) Overall TFP 0.125 0.223 0.077 0.258 0.164 0.076 0.180 0.080

Corresponding author
Tiina Brandt can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Pia Hautamäki. Business-to-Business Buyer–Seller Interactions: Personality and Transformational

Leadership Theories’ Perspective 531-542. [CrossRef]
2. Uusi-KakkuriPiia, Piia Uusi-Kakkuri, BrandtTiina, Tiina Brandt, KultalahtiSusanna, Susanna Kultalahti.
2016. Transformational leadership in leading young innovators – a subordinate’s perspective. European
Journal of Innovation Management 19:4, 547-567. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:15 08 October 2017 (PT)

3. Sabine Bergner, Alex Davda, Vicki Culpin, Robert Rybnicek. 2016. Who Overrates, Who Underrates?
Personality and Its Link to Self–Other Agreement of Leadership Effectiveness. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies 23:3, 335-354. [CrossRef]
4. Tânia Menezes Montenegro, Filomena Antunes Bras. 2015. Audit quality: does gender composition
of audit firms matter?. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y
Contabilidad 44:3, 264-297. [CrossRef]
5. Tiina Maria Brandt, Piia Edinger. 2015. Transformational leadership in teams – the effects of a team
leader’s sex and personality. Gender in Management: An International Journal 30:1, 44-68. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
6. Reza Salehzadeh, Arash Shahin, Ali Kazemi, Ali Shaemi Barzoki. 2015. Proposing a new approach for
evaluating the situational leadership theory based on the Kano model. International Journal of Public
Leadership 11:1, 4-20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]