e time where male were dominant for leadership position in most aspect of business and society. Hence, the definitive natures of these examinations are not highly reliable.
3.2 Social Science Perspectives In contrast with the view of management literature, there are several suggestions that male and female leadership style does not differ. One of the remarkable contributions to this notion is the meta-analysis study of Eagly and Johnson in 1990. This empirical research located 162 studies categorised into three types of investigation: Organisational Studies, aLaboratory Experiment and Assessment Studies. Eagly and Johnson’s findings proclaimed that gender- based leadership style only appeared in Laboratory Experiment in which women found to be interpersonal-oriented and democratic and men were task-oriented and autocratic. Their studies also concluded that no consistent differences between male and female leadership styles were found in the Organisational Studies. Nevertheless, Eagly and Johnson’s meta-analysis was able to provide a systematic and quantitative review in which the tendency in adopting managerial styles of men and women were compared and statistically analysed.
The Term Paper on Study Of Women Male Men Societies
In this essay I will look at whether the inequality between men and women is a human universal, or whether there are or have been societies in which women shared power equally with men, or even exercised power over them. In order to do so, I will look at the writings of a number of anthropologists. In "The Subordinance of Women: A Problematic Universal", author Ruth Bleier indicates that a central ...
Further research by Toren, N. et al. (1997) even went beyond the USA geographical border to provide an extensive study on gendered leadership style. Indeed, the investigation was conducted in five different countries over the world including the USA, Japan, Australia, Italy and Israel. The cross national data was critically examined and no dissimilarities in leadership style of men and women were found. It is undeniable that the social scientists have given a clearer picture on the question whether men and women lead differently through proper data collection methods and large scale studies. However, there is still a gap in their investigations in which they only assumed that gender-blind is perfectly implemented by organisations. This is a simplistic view where the authors failed to take into account the factors that impede women’s development, considering the biasness in the selection stage.
4.0 Conclusion Both management scholars and social scientists have expressed their views in various studies. However, the significant differences found in early investigations were partially due to the disparities of data collection methods. Indeed, each investigator has different approach toward the issue which resulted in inconsistent findings. Moreover, while organisational culture and the leader’s characteristics can have considerable consequences for the changes in implementing leadership styles, most of the authors did not take into account these considerations.
Furthermore, the incoherent empirical evidence and its unclear linkage to the theoretical explanations also raise a possibility that earlier researchers’ concentration was inappropriate. In fact, instead of focusing on the question do men and women lead differently, researchers should contemplate the question under what acircumstances do male and female leader lead differently? Subsequently, the topic gender differences in leadership style are still an un-completed puzzle. Future researches should stress on the organisational acculturation and the effects of social identity on the leadership styles.
