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.
Leadership Attributes 3
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
Leadership Attributes 4
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,
Leadership Attributes 5
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
Leadership Attributes 6
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 Attributes 7
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
Leadership Attributes 8
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
Leadership Attributes 9
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.
Leadership Attributes 10
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
Leadership Attributes 11
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
Leadership Attributes 12
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
Leadership Attributes 13
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
Leadership Attributes 14
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
Leadership Attributes 15
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
Leadership Attributes 16
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
Leadership Attributes 17
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.
Leadership Attributes 18
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.
Leadership Attributes 19
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.
Leadership Attributes 20
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%
Leadership Attributes 21
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
Leadership Attributes 22
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
Leadership Attributes 23
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
Leadership Attributes 24
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
Leadership Attributes 25
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)
Leadership Attributes 26
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?
Leadership Attributes 27
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.
Leadership Attributes 28
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)
Leadership Attributes 29
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.
Leadership Attributes 30
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
Leadership Attributes 31
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 Attributes 32
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 Attributes 33
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
Leadership Attributes 34
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.