Leadership Attributes Identified by High School Students

Leadership Attributes Identified by High School Students

Paula R. Johnson, Scott W. Brown, Mark A. Boyer,

Clarisse Lima, Michael J. Butler, Natalie Florea,

and Jason Rich

University of Connecticut

Paper presented at the Northeast Education Research Association annual conference, Kerhonkson, NY, October 24, 2003.

This project was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) Project # ED-ERI-84.30ST. The opinions and positions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the United States Department of Education.

Leadership Attributes 2

ABSTRACT

As part of the GlobalEd Project that is conducted at the University of Connecticut,

leadership and gender issues are examined for trends as well as for change over time.

The GlobalEd Project employs a technology rich environment for high school students

who wish to participate in a simulation of international relations and negotiation. A

simulation consists of negotiations on a variety of international policy issues conducted

by students from 10-15 schools through an Internet-based interface. Classes are assigned

to play a country and within that country students are placed in groups to research one of

five topic areas: conflict and cooperation, international economics, global environment,

world health, and human rights. The goal of the simulation is to negotiate with other

countries on the issue areas and eventually form treaties. Thus, in order for a country to

“succeed”, leadership becomes critical not only within the small groups investigating a

specific issue, but also collectively as a country. Finally, gender comes into play

because, as seen in daily life as well as in research studies, males and females tend to

work in groups differently and tend to have different leadership approaches. As a result,

this analysis examines how students’ perceptions of the traits of an effective leader

change throughout the course of the simulation, as well as how in leadership is viewed

according to gender. A discriminant function analysis (DFA) was employed to predict

the gender of the student based on the response pattern to the specific traits of leadership.

The DFA analyses revealed classifications of 54% to 65% for identifying the gender of

the student with specific variables.


Introduction

The study of leadership is crucial because leadership determines much of the

success or the failure of schools, businesses, governments, and nations. Identifying a

leader who has succeeded or who has failed is easy. Scratching the surface of successful

leaders, from sports to politics, one can think of numerous leaders such as Billy Jean

King, Michael Jordan, Rosa Parks or Dr. Marin Luther King, Jr. Naming leaders who

have failed is similarly as easy. Despite the ease in identifying successful or unsuccessful

leaders, the difficulty lies in defining what makes a leader effective. Hogan, Gordon, and

Hogan (1994) state that often great leadership cannot be defined, but that when good

leadership does not exist, “teams lose, armies are defeated, economies dwindle, and

nations fall” (p. 403). With the immensity of these potential ramifications, being able to

identify effective leadership is vital.

Leadership, according to Hogan et al., (1994), is persuading people to a common

goal and getting other individuals to adopt goals of a group as their own. Judge and Bono

(2000) indicate that there are two types of leadership: transformational leadership and

transactional leadership. Transformational leadership is similar to Hogan et al.’s (1994)

definition and is the act of getting people to adopt goals beyond their self-interests. Bass

(1981) characterized transformational leadership by four traits: idealized influence,

which is the charisma of a person; inspirational motivation, which is the definition of an

appealing goal; intellectual stimulation, which is the ability to stimulate followers to

question the status quo; and individual consideration, which is the supporting of

followers’ needs. Transformational leadership is also associated with social power,

defined as the ability to influence others (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985, as cited in Dovidio et


al, 1988). Whereas transformational leadership requires a leader to be integrally involved

with the followers, transactional leadership is more of an exchange relationship where a

leader is more of a monitor of the followers. A transactional leader provides followers

with a contingent reward, manages passively and intervenes only when necessary.

Judge, Bono, Illies, and Gerhard (2002) distinguish between leadership

emergence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership emergence is the perception by

others that this individual is a leader. Leadership emergence is a within-group

phenomenon where a leader emerges from an initially leaderless group. Leadership

effectiveness is the performance in achieving a group’s goals and this is a between groups

factor. Thus, in a group situation, leaders emerge based on group members’ views that a

person has the characteristics of a leader. The characteristics that individuals utilize for

selecting emergent leaders is a focus of this study, as well as how gender plays a role in

leadership.

Rush, Thomas, and Lord (1977, as cited in Hogan et al., 1994) stated that we have

a preconceived notion about leadership and we use the following criteria to evaluate

leadership potential of others: intelligence, honesty, sociability, understanding,

aggressiveness, verbal skills, determination, and industriousness. Hogan et al. (1994)

indicated that 10 measures are indicative of emergent leaders: dominance, extraversion,

sociability, ambition or achievement, responsibility, integrity, self-confidence, mood and

emotional control, diplomacy, and cooperativeness. These 10 measures were later

reduced to 4: surgency (dominance, assertiveness, energy or activity level, speech

fluency, and social participation), emotional stability (adjustment, emotional balance,

independence, and self-confidence), conscientiousness (responsibility, achievement,


initiative, personal integrity, and ethical conduct), and agreeableness (friendliness, social

nearness, and support). Yukl, Wall, and Lepsinger (1990, as cited by Hogan et al, 1994)

also had a fairly exhaustive list of 14 categories characteristic of a leader: planning and

organizing, problem solving, clarifying, informing, monitoring, motivating, consulting,

recognizing, supporting, managing conflict and team building, networking, delegating,

developing and mentoring, and rewarding.

A more compact model of leadership is the Big Five model of personality (Judge

& Bono, 2000). The Big Five model asserts that leaders embody five principle

personality characteristics: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional

adjustment, and openness to experience. Extraversion includes characteristics such as

outgoing, assertive, active the ability to be socially dominant, but not aggressive,

energetic and zealous. Agreeable encompasses traits such as kind, gentle, trusting, warm

and empathic. Conscientiousness refers to achievement and dependability while

openness to experience is defined by creativity, imaginativeness, perceptiveness, and

thoughtfulness. Finally, emotional adjustment, sometimes called neuroticism, is the

tendency not to be anxious fearful, depressed and moody.

In a meta-analysis of 73 samples, Judge et al. (2002) found that of the Big Five

personality traits, extraversion, rather than agreeableness as indicated by Judge and Bono

(2000), was the most consistently correlated with leadership, but it was more strongly

related to leadership emergence than to leadership effectiveness. In Judge et al. (2002),

agreeableness was the least of the Big Five personality factors to be correlated with

leadership except when student samples were involved and when the criterion was

effectiveness. Conscientiousness and openness to experience were the next strongest


correlates to leadership, although consciousness was again more related to leadership

emergence than to leadership effectiveness. Contrary to Mount et al.’s (1998, as cited in

Judge and Bono, 2000) rationale for the importance of agreeableness in leadership, Bono

et al. (2002) found in their meta-analysis that agreeableness was the least relevant of the

Big Five traits to leadership, except when the criterion was effectiveness and with student

samples. An important note is to consider that the Big 5 factors predicted student

leadership better than leadership in business, government or military settings.

Characteristics of leaders according to adolescents do not differ significantly from

adults’ perspectives (Edwards, 1994). Adolescents, with a mean age of 16.7, were asked

to rank nine leadership traits. Adults completed the same task. Both adults and

adolescents ranked integrity and knowledge or skills in the top three. Adults and

adolescents also ranked two of the three lowest traits similarly. One significant

difference was that adolescents valued creativity more than adults. This finding may

represent students’ idealism that has not yet been suppressed by reality. Another

difference found in studies of school-aged girls is that leaders are often chosen by social

status and popularity; however, intuitively, social status and popularity seem to pervade

adults’ decisions regarding leadership as well. Similarly, sixth, seventh, and eighth

graders identified personality, dominance, popularity and physical appearance as the

principle components of a leader (Crocket, Losoff, & Peterson, 1984, as cited in

Edwards, 1994). Again, in junior girl scout groups, leaders were selected based on

skills, but popularity and attractiveness also played a significant role.


Leadership and Gender

Up to this point, leadership has been discussed in gender-neutral terms. Yet in a

mixed-gender society, gender and leadership is important to study because in order to

determine if males and females lead differently and if followers subscribe to a male or

female leader differently. Gender role theory posits that societal gender roles and gender

typing of tasks exist (Eagly & Karau, 1991). According to one gender stereotype, the

male role is identified by assertiveness and organization while the female stereotype is

one of passivity, submissiveness and dependence (Eskilson & Wiley, 1976). More

recently, the typical man is still described as independent, masterful, assertive, and

competent; whereas, the typical woman is considered to be friendly, unselfish, concerned

with others, and emotionally expressive. Gender role stereotypes define women as those

who rear the children and do domestic work, while men are the breadwinners. While the

stereotype for men is to focus on controlling outcomes, the stereotype for women is that

they should be concerned about group feelings and harmony (Eagly & Karau, 1991). If

emergent leaders are characterized as being more task oriented and in initially leaderless

groups, if the goal is task oriented, then the gender role theory, refers to the idea that men

emerge as leaders simply because of their sex and because leadership has been defined by

society as a male task. If, however, the group’s goal were social harmony, then women

would emerge as leaders.

Similar to Eagly and Karau (1991) who indicated that there is a difference

between task oriented leaders and leaders concerned with social harmony, Driskell, et al.,

(1993) studied the effectiveness of men and women in groups when displaying task cues

versus dominance cues. Task cues were defined as behaviors that implied ability such as


verbal fluency, rapid rate of speech, or a well-modulated voice tone. Dominance cues

were defined as control through threat such as glaring, pointing, or loud speech. These

researchers found that when women demonstrated high task cues, there were perceived as

being more competent and more influential than when they displayed low task cues.

Also, when women displayed high tasked cues, they were seen as more pleasant and

more group oriented. These results also held true for men. This study suggests that for

women to enhance leadership in mixed-sex groups, they should demonstrate high task

behaviors.

Over time, as people get to know more about each others’ competence,

expectations based on gender diminish. In fact, according to gender role theory, the

longer group members have to assess each other’s competence, the tendency for men to

emerge as leaders decreases. If the goal of the group is to succeed, then as Littlepage,

Whisler, Schmidt, and Frost (1991, as cited in Karakowsky and Siegel, 1999) state,

recognition of expertise in group work and the amount of expertise within the group is

critical for choosing a leader and for the group’s success. As a result, leadership depends

on context rather than on individual traits Barnlund (1962, as cited in Zaccaro, Foti, &

Kenny, 1991). Stogdill (1948, as cited in Zaccaro et al., 1991) concurs that leadership is

situational and a leader in one situation may not be a leader in another.

Eagly and Carli (1981, as cited in Karakowksy and Siegel, 1999) discuss gender

role theory as an expectation states theory explaining that people behave consistently

with others’ gender role expectations. Such beliefs associated with traditional and social

roles held by women indicate that males will outperform females with regard to

leadership in mixed gender groups solely because of the traditional status of men. In


addition to gender-role theory and to expectation states theory, Karakowsky and Siegel

(1999) address leadership with regard to proportional representation. Whether male or

female, regardless of the gender roles that may exist, in a group that may be 75% male

and 15% female, the female becomes a representative.

Similar to Loden’s (1985) assertion that the feminine mode of leadership is

characterized by lower control for the leader, Eagly and Johnson (1990) indicated that

women had a more democratic approach to leadership where men were more directive.

Eskilson and Wiley (1976) also asserted that males were more task oriented in leadership

while females created a balance between task and emotional needs of the followers.

Again referring to gender composition and size of groups, Craig and Sherif (1986)

found that women’s ideas are suppressed in mixed-gender groups, but that women had

more influence when there were two males and two females than in a group with one man

and three women. Men had more influence in groups with one man and three women

than in a group with three men and one woman. However, Eskilson and Wiley (1976)

found a somewhat different result when they determined that a female leader exhibited

the least amount of leader like behavior in a group with two males. Overall, as there was

an increase in the number of women in a group, a decrease of stereotyping, an

improvement in attitudes toward women, and an increase in the consideration of

women’s ideas. The greatest amount of female leadership was found to occur in an all

female group and likewise, the greatest amount of leadership or leader like behavior for

males occurred in an all male group (Eskilson & Wiley, 1976). Female leaders that

achieved a leadership position were also more involved than female leaders who were

appointed as leaders, perhaps because being achieved validated their credibility.


Interestingly, after participating in a study, females were less likely to choose themselves

as future leaders (Eskilson & Wiley, 1976).

Despite the number of studies that do purport differences in leadership based on

gender, Dobbins and Platz (1986) found that in their meta-analytic review, there are no

differences in leader behavior or in subordinate satisfaction. This result of no differences

in follower behavior with male or female leaders was also confirmed by Eagly and

Johnson (1990). Differences between male and female leader effectiveness were found,

where males were determined as more effective leaders, but this was only seen in

laboratory studies. Sex differences were also small in organizational and assessment

studies (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). In field studies, these differences were nonexistent.

The conclusions based on the lab studies could have been due to the limited time for

group members to evaluate each other’s skills and thus the participants reverted to their

implicit sex role biases. In managerial settings, stereotypic gender role behavior seems

less predominant because these leaders are socialized into the roles and care more about

being successful than fulfilling gender role stereotypes. However, people not trained for

leadership exhibit stereotypic leadership (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Other researchers

(Bass, 1981; Kanter, 1977; Nieva & Gutek, 1981) have also determined that there is no

evidence that delineates differences between male and female leaders, that female leaders

behave similarly to male leaders, and that there are no differences in leadership style.

Leadership and Political Science

Because people in power are those who create American foreign policy that

affects the general public, personal characteristics of those decision makers are important

to consider (Kegley & Wittkopf, 1996). Stoessinger reiterated just how personality


affects foreign policy, “a leader’s personality is a decisive element in the making of

foreign policy” (1985; as cited in Rourke, Carter, & Boyer 1996, p. 144). A clear

example of the influence that personalities have on behavior is indicative by the

nicknames that leaders have often acquired, such as “give ‘em hell” Harry Truman or

“Slick Willie” Clinton (Kegley & Wittkopf, 1996). In addition to general personality,

Rourke, et al., (1996) noted that decisions are influenced by perceptions, emotions, and

mental and physical health.

Kegley and Wittkopf (1996) also categorized 10 profiles of personality and how

they affect foreign policy decisions: the nationalist, the militarist, the conservative, the

pragmatist, the paranoid, the Machiavellian, the true believer, the authoritarian, the

antiauthoritarian, and the dogmatist. The nationalist is concerned with his/her own

country and when making decisions does not take into account other countries. The

nationalist also believes that international conflict is appropriate and inevitable when

advancing national self-interests. The militarist views aggression as an appropriate

means of foreign policy. The conservative is defined as being hostile, intolerant, and

compulsive. The conservative also believes that inequality is inevitable and thus the best

way to deal with other countries is to simply avoid them. McClosky (1958; Kegley &

Wittkopf, 1996) states that most often conservatives are found among the uniformed,

socially isolated, poorly educated, and less intelligent. The pragmatist utilizes whatever

strategy that will bring success. The paranoid feels a sense of fear and mistrust in others

and believe that people are out to get them. Meanwhile, the Machiavellian embodies a

fear of losing and will implement cunning and manipulative strategies. True believers are

fanatics and believe in ideologies whole heartedly. The authoritarian adheres to


conventional values, protocol, and rules and order while the antiauthoritarian revolts

against order and embraces change. Finally, the dogmatist has a closed mind and rejects

new ideas or opinions.

Another categorization based on dimensions of character has been proposed by

Barber (1992 as cited in Kegley & Wittkopf, 1996) who classified presidents as either

active-positive, active-negative, passive-positive, or passive-negative. The active

presidents are those who are eager to be engaged in policy making, are energized by the

challenges that their leadership position brings, and often like to stir up debate. The

passive presidents maintain policy and avoid conflict. Whether a president is categorized

as positive or negative depends on his level of contentment with their appointment. In

short, active-positives intend to achieve results, active-negatives covet and keep power,

passive-positives believe that love conquers all, and demonstrate civic values

respectively.

Leadership and Management Styles

As indicated by previous researchers (Eagly & Karan, 1991; Hogan, Gordon, &

Hogan, 1994; Littlepage, Whisler, Schmidt, & Frost, 1991, as cited in Karakowsky and

Siegel, 1999) competence influences leadership. Additionally, knowledge plays a role

not only in determining leadership, but also according to George (1982), three factors, the

amount of knowledge, views toward conflict, and cognitive style, influence organization.

Considering variations in leadership, George (1982) defined three basic management

models, the collegial model, the formalistic model, and the competitive model, in what

may be defined as one of the largest leadership roles, the presidency. Most characteristic

to small groups is the collegial model. The collegial model is based on teamwork and


shared responsibility where advisors serve as a debate team and power is decentralized. It

also requires close contact between the president, the secretary of state, and the special

assistant. However, as cautioned by Rourke, et al., (1996) with regard to small groups,

this collegial approach entails a risk that teamwork will result in group think where there

is pressure to achieve consensus, and thus subordinates do not dissent and those who

dissent are excluded and their policy options dismissed. As Lake stated “I think there is a

danger what when people work well together you can take the edge off options [to

develop] ‘groupthink’ [with] not enough options reaching the president” (as cited in

Rourke, et al., 1996, p. 136). In the formalistic model, the flow of information proceeds

through a basic hierarchy from agencies within departments to advisors and cabinet heads

and then to the president. In this model, advisors are not encouraged to collaborate with

each other, thus eliminating group think; however, the diversity of ideas is limited

without disagreement. On the contrary, in the competitive model, conflict and

disagreement is encouraged and fuzzy chains of command exist, which stimulates more

conflict, yet information still flows through a network to the president.

Cognitive and interpersonal styles is how a leader frames problems. These styles

consist of conceptual complexity, distrust, and task emphasis. Conceptual complexity is

being able to see things from multiple perspectives and accepting ambiguity. Conceptual

complexity influences how aggressive a leader is in foreign policy (Driver, 1977, as cited

by Hermann, 1980). Distrust entails seeing the world as a threat, viewing others with

doubts, uneasiness, or misgivings, and being suspicious of others. Finally, task emphasis

versus social-emotional emphasis is the act of centering on a goal and on solving

problems or what needs to get done versus concentrating on the needs of the group and its


morale, the establishment of relationships, and the maintenance of loyal constituents.

Based on these components, Hermann (1980) also classified two types of leaders:

aggressive and conciliatory. Aggressive leaders have the need for power, do not see

things from multiple perspectives or rather do not consider various alternatives, are

distrustful of others, maintain nationalist interests, and believe that they have control over

events in which they are involved. These leaders will negotiate when necessary, but on

their own terms. On the contrary, conciliatory leaders have the need for affiliation, are

able to see things from multiple perspectives, trust others, are not as concerned about

national sovereignty, and do not hold the idea that they can control many of the events in

which they are involved. These leaders are more participatory when dealing with other

nations.

Political Leadership and Gender

This discussion of leadership traits and of gender differences is especially

pertinent when choosing political leaders because men and women have differing views

of power, national security, and other political practices (Rourke, et al., 1996).

Additionally, Kirkpatrick (1974, as cited in Kegley, Jr. & Wittkopf, 1996) identified four

types of female politicians, the leader, the personalizer, the moralizer, and the problem

solver, most of which greatly differ from the profiles of males that were discussed

previously. Specifically, war is one issue where men are consistently more approving

than women. For instance, stemming from the first woman to be elected to Congress,

Montana Republican Jeannette Rankin was the only member of Congress to vote against

World War I and World War II. Likewise, the National Opinion Research Center

(NORC) conducted polls from September 1950 until June 1952 during the Korean War


that also showed greater support of the war from white and black males than from white

and black females. Similar trends were present for the Vietnam War (Mueller, 1973).

Mueller (1973) cited surveys conducted in 1953 that claimed an effect of women’s

liberation could be to diminish sex differences on war. With liberation, women would

have the potential to be more “hawkish” and would approve the use of force as a method

of problem solving instead of being peaceful, dovelike women. Yet, years after the

women’s liberation movement in the U.S., it appears that males are still more hawkish

and females more dovelike as demonstrated by recent polls in the war against Iraq where

45% of males versus 21% of females strongly supported the war

(http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/5303760.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0227-07.htm ). Eichenberg (2003) agrees that there is

differential acceptance of the use of force and found that across 486 surveys of historical

episodes from 1990-2003, there was a statistically significant difference between men

and women with regard to the use of military violence, with men being greater

supporters. In fact, Eichenberg (2003) notes that a majority of men support the use of

force in eight of nine types of action; whereas, women only support three. However,

Eichenberg (2003) offers an explanation for these gender differences. Basically, the

support for the use of force will depend on the policy objective, the success or failure of

the operation, and the degree of leadership consensus. If the principle objective concerns

foreign policy restraint and humanitarian intervention, greater support in general is

exhibited. Humanitarian efforts, however, yield much greater support from women than

from men. Women are also more supportive of force against countries who are

historically violent towards women. Women are also more sensitive to human costs of


conflict. Despite these historically consistent findings Eichenberg (2003) cautions that

“women are not uniformly pacifist, nor are men uniformly bellicose. Any difference is at

the margins” (p. 138).

Methods

The GlobalEd Project: An Experimental Web-based Study of Gender Differences

in Group Decision Making and Negotiation Skills is a research study examining gender

differences in self-efficacy, and, knowledge, attitudes and behaviors (KABs) as they

relate to international studies, the use of technology, and student outcomes. The

GlobalEd Project has its roots in the International Communication and Negotiation

Simulations (ICONS) project developed by the University of Maryland in the early 1980s

for college students. Since then, the project was extended to reach high school and

middle school students with the creation of new ICONS centers to help spread these

instructional methods to a broader segment of students (Boyer, Brown, Butler, Florea,

Weir, Mayall, & Johnson, 2002; Brown, Boyer, Mayall, Johnson, Meng, Butler, Weir,

Florea, Hernandez, & Reis, 2003; Brown & Mayall, 2000; Brown & Mayall, 2001).

GlobalEd is a problem-based simulation embedded within the classroom that uses

technologies, such as email and synchronous and asynchronous discussion formats, to

facilitate communication between groups of students at various school locations, each

representing a designated real-world country during the period of the total simulation

(approximately 6 weeks). Students interact with participants from other schools using the

technology tools within the simulation in order to achieve the goals of the simulation:

drafting and negotiating bilateral and multilateral agreements with other countries


participating in the simulation. Students also learn to use web resources for studying the

history, culture and values of their assigned country.

Simulation Procedure

Students in classes were assigned a country six to eight weeks before the

simulation. They were given five topical areas (human rights, global environment,

conflict and cooperation, international economics, and world health) and told that their

country had to “stay in character” and that the scenario for the simulation in which they

would be participating was set six months into the future.i

Students were instructed to learn about the values and customs of their respective

countries prior to the simulation, so that they would be prepared to make appropriate “in

character” responses. A total of 19 different high school classes (countries) participated

in the fall 2002 simulation and 20 middle school classes participated in the winter of the

same academic year. The United States was played by a college team and served to

provide some level of control and consistency in the subject matter. The data from the

college team is not included in the analysis of student responses. An experienced

doctoral student in international relations served as the simulation coordinator - Simcon.

The role of Simcon is to monitor the on-line discussions, review email transmissions

between countries, and provide control over the simulation so that countries stay in

character, insure appropriate diplomatic language is used, and answer questions about

rules and procedures for the participants.

Each simulation lasted a total of six weeks and students participated each school

day in the simulation, whether through on-line conferences, e-mails to other countries,

searching the web for information, or preparing diplomatic documents and responses.


Additionally, students were able to use their own computers from home or other public

access points to draft documents, review data, and collaborate within their own country

or with other countries (and over 85% of the students reported internet access at home).

However, there were no student names exchanged between countries nor were there any

references to the gender of specific student negotiators. Only names such as Canada

(human rights committee) were used to communicate with Nigeria (human rights

committee). Since the simulation software provided the email and discussion access, the

anonymity of the participants was maintained between countries. Students were

restricted to the use of the simulation software for intra- and inter- class/country

communications.

Participants

The high school sample consisted of 253 participants, with nearly an equal

distribution of males and females, in high school (grades 9-12) across Connecticut,

Indiana, and Rhode Island, participating in the simulation during the fall of 2002. The

middle school sample was comprised of 366 participants with 176 males and 189 females

participating in the winter of the 2002-2003 school year. The middle school students

were from Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maryland, and

Nebraska.

There were three types of groups formed across the countries in the simulation: an

all girls group, an all boys group, and/or a mixed gender group. These groups were

assigned to one of the specific issue areas within the simulation by the teacher. The

gender groupings were used within the class. The analyses reported here refer to the

specific gender of the student, and not the gender grouping in the class.


Instrumentation

The students were administered a series of instruments via the web, collecting

demographic information and leadership information. The first set of items consists of

open-ended questions where students are asked to identify a person who exemplifies

leadership. Students provide the leader’s name, the position that that this leader holds,

and why the student selected this leader. Next, the students are asked to rate their own

leadership in and outside of school. Finally, the instrument lists 31 characteristics and

asks the participants to state whether they agree or disagree that the characteristic is

important to effective leadership. See Appendix A for the instruments.

Results

High School

A step-wise discriminant function analysis (DFA) was conducted on the responses of

the high school students to the 31 leadership attributes for the pre-test and the post-test to

determine the ability of a subset of attributes to predict the gender of the student. At the

pre-test, the variables organized, energetic, and athletic were found to be statistically

significant in determining the variables that discriminate between males and females. The

model created from these three variables accurately classified 62% of all students into

their correct gender grouping, and was statistically significant [Λ =.95, F=(1, 221)=11.9,

p<.05].

Table 1

Predicted gender by pre-test items: organized, energetic, and athletic for high school

students.


Predicted Gender

Male Female

Male 60.2% 39.8%

True

Gender

Female 36.4% 63.6%

A second DFA was conducted on the post-test set of items for the high school students

with a different set of items emerging as significant predictors for the gender of the

student. The items energetic, popular, and agreeable remained, athletic and school spirit

were removed, and organized were added to the model. The Wilks’ Lambda was

significant for this model containing the items energetic, popular, agreeable, and

organized, respectively [ Λ=.97, F=(1, 223)=7.5, p<.05]. With this model, 65.1% of the

students were classified correctly, 65% of males and 65% of females were classified

correctly (Table 2).

Table 2

Predicted gender by post-test items: athletic, energetic, school spirit, agreeable, and

popular for high school students

Predicted Gender

Male Female

Male 64.7% 35.3%

True

Gender

Female 34.6% 65.4%


Middle School

An identical set of step-wise DFAs were conducted on the middle school student data

set as was conducted for the high school, to determine which of the 31 items could

predict gender These DFAs were run twice, for the pre-test and for the post-test. The

DFA at pre-test included three predictors: competitive, school spirit, and takes initiative.

These three predictors accurately classified 60% of the students and resulted in a

statistically significant model [Λ=.97, F=(1, 331)=9.6, p<.05]. When errors in the

classification were made, more males than females were mistakenly classified (Table 3).

Table 3

Predicted gender by pre-test items: competitive, school spirit, takes initiative for middle

school students

Predicted Gender

Male Female

Male 33.3% 66.7%

True

Gender

Female 15.5% 94.5%

At the post-test, only one item emerged as a predictor, friendly. This statistically

significant model correctly classified a mere 54% of the students [Λ=.98, F=(1, 321)=5.7,

p<.05]. Again, males were misclassified as females more frequently than females were

classified to be males (Table 4).

Table 4

Predicted gender by post-test items: friendly


Predicted Gender

Male Female

Male 6.9% 93.1%

True

Gender

Female 2.1% 97.9%

Combined – Middle and High School Sample

When the middle school and the high school samples were combined into one large

sample, at the pre-test, six items emerged as predictors and a significant model: [Λ=.98,

F=(1, 554)=13.6, p<.05]organized, competitive, friendly, athletic, school spirit, and

resourceful. Overall at the pre-test, 62% of the cases were correctly classified. Slightly

more females than males were classified correctly. Approximately 40% of males were

incorrectly classified as females and 36% of females were inaccurately classified as

males (Table 5).

Table 5

Predicted gender by pre-test items: organized, competitive, friendly, athletic, school

spirit, and resourceful for the combined data set

Predicted Gender

Male Female

Male 60.3% 39.7%

True

Gender

Female 36.0% 64.0%

At the post-test, organized, school spirit, and competitive again emerged as

significant predictors : [Λ=.98, F=(1, 546)=8.9, p<.05]. Friendly, athletic, and


resourceful were no longer included and were replaced by the item quiet. At the post-

test, 60% of all students were correctly classified as male or female (Table 6).

Table 6

Predicted gender by post-test items: organized, quiet, school spirit, and competitive for

the combined data set

Predicted Gender

Male Female

Male 53.1% 46.9%

True

Gender

Female 34.5% 65.5%

Discussion

For the high school sample, two predictors were the same in the pre and the post,

organized and energetic. At the pre, athletic was a predictor, but at the post athletic

disappeared and both popular and agreeable were found to classify students. Perhaps

after participating in the GlobalEd simulation, students felt that if a leader is agreeable,

treaties are formed easier. This might also be the case with a popular leader.

Hypothetically, if a leader is popular, then perhaps negotiations are easier. With regard to

gender, the emergence of the item popular as a predictor of gender is contradictory to

Edwards’ (1994) finding that girls choose leaders based on popularity because in this

study, more high school males than females chose this item as important to leaders at the

post-test. Agreeable, which falls under agreeableness in the Big Five model of personality

(Judge & Bono, 2000), appeared in the post results at the high school level and was


selected by more males than females, again contradicting the conciliatory, peaceful view

of women and the “hawkish men” (Mueller, 1973).

For the middle school students, great change occurred between the pre-and the

post-test. At the pre, competitive, school spirit, and takes initiative emerged as

predictors. At the post-test, the only significant item that emerged was friendly.

When the two samples were combined, competitive, school spirit, and organized

appeared in the pre- and the post-test. Athletic, friendly, and resourceful appeared in the

pre, but were nonexistent in the post analyses. Instead, quiet appeared in the post model.

Organization, which emerged in the pre- and the post-test for the high school students

and in the combined groups, falls under one of the 14 categories, planning and

organizing, defined by Yukl, et al. (1990, as cited by Hogan et al., 1994). Organization

and assertiveness are also gender stereotypes of males (Eskilson &Wiley, 1976). I would

argue that assertiveness as defined by Eskilson and Wiley (1976) and competitiveness are

highly correlated. With this assumption, this study, which found that more males than

females selected the item competitive as an important trait to leaders, confirms Eskilson

and Wiley’s (1976) designation of assertiveness as a male trait. The alignment of males

with competition also coincides with the political science literature, if competition falls

under Mueller’s (1973) definition of hawkish.

Conversely, for the combined samples pre-test more females than males

considered the item friendly to be an important characteristic of leadership. With regard

to personality stereotypes, the typical woman is considered to be friendly. Here again,

the results support the literature on gender stereotypes (Eskilson & Wiley, 1976). From a

political science perspective, we propose that the male students who saw competitiveness


and the female students who saw friendly as important to leadership could fall under

Hermann’s (1980) classification of aggressive leaders and conciliatory leaders. Perhaps

friendly would also be included in Mueller’s (1973) definition of dovelike women. The

more frequent selections of the item friendly by women also parallels the fact that

humanitarian efforts are supported more often by women than by men (Eichenberg,

2003). The disappearance of friendly from the pre to the post-test could indicate that

after the simulations males found this item to be more important in a leader and that

females found it to be slightly less important. Thus, no significant gender differences

were detected. The emergence of school spirit as a predictor of gender aligns with

Edwards’ (1994) study of school-aged girls who often chose leaders by status and

popularity. In the combined sample, more girls than boys chose this item as important to

leadership in the pre and the post-test.

In contrast to Eskilson and Wiley (1976) who indicated that organization is

stereotypically a personality trait assigned to males, in this study more females than

males selected organized as an important attribute of leaders.

One positive aspect of this study is that the item knowledge did not distinguish

between males. Researchers in both the education and the political science camps have

indicated that competence influences leadership (Eagly & Karan, 1991; Hogan, et al.,

1994). If this is the case, and if middle and high school boys and girls both agree that

competence is important to leadership, then the selection of leaders should be open to

males and to females.

Despite the differences that emerged as predictors of student gender, perhaps the

reason why the largest classification was only 65% is because as Eichenberg (2003)


cautions “women are not uniformly pacifist, nor are men uniformly bellicose. Any

difference is at the margins” (p. 138). As demonstrated here, the differences between

men and women are at the margins, with the greatest margin being 15%. Also, because

students are working in a virtual environment where they do not know the gender of other

students, this may affect how leadership is viewed. For instance, Dividio et al. (1988)

studied verbal and nonverbal power when people are face to face, but these definitions

would not function for evaluation of power and leadership in the GlobalEd environment.

Thus, we may need to redefine verbal and nonverbal power in a virtual world. Also, if

perceived competence and leadership are conveyed by matching the gender of the task

with the person, again what happens when an all female group of students communicates

online with another group of students, whose gender is unknown to them, on typically

masculine topics, such as arms control? With the use of online environments, where

gender is unknown and students can take on various personas, will distinct classifications

of gender related leadership attributes begin to mesh together?


References

Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research

(rev. ed.). New York: Free Press)

Brown, S.W., Boyer, M.A., Mayall, H.J., Johnson, P.R., Meng, L., Butler, M.J., Weir, K.,

Florea, N., Hernandez, M., & Reis, S., (2003). The GlobaEd project: Gender

differences in a problem-based learning environment of international negotiations.

Instructional Science, 31 (4-5) 255-276.

Craig, J.M. & Sherif, C.W. (1986). The effectiveness of men and women in problem-

solving groups as a function of group gender composition. Sex Roles, 14, 453-

465.

Dobbins, G.H. & Platz, S.J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: How real are they?

Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 118-127.

Dovidio, J.F., Brown, C.E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S.L., Keating, C.F. (1988). Power

displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A

multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 580-

587.

Driskell, J.E., Olmstead, B. and Salas, E. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and

influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 51-60.

Eagly, A.H. & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style. Psychological

Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256.

Eagly, A.H., & Karau, S.J.(1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685-710.


Edwards, C.A. (1994). Leadership in Groups of School-Age Girls. Developmental

Psychology, 30(6), 920-927.

Eichenberg, R.C. (2003). Gender differences in public attitudes toward the use of force

by the United States, 1990-2003. International Security, 28(1), 110-141.

Eskilson, A., & Wiley, M.G. (1976). Sex composition and leadership in small groups.

Sociometry, 39, 183-194.

George, A.L. (1982). The president and defense policymaking. In J.F. Reichart & S.R.

Sturm (Eds.), American defense policy (pp. 630-638). Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Hermann, M.G. (1999). Assessing leadership style: A trait analysis. Social Science

Automation, Inc. Accessed September 18, 2003.

http://www.vranet.com/Govt1027/LeadershipStyle.html

Hermann, M.G. (1980). Explaining foreign policy behavior using the personal

characteristics of political leaders. International Studies Quarterly, 24(1), 7-46.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership:

Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.

Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational

leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Illies, R., & Gerhardt, M.W. (2002). Personality and leadership:

A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-

780.

Kanter, R.M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. (New York: Basic Books)


Karakowsky, L. & Siegel, J.P. (1999). The effects of proportional representation and

gender orientation of the task on emergent leadership behavior in mixed-gender

work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 620-631.

Kegley Jr., C.W. & Wittkopf, E.R. (1996). American foreign policy (5th ed.). New York,

NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Loden, M. (1985). Feminine Leadership or how to succeed in business without being one

of the boys. (New York: Times Books).

Morris, G. B. (1991). Perceptions of leadership traits: Comparison of adolescent and

adult school leaders. Psychological Reports, 69, 723-727.

Mueller, J.E. War, presidents and public opinion. (1973). New York: NY: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Ott, E.M. (1989). Effects of male-female ratio at work: Police women and male nurses.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 41-57.

Rourke, J.T, Carter, R.G., Boyer, M.A. (1996). Making American foreign policy (2nd

ed.). Dubuque, IA: Times Mirror Higher Education Group, Inc.

Winter, D.G., Hermann, M.G., Weintraub, W., Walker, S.G. (1996). The personalities of

Bush and Gorbachev measured at a distance: Procedures, portraits, and policy. In

G.J. Ikenberry (Ed.). American foreign policy. New York, NY: HarperCollins,

565-592.

Zaccaro, S.J., Foti, R.J., Kenny, D.A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in

leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308-315.


Appendix A

Pre-Simulation GlobalEd Student Questionnaire Fall 2002

This questionnaire is being administered to all students participating in the GlobalEd project at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. All responses are confidential and will not be associated with your identity.

In order to participate in the six month follow-ups that are part of this research project we are asking for your email address and a permanent mailing address. Completion of the

follow-ups will enter you in a drawing for a prize packet.

Email Address: Permanent Mailing Address: Street: City: Zip code:

Gender: Grade: Ethnicity: Are you a US citizen? 1.Yes 2.No If no, of what country are you a citizen? __________________________________________________ Do you speak or read any languages other than English? (check all that apply) 1. Spanish 2. Japanese 3. French 4.Russian 5.German 6.Chinese 7.Other

Have you traveled outside of the United States? 1.Yes 2.No If yes, what countries? _________________________________________________

What is the reason you took this course? (check all that apply)

1.Required 2.Interested in the topic 3.Heard it was a good course

4.Diversity credit 5.Distribution requirement 6.The reputation of the teacher

7.Other


Do you plan to go to college? If you plan to go to college, what major(s) are you considering? Do you have access to a computer at home? <> Yes <>No If you have a computer at home, do you have access to the Internet? <> Yes <>No Do you read a daily newspaper? <> Yes <>No Do you read a weekly news-magazine? (Such as Time, Newsweek, or another similar periodical) <> Yes <>No <>Sometimes I watch the local television news Sometimes Often I watch the national news Never Sometimes Often Indicate the average number of hours per week that you spend on homework for all your classes. 1-2 hours 3-5 hours 6-10 hours 11-15 hours more than 15 hours Indicate the average number of hours per week that you spend on homework for this class. 1-2 hours 3-5 hours 6-10 hours 11-15 hours more than 15 hours What grades do you usually get on your report card? A's B's C's D's or less What grade do you expect to receive in this course? A B C Less than C On average, how much time per week do you spend using the Internet? (Either in school or at home) None 1-2 hours 3-5 hours 6-10 hours more than 10 hours per week


Leadership Survey: Pre-Simulation

© All rights reserved. Please do not use this survey in any way without written permission from the authors.

Do you participate in organized sports (after school or club/ town teams)? Yes No

Identify a living person you believe exemplifies leadership. This person may demonstrate leadership at either the local, state, national or international level. The leader may be someone you know personally, or have read about or heard about. Please be sure to respond to all the items.

1) Leaders’ name:

_________________________________________

2) What is the position/job of the person you selected?

_________________________________________________________________________

3) Briefly describe why you selected this person

_________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

Using the following scale of A, B and C, where:

A = outstanding leadership ability,

B = good leadership ability, and

C = little or poor leadership ability.

Rate yourself regarding:


Leadership ability in School A B C Leadership ability outside of school A B C

What qualities do you think are important for a good leader to have? If you think a leader should be funny, mark yes, if not mark no. There are no right or wrong answers.

Attributes of a Leader Circle one Example: Funny Yes No 1. Encouraging Yes No 2. Good Grades Yes No 3. Outspoken Yes No 4. Motivated Yes No 5. School spirit Yes No 6. Patience Yes No 7. Resourceful Yes No 8. Organized Yes No 9. Good listener Yes No 10. Competitive Yes No 11. Good writer Yes No 12. Approachable Yes No 13. Takes initiative Yes No 14. Sensitive to other’s feelings Yes No 15. Responsible Yes No 16. Optimistic Yes No 17. Works well with groups Yes No 18. Someone who likes to be alone Yes No 19. Energetic Yes No 20. Friendly Yes No 21. Quiet Yes No 22. Smart Yes No 23. Uses team work Yes No 24. Does everything themselves Yes No 25. Visionary Yes No 26. Cooperative Yes No 27. Good communicator Yes No 28. Makes decisions Yes No 29. Popular Yes No 30. Agreeable Yes No 31. Athletic Yes No


i The objective of this future orientation to the simulation scenario is that it allows students to develop creative and innovative solutions to the problems presented to them, rather than simply regurgitating headlines or public statements of world leaders gleaned from the news media on a daily basis during the simulation.

Date post:	24-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Leadership Attributes Identified by High School Students

Documents