The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

The moderating role of leader and follower sex in dyads on the leadership
behavior–leader effectiveness relationships ☆
Ceasar Douglas ⁎
Department of Management, The College of Business, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 25 November 2011 Transformational leadership (TL) and leader–member exchange (LMX) literatures provide
theoretical frameworks and accompanying empirical evidence for studying the relationship
Keywords: between leader behavior and effectiveness. Although prior attention has been given to gender
Leadership differences in leadership style and leader effectiveness, the moderating effects of the sex of the
Gender leader and subordinate on the leadership–leader effectiveness relationship have not been in-
Leader effectiveness vestigated. In a field study of employees from a manufacturing plant, we examined whether
leader and subordinate sex, and the sex composition of the leader–subordinate dyad, moder-
ated the linkages of each set of leader behaviors (i.e., TL and LMX) with actual evaluations of
leader effectiveness provided by the leader's subordinates and direct supervisor. Although fe-
male leaders were rated as more effective than male leaders overall, a fine-grained analysis of
leader–subordinate dyads revealed that the male leaders benefited more than the female
leaders from the use of transformational leadership in the leader behavior–leader effectiveness
relationship. Implications and future research directions are discussed.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Today's organizations consist of complex matrices of social relationships in which leadership has considerable consequences
for success or failure (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). In a voluminous literature on leadership over the past five decades (cf.
Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004; Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Bass, 1990), both leadership behaviors and lead-
er–subordinate relationships have been found to affect employee in-role performance and extra role-behaviors as well as leader
evaluations. In considering leader effectiveness, the extant literature has yet to examine how leader behaviors and leader–subor-
dinate relationships are affected by the sex of the leader, employee, and the interaction between the two.
The extent to which differences in leadership behaviors and the ratings of leader effectiveness are influenced by the dyadic sex
composition remains an empirical question. The present study explores the moderating roles of leader and subordinate sex in re-
lationships between leadership and leader effectiveness. Specifically, we examine two forms of leadership (i.e., transformational
leadership and leader–member exchange) in a field study conducted in a manufacturing context.
Prior research consistently has found that what leaders do in their leadership roles influences their effectiveness (Judge &
Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Historically, a great deal of research has sought to distinguish between
various types of leadership behaviors (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005; Wang, Law, Hackett,
Wang, & Chen, 2005). Of the range of leadership behaviors, transformational behaviors have received the bulk of recent scholarly
attention (Judge & Bono, 2000; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Furthermore, transformational leadership is positively associated with

☆ I would like to thank Dr. Michael Mumford, Editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions which substantially strength-
ened the quality of this article. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Lucy Gilson, and Dr. Gary Powell for their contributions to an earlier version of this article.
⁎ Tel.: + 1 850 644 8230; fax: + 1 850 644 7843.
E-mail address: cdouglas@cob.fsu.edu.

1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.013
164 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175

evaluations of leader effectiveness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996) and research has found that women are rated more
highly than men on exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). Although
some research has examined moderators of the transformational leadership–leader effectiveness relationship (Judge & Piccolo,
2004; Lowe et al., 1996), leader and subordinate sex have not been previously considered despite its potential importance for
shedding further light on leadership dynamics.
Relationships that develop between leaders and their subordinates also can influence ratings of leader effectiveness (Liden,
Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). Leader–member exchange theory (LMX) posits that leaders and followers engage one another in a
social exchange. Based on this exchange, norms of reciprocity are developed that allow for both members of the dyad to provide
input and share ideas and information (Graen, 1976; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As subordinates and leaders collaborate to perform
various tasks, the interaction promotes the emergence of strong dyadic relationships, and subsequent superior performance by
both parties (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Wayne & Green, 1993).
Few studies to date have directly examined the impact of leader or subordinate sex on LMX. However, Wayne, Liden, and
Sparrowe (1994) argued that sex similarity between the leader and subordinate should improve LMX relationships. Furthermore,
evidence regarding whether sex similarity is positively associated with LMX relationships is mixed (Liden et al., 1997). Although
some attention has been given to what moderates the LMX–outcomes relationships (Gerstner & Day, 1997), the moderating ef-
fects of leader and subordinate sex remain to be examined.
In the following section, we begin by considering the linkages of transformational leadership and LMX to leader effectiveness.
Next, we consider the moderating effects of leader and subordinate sex, both separately and in combination, on the relationship
between leadership (i.e., transformational leader behavior and LMX) and leader effectiveness. Throughout this section, we offer
hypotheses and research questions. We subsequently test our hypotheses and research questions in a Midwest U.S. manufactur-
ing plant.

2. Theory and research foundations

2.1. Leadership and leader effectiveness

Leadership involves the use of interpersonal influence to organize groups toward specified goals, while leader effectiveness is
viewed as the degree to which leaders facilitate performance and develop relationships (Yukl, 2006). Research consistently has
supported a positive association between transformational leadership behaviors and performance. When leaders exhibit a greater
amount of transformational behaviors, followers' task performances (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Lowe et al., 1996), as well as their
extra-role behaviors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Wang et al., 2005) are positively impacted. These positive
associations are the result of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consider-
ation (Bass, 1985).
Through clear communication, the setting of goals, and motivating employees, transformational leaders are able to obtain both
within-role and extra-role performance that is superior. Transformational behaviors inspire and lead employees to reach beyond
their own self interest and further motivate followers to do more than is expected of them because the organization's purpose is
integrated into an employee's daily activities (Bass, 1985). These positive effects on employees' performance also should have a
reciprocal effect on leader performance.
The Full Range Leadership Model posits that leaders can and frequently do use varying amounts of different behaviors (i.e.,
transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire), depending on the need or the context in which they find themselves (Bass &
Avolio, 1990). However, of the range of leadership behaviors, transformational behaviors require the highest level of interaction
between leader and follower because leaders seek to provide vision and empower employees (Bass & Avolio, 1993). While the
link between leadership behavior and performance is somewhat tenuous, research has shown that effective leaders display
more transformational leadership behaviors than transactional or laissez-faire behaviors (Avolio, 1999; Lowe et al., 1996). Trans-
formational leader behaviors make subordinates aware of the special role they play in the “big picture” and individually guide
them in playing their role, which in turn results in higher ratings of leader effectiveness (Lowe et al., 1996).
As previously discussed, leadership is a complex phenomenon that is comprised of both leader behaviors and the relationships that
leaders have with their subordinates. The use of relational-oriented behaviors can be advantageous to both stronger identification with
the leader and leader effectiveness (De Rue, Nahrang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Research examining the relationship aspects of
leadership has consistently found positive associations between LMX and employee performance as well as evaluations of leader effec-
tiveness (Deluga, 1998; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). However, work that has considered both leader behaviors and
LMX has provided an interesting albeit somewhat hard to reconcile set of results. For example, Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) found
that when employees experienced high LMX relationships they feel a sense of advocacy and support, which for some employees
increased creativity. Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999) tested the relationship between leadership style (transformational and transac-
tional) and LMX and found transactional leader behaviors to be the strongest predictor of follower performance.
For LMX, it is not just that the leader is actively involved in guiding the employee that should influence performance, but also
that when the leader and subordinate trust one another and work together, both parties gain insight into what the other is doing,
which in turn results in positive outcomes for all. In other words, working in high quality relationships results in higher effective-
ness ratings for leaders because the subordinate not only knows what the leader is involved in or doing, but they too are working
towards the same goal. While a leaders' supervisor might not be aware of the quality of LMX relationships, what they will see is
subordinates who trust their leaders, are working closely with them and this should result in positives external effectiveness
 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175 165

evaluations for both parties. Therefore, in keeping with prior research, we hypothesize that transformational leadership behaviors
and LMX relationships will be positively associated with leader effectiveness.

Hypothesis 1. Transformational leader behaviors are positively related to leader effectiveness

Hypothesis 2. High quality leader–member exchanges are positively related to leader effectiveness.

2.2. Leader sex as a moderator

Prior research that has examined leadership and leader sex has primarily focused on finding the differences and similarities in
the leadership styles of men and women (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). That
there are differences in male and female leadership styles is widely believed, and sex often influences evaluations of leader effec-
tiveness (Eagly et al., 1992). Research has found that male leadership behaviors are rated more favorably than identical female
behaviors and that women's performance is often devalued, suggesting a male leadership advantage (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
Other work finds that women who use an autocratic rather than democratic leadership style are rated as less effective than
men using the same style (Eagly et al., 1992). Because an autocratic style is more compatible with “masculine” traits (i.e., aggres-
siveness) than with “feminine” traits (i.e., compassion) (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000; Kite, Deaux, & Haines, 2008), male
leaders receive more favorable evaluations when they adopt the autocratic style than do female leaders (Eagly et al., 1992). A
meta-analysis of sex differences in transformational and transactional leader behaviors among actual leaders found that
women were rated higher than men on most dimensions of transformational leadership (Eagly et al., 2003). Given the important
link between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness, this finding suggests a female leadership advantage which
may be explained by gender-based expectations of those observing the leader behavior.
Given these results, transformational leadership appears to be more closely aligned with how women actually lead in compar-
ison with how men lead, even though only one element of transformational leadership (individualized consideration) is more
congruent with the female gender. Finally, independent of the leadership style chosen, men are often perceived as simply better
leaders than women; “think manager, think male” is a common theme in research examining the linkage between leader sex and
leadership (Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Nieva & Gutek, 1980; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996).
According to role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), leaders are evaluated more favorably when their behavior meets
expectations for members of their sex. Both male and female leaders are impacted by gender stereotypes; male leaders are
expected to be assertive and decisive, female leaders are expected to show warmth and concern for others (Hoyt, Simon, &
Reid, 2009). Transformational leadership fits more closely with how women are expected to lead than how men are expected
to lead (Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). These findings suggest that female leaders are seen
as more effective when they display more transformational behaviors.
Consistent with role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), we hypothesize that the relationship between transformational
leader behaviors and effectiveness for actual leaders will be more positive for female leaders, who are behaving in a manner con-
gruent with expectations for members of their sex in the leader role (Bass et al., 1996; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly
et al., 2000; Kite et al., 2008), than for male leaders.

Hypothesis 3. As a result of gender based expectations, the positive relationship between transformational leader behaviors and leader
effectiveness is stronger for female rather than male leaders.

Work that has found women leaders to be superior to their male counterparts has emphasized the importance of relationship
building, empathy, and empowerment (Fletcher, Jordan, & Miller, 2000). Female leaders seek to develop high quality LMX rela-
tionships to a greater extent than male leaders because of their greater concern for the quality of relationships, a characteristic
associated in gender stereotypes with women (Eagly et al., 2000; Kite et al., 2008). On the other hand, it has also been proposed
that female leaders may be more constrained in the development of high quality LMX relationships (Fairhurst, 1993). Status char-
acteristics theory (Berger, Fisek, & Norman, 1998; Berger & Webster, 2006; Ridgeway, 1991) suggests that female leaders' lack of
societal status relative to that of men constrains their use of the power inherent in the leader role. Thus, the nature of the rela-
tionship to be expected between leader sex and the actual occurrence of high quality LMX relationships remains unclear.
What may be more likely is that leader sex, rather than having a direct effect on LMX, has a moderating effect on the relation-
ship between LMX and leader effectiveness as a result of gender-based expectations of leaders. Consistent with role congruity
theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), we hypothesize that the relationship between high quality leader–member exchanges and effec-
tiveness of actual leaders will be more positive for female leaders, who are behaving in a manner congruent with expectations
for members of their sex (Eagly et al., 2000; Kite et al., 2008), than for male leaders.

Hypothesis 4. As a result of gender based expectations, the positive relationship between high quality leader–member exchanges and
leader effectiveness is stronger for female rather than male leaders.

2.3. Subordinate sex as a moderator

Leadership theories typically do not incorporate characteristics of the evaluators of leadership behavior (Howell & Hall-
Merenda, 1999). In this vein, subordinate sex has not received attention as a potential moderator of the leadership–leader
166 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175

effectiveness relationship (Liden et al., 1997; Lowe et al., 1996). Because transformational leadership and LMX are types of lead-
ership that are more associated with women than men (Bass et al., 1996; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly et al., 2000;
Fairhurst, 1993; Kite et al., 2008), they may represent types of leadership that women would wish to see exhibited in their
leaders, whereas men may be more indifferent as to whether their leaders exhibit these types of leadership. However, we do
not believe that there is sufficient theoretical basis to pose hypotheses to this effect. Therefore, we offer the following research
questions:

Research Question 1: Does subordinate sex moderate the positive relationship between transformational leader behaviors and
leader effectiveness, such that the relationship is stronger for subordinates of one sex than the other?

Research Question 2: Does subordinate sex moderate the positive relationship between high quality leader–member exchanges
and leader effectiveness, such that the relationship is stronger for subordinates of one sex than the other?

2.4. Sex composition of leader–subordinate dyad as a moderator

Organizational studies researchers have long been interested in the implications of demographic similarity for organizations
and their members (Lawrence, 1997; Pfeffer, 1983; Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). Tsui and O'Reilly (1989: 403) coined the term re-
lational demography to refer to “the comparative demographic characteristics of members of dyads or groups who are in a position
to engage in regular interactions;” this definition clearly applies to leader–subordinate dyads. The argument made in relational
demography theories and research is that the less an individual differs from another individual in a dyad or other members of
a work group with respect to demographic characteristics, the more positive the outcomes for the individual, dyad, or work
group (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992; Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989).
Theories such as the social identity theory, similarity-attraction paradigm, and social network theory offer different explana-
tions for the presumed positive effects of demographic similarity. Social identity theory (Hogg, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) sug-
gests that individuals want to maintain high levels of self-esteem and do so by belonging to a group through which a positive
identity is conferred. Frequently, the bases for the formation of “in” and “out” groups are demographic characteristics such as
sex and race because they are visible and salient across situations (Elsass & Graves, 1997). The similarity-attraction paradigm ar-
gues that individuals are attracted to and wish to associate with others like themselves (Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Neuman, 1992).
Working with similar others leads individuals to believe that they know how the other will behave, thereby reducing uncertainty
(McAllister, 1995). Demographic similarity predicts liking, which stimulates interpersonal attraction that in turn leads to positive
outcomes (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989).
In the case of LMX, both social identity and similarity-attraction explain why working with a similar other promotes high
levels of LMX and subsequent performance by all parties. Further, social network theory (Wellman & Berkowitz, 1988) provides
insight because LMX depicts social networks between leaders and their subordinates. Individuals in high quality relationships are
positioned to share each other's resources and access to contacts (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). When individuals are similar, trust
one another, and believe they know what to expect from each other, they will be more easily and readily brought into the other's
network. In contrast, dissimilar others may not be included because they are perceived as not fitting in or because of concerns
regarding how they will interact with others in the network.
Based on these theories, leadership behaviors enacted within dyads characterized by sex similarity should be regarded favor-
ably because positive characteristics are attributed to similar others. That is, when the leader and subordinate are similar in sex,
leader behaviors that are transformational in nature and high quality LMX relationships should be associated with higher levels of
leader effectiveness than when the leader and subordinate are dissimilar, suggesting a moderating effect of sex similarity. How-
ever, the results of research that has examined the consequences of sex similarity between the leader and subordinate have been
inconsistent (Liden et al., 1997).
For example, Powell, Butterfield, and Bartol (2008) found that transformational leaders were evaluated more positively in ef-
fectiveness by same-sex evaluators than by opposite-sex evaluators; however, this result was attributed to female evaluators' fa-
voring of female transformational leaders and not to male evaluators' favoring of male transformational leaders. Bauer and Green
(1996) and McClane (1991) found that sex similarity did not moderate the relationships between LMX and outcomes, whereas
Green, Anderson, and Shivers (1996) found that LMX was higher for same-sex dyads than opposite-sex dyads and Adebayo
and Udegbe (2004) found that LMX was lower for same-sex dyads than opposite-sex dyads. Also, using sex as one component
of a composite measure, Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993) found no relationship between demographic similarity and LMX
development.
What would account for these contradictory findings? Some researchers have argued that the effects of similarity in demo-
graphic variables such as sex may be asymmetric across different demographic groups (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Tsui et al.,
1992). Other researchers have claimed that such results represent a methodological artifact resulting from an imbalance in pro-
portions of different demographic combinations (Tonidandel, Avery, Bucholtz, & McKay, 2008); however, it is a fact of organiza-
tional life that men and women are unequally distributed across leader and subordinate roles in most organizations. Applying the
notion of asymmetric effects of sex similarity to the present study, we suggest that female leaders may experience different con-
sequences of being similar or dissimilar in sex to their subordinates than male leaders as a result of gender-based expectations of
leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175 167

In male-dominated organizations, male/male leader–subordinate dyads are more common than female/female dyads, espe-
cially in the executive ranks. Given that female leaders continue to be atypical (Catalyst, 2008) and are seen as occupying an in-
congruent role (Eagly & Karau, 2002), their effectiveness as leaders may be more based on global expectations for members of
their sex rather than on the inclination of same-sex evaluators to evaluate their actual leadership style. If this were the case,
the effects of sex similarity on the linkage between leadership and leader effectiveness would be dampened for female leaders.
Because men are more typical occupants of leader positions and the traits attributed to them by gender stereotypes (Eagly et
al., 2000; Kite et al., 2008) are seen as congruent with the leader role (Eagly & Karau, 2002), individuals may be more disposed
to distinguish between effective and ineffective male leaders than they are disposed to distinguish between effective and ineffec-
tive female leaders. As a result, processes associated with sex similarity maybe invoked more in the evaluation of leadership
exhibited by male leaders than that exhibited by female leaders, such that there is a stronger linkage between leadership and
leader effectiveness in same-sex dyads with male leaders than in same-sex dyads with female leaders.
In the same vein, female leaders may experience differential consequences of being dissimilar in sex to their subordinates than
male leaders do. In many organizations, male leader/female subordinate dyads are more common than female leader/male sub-
ordinate dyads. With female leaders being seen by some as occupying an incongruent role for members of their sex (Eagly &
Karau, 2002) and by others as a role in keeping with their gender characteristics (Hackman, Furniss, Hills, & Paterson, 1992), glob-
al assessments of their role and effectiveness may prevail. As for same-sex dyads, there may be a stronger linkage between lead-
ership and leader effectiveness in opposite-sex dyads with male leaders than in opposite-sex dyads with female leaders because
the leader role is more typical for males, and is seen as more congruent with their presumed traits (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
Based on these speculations, rather than focusing on the moderating effect of sex similarity vs. sex dissimilarity on the rela-
tionship between leadership and leader effectiveness, we believe it is appropriate to make comparisons across leader–subordi-
nate dyads of different sex composition. However, we do not believe there is sufficient theoretical basis for specific hypotheses
about these comparisons. Therefore, we offer the following research questions:

Research Question 3: Does the sex composition of the leader–subordinate dyad moderate the positive relationship between
transformational leader behaviors and leader effectiveness, such that the relationship is stronger for some combinations of leader
and subordinate sex than for other combinations?

Research Question 4: Does the sex composition of the leader–subordinate dyad moderate the positive relationship between high-
quality leader–member exchanges and leader effectiveness, such that the relationship is stronger for some combinations of leader
and subordinate sex than for other combinations?

3. Method

3.1. Population, procedure, and sample

This study was conducted at the manufacturing facility of a Midwestern U.S. producer of engineered plastic systems and com-
ponents used in industrial applications. The manufacturing plant produces a wide range of products ranging from car dashboard
components to trash cans. While the target organization represents a heavy manufacturing facility, it may be described as fairly
progressive in that it makes use of work teams and there are a number of women in management positions. It is noted for its
strong commitment to diversity, stating in its mission that “Diversity is more than the right thing to do.”
All 750 full-time members of the manufacturing personnel were surveyed during a monthly production meeting. Surveys
were handed out during the meeting and organizational members were allowed to complete their surveys at the end of the meet-
ing or return them within the next week. Participation was completely voluntarily. On each survey participants were asked to
name their unit work unit leader but other than this all answers were anonymous and anonymity and confidentiality was guar-
anteed. All work unit leaders were shop floor supervisors. Completed surveys were received back from 393 employees, represent-
ing 52.4% of the full-time manufacturing employees, with a near even split between male (196) and female (197) respondents.
The actual distribution of production workers in this facility is 57% men and 43% women. Hence, the survey return rate was slight-
ly higher among women but not high enough raise concerns regarding response bias.
Finally, surveys were given to the area production managers to evaluate only the effectiveness of each unit leader, and collect-
ed within the next week. The unit leaders were 58% male and 42% female. In matching the leaders to their subordinates we
can ascertain that the sex composition of leader–subordinate dyads were as follows: male leader/male subordinate = 104
(26.4%), male leader/female subordinate = 95 (24.2%), female leader/male subordinate = 92 (23.4%), and female leader/female
subordinate = 102 (26.0%). Our study covered 26 work units with a range of 13–21 subordinates per work unit. See Table 1 for
additional demographic characteristics.

3.2. Measures

Leader effectiveness was evaluated by both employees and unit leaders' direct supervisors. Because our target organization uses
a 360° feedback evaluation mechanism, it is appropriate in this instance to measure leader effectiveness in keeping with how it
was assessed within the organization. Specifically, in this company, performance is never solely based on just how someone is
168 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175

Table 1
Employee and leader demographic characteristics.

Demographic variables Employees Unit leaders

Sex
Male 50% 58%
Female 50% 42%

Age
0–25 44%
26–40 32% 77%
41–55 21% 23%
Over 55 3%

Education
High school or equivalent 56% 46%
Some college 34% 27%
2 yr. degree 6% 23%
4 yr. degree 4% 4%

Position tenure
Less than 1 yr. 57% 15%
1–3 yrs. 33% 54%
4–7 yrs. 5% 8%
More than 8 yrs. 5% 23%

Company tenure
Less than 1 yr. 49% 15%
1–3 yrs. 34% 27%
4–7 yrs. 9% 8%
More than 8 yrs. 8% 50%

Employees: n = 393.
Unit leaders: n = 26.

rated by either their subordinates or superiors, but rather by both. Further, these combined performance data were used to de-
termine promotions, raises, and other organizationally relevant outcomes. Therefore, grounding our measure in the organization-
al reality where the data are collected is both appropriate and meaningful.
Research supports the notion that subordinates and superiors may have different views of leader effectiveness, and that the
subordinate view is more directly linked to the roles leaders perform (e.g., facilitating group processes) (Hooijberg & Choi,
2000). However, because leader effectiveness is a function of both social perception and of the target (leader) actions, and by uti-
lizing two distinct views we gain a balanced assessment. The addition of the leader superior's view adds a dimension of objectivity
to the effectiveness ratings, and helps to reduce the problems associated with same source variance.
Accordingly, employees were asked to respond to three items on a five-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly disagree,
5 = strongly agree): “Our unit leader is effective in representing the work unit to upper management;” “Our unit leader is effec-
tive in meeting the job related needs of work unit members;” and “Our unit leader is effective in meeting the needs of the orga-
nization.” Similarly, on a separate survey the unit leader's direct supervisor was asked to rate his or her performance using the
same three items with the referent changed (e.g., “He/she is effective in representing his/her work unit to upper management”).
Coefficient alpha for the three-item measure was .85 for subordinates, .81 for supervisors, and the intercorrelation for the subor-
dinate and supervisor's leader effectiveness ratings was .52 and significant at the (p b .01) level.
Transformational leadership was assessed with 20 items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) developed
by Bass and Avolio (2000) and used extensively in prior research. The measure asks subordinates to rate their unit leader (direct
supervisor) on specific behaviors; sample items include “my unit leader spends time teaching and coaching” and “my unit leader
expresses confidence in my ability to achieve goals.” All items for this measure were rated using a five-point Likert type scale.
Transformational leadership revealed good internal consistency with an alpha reliability of .85.
Leader–member exchange (LMX) was assessed using the seven-item scale developed by Scandura and Graen (1984). This scale
has been deemed most appropriate in instances when measurement is taking place at a single point in time and only the percep-
tions of followers are being assessed (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Sample items, measured on a five-point Likert type scale, include
“my unit leader understands my problems and needs” and “I usually know where I stand with my unit leader.” The coefficient
alpha for this scale was .86.
Leader and subordinate sex were coded such that females were coded as 0 and males as 1 in our hierarchal linear model ana-
lyses, and for our dyadic comparisons leader and subordinate sex were coded using effects coding (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken,
2003), such that females were coded as −1 and males as 1.
Control variables were incorporated into analyses to ensure that other relationships were not masking those we wished to test.
Employees and unit leaders were asked to indicate their education level, age, time in current position, and company tenure. To
ensure confidentiality, coding of demographic variables was based on the following ranges: education (1 = high school or equiv-
alent, 2 = some college, 3 = two-year degree, 4 = four-year degree), age (1 = 0–25, 2 = 26–40, 3 = 41–55, and 4 = over 55),
 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175 169

tenure in current position (1 = 0–11 months, 2 = 1–3 years, 3 = 4–7 years, and 4 = 8 or more years), and company tenure
(1 = 0–11 months, 2 = 1–3 years, 3 = 4–7 years, and 4 = 8 or more years). This demographic information is summarized in
Table 1.

3.3. Data analysis

Our first set of analysis was to examine whether the source of the variance on leader behaviors and relationships varied more
between or within teams. Dansereau, Alutto, and Yammarino (1984) designed within and between analysis (WABA) to assess
whether effects might be described as within groups, between groups, or both. Once identified, the E-test is used to determine
the level of practical significance. The E-test is geometrically based, and significance is measured at two levels of practical signif-
icance; that is, 15° (most relaxed) and 30°.
Next we calculated the degree of agreement among subordinates regarding LMX, and transformational leadership by calculat-
ing the rwg statistic. The inter-rater reliability estimates the level of agreement among a group of raters (James, Damaree, & Wolf,
1984). WABA I and the rwg statistic are used in conjunction to identify the proper level of analysis. We also calculated intra-class
correlations (ICC) to determine the percentage of variance residing between groups for LMX and transformational leadership
(Cohen et al., 2003). Specifically, the intra-class correlation represents the variation accounted for by group membership.
In our data, we would expect to find greater within group rather than between group variance. This is because unit leaders have
differential relationships with each subordinate within their work unit, meaning they may use more transformational behaviors with
some rather than others and have higher LMX relationships with some rather than others. However, because all unit leaders are floor
supervisors, in a single organization, do essentially the same job, and have a similar mix of subordinates, one would expect a fair
amount of agreement between the various groups. Since employees were nested within groups, we used hierarchical linear modeling
(HLM 6) (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & Toit, 2004) to account for nonindependence of observations. In our analyses, we
used HLM with controls to test the relationship between transformational leadership, LMX, and our measure of leader effectiveness.
We first analyzed our control variables, then our predictor variables, and finally our interaction terms for moderating effects.

4. Results

Within-and-between analysis (WABA I) identifies the source of variation for each variable independently; WABA I, locus of
variance, was used to determine the source of variance for LMX and transformational leadership. The E-test for transformational
leadership (E = .43) and LMX (E = .36) were significant for parts according to a 30° test (Dansereau, Cho, & Yammarino, 2006),
demonstrating a significant level of within group variation and that the variables can be considered at the individual level. The
F-tests for both variables were significant at the p b .01 level. The WABA I results confirm that we have greater within group var-
iation across transformational leadership, LMX and our measure of leader effectiveness.
Next we calculated the rwg statistic for within group inter-rater reliability for LMX, transformational leadership and leader ef-
fectiveness to determine the level of agreement among individuals in the same group rating the same target (James et al., 1984).
The rwg statistic for LMX was .72, and transformational leadership was .76. The rwg statistic indicates a moderate level of agree-
ment for LMX and transformational leadership. The ICC results indicates limited but significant (p b .01) between group variance
for both transformational leadership (ICC = .10, F = 2.75) and LMX (ICC = .05, F = 1.88). Taken together, the WABA I, rwg, , and ICC
results do not support aggregation, therefore all analyses were conducted at the individual level.
Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and coefficient alpha internal consistency reliabilities for the study variables are
shown in Table 2. Pearson correlations indicate that both transformational leadership (r = .33, p b .01) and LMX (r = .42, p b .01)
were significantly related to leader effectiveness in the expected direction, providing initial support for Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Leader effectiveness 3.63 .52 (.83)

2. Transformational leadership 3.52 .66 .33⁎⁎ (.85)
3. Leader–member exchange (LMX) 3.70 .65 .42⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎ (.86)
4. Leader sex −.10⁎ .16⁎⁎ .05
5. Leader education −.37⁎⁎ −.02 −.06 −.22⁎⁎
6. Leader age −.04 .00 .00 −.15⁎⁎ .10
7. Leader position tenure .13⁎⁎ −.14⁎⁎ −.14⁎⁎ .00 −.19⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎
8. Leader company tenure .09 −.09 −.07 −.04 −.31⁎⁎ .05 .22⁎⁎
9. Subordinate sex .02 .03 .07 .05 .13⁎⁎ .02 −.14⁎⁎ −.08
10. Subordinate education .07 .03 .04 .08 −.07 .03 .00 .03 −.11⁎
11. Subordinate age .02 .01 −.04 .03 −.05 .05 .01 .14⁎⁎ −.11⁎ .10⁎
12. Subordinate position tenure .02 −.03 −.02 .03 −.10 .11⁎ .06 .12⁎ −.18⁎⁎ .06 .43⁎⁎
13. Subordinate company tenure .00 −.03 −.04 .05 −.09 .10⁎ .07 .11⁎ −.16⁎⁎ .08 .45⁎⁎ .83⁎⁎

N = 393.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
170 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175

Table 3
Mean and standard deviation of key variables by leader sex and dyad composition.

Variable Leader sex Dyad composition

Male Female F/F M/M F/M M/F

Transformational 3.59⁎⁎ 3.33 3.32 3.57⁎ 3.33 3.60⁎

.64 .65 .69 .58 .63 .65
LMX 3.67 3.59 3.57 3.75 3.64 3.59
.72 .81 .86 .76 .69 .75
Leader effectiveness 3.78 3.84 3.77 3.81 3.90 3.74
.54 .49 .49 .48 .48 .59
N 197 195 103 103 92 94
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.

Table 3 provides the means and standard deviations for transformational leadership, LMX and leader effectiveness by leader sex
and dyad composition. A comparison of mean differences reveal that male leaders reportedly used transformational leadership
significantly more than female leaders (t = 3.47, p b .01). Also, least-significant difference (LSD) multiple comparison tests of
the dyadic combinations indicate that male leaders used transformational leadership significantly (p b .05) more than female
leaders. Interestingly, these tests reveal that the only significant mean differences were with the reported use of transformational
leadership.
Table 4 presents the HLM 6 results for the analysis for leader sex as a moderator. In step 1, we entered leader and subordinate
control variables into the regression equation and found that leader education level was negatively related to leader effectiveness
(γ = −.19, p b .01). This may have been due to the fact that leaders with higher education levels had less position tenure, as indi-
cated by the negative correlation in Table 2 (r = −.19, p b .01). In step 2, we entered transformational leadership and LMX into the
regression equation after the control variables. Both transformational leadership (γ = .14, p b .01) and LMX (γ = .23, p b .01) were
significantly positively associated to leader effectiveness, providing further support for Hypotheses 1 and 2.
In step 3, we entered leader sex into the regression equation as a main effect and found it to be significantly related to effec-
tiveness, with female leaders rated as more effective than male leaders (γ = −.25, p b .01). Finally, in step 4, we entered the in-
teraction terms between leader sex and transformational leadership and between leader sex and LMX. In this analysis we
found a significant interaction between transformational leadership and leader sex (γ = .09, p b .05); but in the opposite direction.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that leader sex would moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and leader

Table 4
Results of the HLM for leader sex as a moderator of the relationship between leadership and leader effectiveness.

Dependent variable: leader effectiveness

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Control variables
Leader
Education −.19⁎⁎ −.16⁎⁎ −.19⁎⁎ −.18⁎⁎
Age −.01 −.03 −.05⁎ −.04⁎
Position tenure .04 .09⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .08⁎⁎
Company tenure −.02 .00 −.01 −.02
Subordinate
Education .02 .02 .02 .02
Age −.01 −.00 −.00 .00
Position tenure .00 .01 .00 .00
Company tenure −.02 −.04 −.04 −.04

Predictor variables
Transformational leadership (Trans) .14⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎
LMX .23⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎

Moderator
Leader sex (LS) −.26⁎⁎ − 1.00⁎⁎

Interactions
Trans × LS .09⁎
LMX × LS .02
R2 .15 .33 .37 .41
R2 change .15 .18 .04 .04

n = 393.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175 171

4.5

Leader Effectiveness
4

3.5
Women
3
Men
2.5

1.5

1
Low TFORM High TFORM

Fig. 1. Effect of transformational leadership on leader effectiveness according to leader sex.

effectiveness where the relationship was stronger for female leaders not for male leaders. We also found no support for
Hypothesis 4, the interaction between LMX and leader sex was not significantly related to leader effectiveness.
Using the procedure outlined by Aiken and West (1991), we plotted the high and low levels of each variable (i.e., one standard
deviation above and below the mean). Fig. 1 depicts the pattern of moderated results, the relationship between transformational
leadership and leader effectiveness was stronger for male leaders (indicated by the steeper slope in Fig. 1) than for female leaders.
The simple slope analysis indicates that the slopes for both male (.53) and female (.21) leaders are significant at the p b .05 level
(www.people.ku.edu/~preacher/interact/mlr2.). This significant association suggested that further examination of the nature of
the relationship was appropriate.
To explore our first two research questions, using HLM we performed moderated hierarchical regression analysis for subordi-
nate sex as a moderator (Table 5). In this analysis, we did not find a significant main effect for subordinate sex. However, the in-
teraction between subordinate sex and transformational leadership was significantly related to leader effectiveness (γ = .06,
p b .10). A graphic representation of this interaction is provided in Fig. 2. Male subordinates experiencing transformational lead-
ership viewed leaders as more effective than did female subordinates experiencing the same. The simple slopes for male (.32,
p b .05) and female (.13, p b .10) subordinates were both significant but at differing levels. These results indicate that a leader's
use of transformational leadership behaviors had a greater impact on leader effectiveness for male subordinates than for female
subordinates, suggesting a “yes” answer to the first research question (RQ1). No significant interaction between LMX and

Table 5
Result of the HLM for subordinate sex as a moderator of the relationship between leadership and leader effectiveness.

Dependent variable: leader effectiveness

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Control variables
Leader
Education −.19⁎⁎ −.16⁎⁎ −.16 −.17⁎⁎
Age −.01 −.03 −.03 −.03
Position tenure .04† .09⁎⁎ .09⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎
Company tenure −.02 .00 .00 .00
Subordinate
Education .02 .02 .02 .02
Age −.01 −.00 −.00 .00
Position tenure .00 .01 .00 .00
Company tenure −.02 −.04 −.04 −.04

Predictor variables
Transformational leadership (Trans) .14⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎
LMX .22⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎

Moderator
Subordinate sex (SS) .06 .05

Interactions
Trans × SS .06†
LMX × SS −.05
R2 .11 .30 .30 .33⁎⁎
R2 change .11 .19 .00 .03

n = 393 †p b .10 ⁎p b .05 ⁎⁎p b .01.

172 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175

4.5

Leader Effectiveness
4

3.5
Women
3
Men
2.5

1.5

1
Low TFORM High TFORM

Fig. 2. Effect of transformational leadership on leader effectiveness according to subordinate sex.

subordinate sex was found. Thus, subordinate sex did not moderate the relationship between LMX and leader effectiveness, sug-
gesting a “no” answer to the second research question (RQ2).
We posed two additional research questions about whether the sex composition of the leader–subordinate dyad would mod-
erate the relationship between leadership (transformational leader behaviors and LMX respectively) and leader effectiveness. For
ease of presentation, Table 6 presents the HLM results for the moderated hierarchal regression analysis for the moderator vari-
ables (the 6 dyadic comparisons) and the interactions between LMX and transformation leadership. In these analyses, we exam-
ine whether the interaction between pair-wise comparisons of different combinations of leader and subordinate sex moderate
the leadership–leader effectiveness relationship. To assist in interpreting these comparisons we provide the γ-estimate, t and
p values.
First, we consider the results for transformational leadership. We found a significant interaction between transformational
leadership and three of the paired comparisons, male leader/male subordinate dyads vs. female leader/female subordinate
dyads (Model 1 of Table 6: γ = .16, p b .01), male leader/male subordinate dyads vs. female leader/male subordinate dyads
(Model 2: γ = .18, p b .01), and male leader/male subordinate vs. male leader/female subordinate (Model 3: γ = .12, p b .05).
Transformational leadership behaviors had a stronger impact on leader effectiveness for the male leader/male subordinate
dyads than for any other comparisons; as indicated by the significant interaction terms in Models 1–3. Transformational leader-
ship was more influential on leader effectiveness for male-leader dyads in which the subordinate was male rather than female.
Thus, the sex composition of the leader–subordinate dyad influenced the relationship between transformational leadership and
leader effectiveness, suggesting a “yes” answer to the third research question (RQ3).

Table 6
Results of HLM for sex composition of leader–subordinate dyad as a moderator of the relationship between leadership and leader effectiveness.

Moderators w/interactions γ Estimate S.E. t p

(C1) ML/MS − FL/FS .09 .03 2.89 .00

C1 × Trans .16 .05 2.98 .00
C1 × LMX −.01 .04 − 0.31 .75
(C2) ML/MS − FL/MS .08 .03 2.54 .01
C2 × Trans .18 .06 2.85 .00
C2 × LMX −.05 .05 − 1.10 .27
(C3) ML/MS − ML/FS −.07 .03 − 2.28 .02
C3 × Trans .12 .05 2.28 .02
C3 × LMX −.09 .05 − 1.85 .06
(C4) FL/FS − FL/MS .01 .03 0.44 .66
C4 × Trans −.04 .06 − 0.69 .49
C4 × LMX −.02 .05 − 0.40 .69
(C5) FL/FS − ML/FS .17 .03 5.59 .00
C5 × Trans −.02 .05 − 0.33 .74
C5 × LMX −.06 .04 − 1.28 .20
(C6) FL/MS − ML/FS .17 .03 5.28 .00
C6 × Trans −.01 .06 − 0.08 .94
C6 × LMX −.05 .05 − 0.92 .35

N = 393.
Comparison in Model 1 (C1): male leader/male subordinate vs. female leader/female subordinate.
Comparison in Model 2 (C2): male leader/male subordinate vs. female leader/male subordinate.
Comparison in Model 3 (C3): male leader/male subordinate vs. male leader/female subordinate.
Comparison in Model 4 (C4): female leader/female subordinate vs. female leader/male subordinate.
Comparison in Model 5 (C5): female leader/female subordinate vs. male leader/female subordinate.
Comparison in Model 6 (C6): female leader/male subordinate vs. male leader/female subordinate.
 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175 173

Next, we consider the results for LMX. As reported in Table 6, we found no significant interactions between LMX and six of the
paired comparisons. Thus, the sex composition of the leader–subordinate dyad did not influence the relationship between LMX
and leader effectiveness, suggesting a “no” answer to the fourth research question (RQ4).
Finally, when we take a closer look at the results for the comparisons made in Model 5 (female leader/female subordinate vs.
male leader/female subordinate) and Model 6 (female leader/male subordinate vs. male leader/female subordinate), we find a
significant moderation effect in both Model 5 (γ = .17, p b .01) and Model 6 ( γ = .17, p b .01). However, both models failed to
yield a significant interaction term for either transformational leadership or LMX.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the moderating effects of leader and subordinate sex, considered both separately
and in combination, on the relationship between leadership and leader effectiveness. Supplementing this focus, we conducted
a comprehensive examination of the linkages between leader and subordinate sex, gender-based expectations of leaders, leader-
ship style, and leader effectiveness. Overall, results suggest a possible explanation for the disparate results of studies examining
the gender, leadership style, and leader effectiveness relationship.

5.1. Implications and future research directions

If we had not examined moderating effects in this study, our most noteworthy result would have been the significant main
effect of leader sex on leader effectiveness (Table 4, Model 3), with female leaders evaluated as more effective than male leaders.
While this result may be interesting, it may also be misleading. Results of the moderation analyses suggest a more nuanced view
of the linkage of leader sex to leader effectiveness, one that incorporates the differential influence of leadership style for male
vis-à-vis female leaders.
According to Fig. 1, which plots the significant interaction between leader sex and transformational leadership (reported in
Table 4), the relationship between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness was stronger for male leaders than female
leaders. The analyses for specific dyad comparisons reinforced this finding (reported in Table 6), where the male leader/male sub-
ordinate dyads received significantly higher ratings of leader effectiveness for the use of transformation leadership than the other
dyad combinations. It seems that the most “traditional” dyad pairing is influenced more by transformational leadership style. It
might be that the subordinates within the male/male pairing have lower expectations for male leaders, and they respond favor-
ably when they encounter transformational leadership behaviors from male leaders.
As a group, female leaders were evaluated as more effective than male leaders as a group. However, in some circumstances,
female leaders were evaluated as less effective than male leaders. In particular, a sex difference favoring female leaders was
most likely to occur when leaders were adopting low amounts of transformational leadership. When leaders were exhibiting
high amounts of transformational leadership, especially in same-sex dyads, this favors male leaders. Overall, our sample appeared
to display a greater tendency to distinguish between the effectiveness of male leaders utilizing transformational leadership than
to distinguish between the effectiveness of female leaders using the same behaviors.
Women are less likely to occupy leader roles than men, making the experience of having a female leader a novelty for many
people. As a result, when individuals evaluate a female leader's effectiveness being female becomes the salient factor, and less at-
tention is given to leadership style she actually exhibits. In contrast, because male leaders are less of a novelty (i.e., their presence
in the leader role is more congruent with expectations for who will occupy the role), individuals are likely to have experienced
both good leadership and bad leadership from men. Thus, individuals who evaluate a male leader's effectiveness may be influ-
enced more by their assessments of the leadership style he exhibits than the fact that he is male. An interpretation of role con-
gruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) that is consistent with our results suggests that individuals may be more likely to provide
differential evaluations of male leaders based on the leadership style they exhibit than they are to apply the same tendency in
their evaluations of female leaders.
The results presented herein and the implications derived from them would not have been generated if we had confined our
analyses to examination of the moderating effect of sex similarity vs. sex dissimilarity on the leadership–leader effectiveness re-
lationship rather than making comparisons of the effect of different combinations of leader and subordinate sex on this relation-
ship. The most interesting comparisons in this study occurred within dyads characterized by sex similarity (for transformational
leadership). Without this fine-grained analysis, these effects would have been masked. Therefore, we encourage future re-
searchers to continue to examine the asymmetric effects of similarity in demographic variables, such as sex (Chattopadhyay,
1999; Tsui et al., 1992), on leader–subordinate dyadic relationships.
We also found that subordinate sex moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and leader effectiveness
such that the relationship was stronger when subordinates were male than when they were female. We are uncertain about why,
contrary to what gender stereotypes would predict (Eagly et al., 2000; Kite et al., 2008), male subordinates may have been more
sensitive to the extent to which their leaders adopted transformational behaviors than female subordinates. Further attention to
subordinate sex in future research on the linkages between sex, gender, and leadership (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999) is recom-
mended to increase our understanding of such effects.
Finally, consistent with past research that has found more effective leaders to use greater amounts of transformational behaviors
(Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996) and have higher quality LMX relationships (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995), we found that both transformational leadership and LMX had a positive association with evaluations of leader effectiveness
174 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175

in a manufacturing context. These results were particularly noteworthy given that evaluations of leader effectiveness came from mul-
tiple sources—the leader's subordinates as well as his or her direct supervisor, resulting in a 360° evaluation of effectiveness. They add
support for the robust linkage between leader behavior and leader effectiveness (Avolio et al., 2004; Rubin et al., 2005; Wang et al.,
2005).

5.2. Limitations and conclusions

One limitation of this research is that we only examined the leadership behaviors or styles of transformational leadership and
LMX. The effectiveness of many other leadership styles (e.g., transactional, democratic vs. autocratic, laissez-faire; Bass, 1990) was
not evaluated in the present investigation. We focused on transformational leadership and LMX because the linkage of each of
these styles to sex has been examined frequently in past leadership research (Eagly et al., 2003; Liden et al., 1997), but in a man-
ner that we felt could be further developed. Also, there was merit in examining transformational leadership and LMX in the same
study because these two approaches to leadership often have been regarded as antithetic (Basu & Green, 1997). We recommend
that the notions explored in this study be extended to other types of leadership styles in future research.
Although reliance on data collected within an actual organization represents a strength of this study, it may also be regarded as
a limitation. The results obtained may be only applicable to the specific manufacturing context examined. Also, we only examined
leadership displayed among the manufacturing staff in this manufacturing facility; there was a wide variety of non-
manufacturing jobs for which leadership was not examined (e.g., quality control, maintenance). Thus, the results of this study
should not be generalized to other types of jobs or industry contexts without replication. Despite these limitations, our findings
demonstrate the desirability of a fine-grained examination of the effects of leader and subordinate sex as moderators in leader-
ship research. We encourage further research that extends the present study to other contexts in which leadership is displayed to
increase understanding of the linkages between sex, gender, and leader effectiveness and their consequences.

References

Adebayo, D. O., & Udegbe, I. B. (2004). Gender in the boss-subordinate relationship: A Nigerian study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 515–525.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2004). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: The mediating role of psychological empowerment and
the moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 8, 951–968.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3 rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Training and development of transformational leadership: Looking to 1992 and beyond. European Journal of Industrial Training,
14, 21–27.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives
and directions (pp. 49–80). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Technical report, leader form, rater form, and scoring key for MLQ form 5X-short (2nd ed.).
Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
45(1), 5–34.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader–member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader–member
dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477–499.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567.
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). The evolution of status expectations: A theoretical extension. In J. Berger, & M. ZelditchJr. (Eds.), Status, power and
legitimacy: Strategies and theories (pp. 175–205). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Berger, J., & Webster, M., Jr. (2006). Expectations, status, and behavior. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychology theories (pp. 268–300). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Byrne, D., & Neuman, J. H. (1992). The implications of attraction research for organizational issues. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational
psychology (pp. 29–70). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Catalyst (2008). Census of women corporate officers and top earners of the Fortune 500. New York: Catalyst.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 273–287.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3 rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The variant approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dansereau, F., Cho, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Avoiding the “fallacy of the wrong level:” A within and between analysis (WABA) approach. Group & Organization
Management, 31, 536–577.
De Rue, D. S., Nahrang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their
relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52.
Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader–member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate–supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group & Organization
Management, 23, 189–216.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing
women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes, & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The
developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 C. Douglas / The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 163–175 175

Elsass, P. M., & Graves, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: The experience of women and people of color. Academy of Management
Review, 22, 946–973.
Fairhurst, G. (1993). The leader–member exchange patterns of women leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication Monographs, 60, 321–351.
Fletcher, J. K., Jordan, J. V., & Miller, J. B. (2000). Women and the workplace: Applications of a psychodynamic theory. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 60,
243–261.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 827–844.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 1201–1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings, & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 9. (pp. 175–208)
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over
25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader–member exchange and related work attitudes. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203–214.
Hackman, M. Z., Furniss, A. H., Hills, M. J., & Paterson, T. J. (1992). Perceptions of gender-role characteristics and transformational and transactional leadership
behaviours. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 311–319.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 935–942.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.
Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J. (2000). Which roles matter to whom? An examination of rater effects on perceptions of effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 11,
341–364.
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). Ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance
on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applies Psychology, 84, 680–694.
Hoyt, C. L., Simon, S., & Reid, L. (2009). Choosing the best (wo)man for the job: The effects of morality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations.
The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 233–246.
James, L. R., Damaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 755–768.
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. The American Psychologist, 63, 96–110.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 36–51.
Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Haines, E. L. (2008). Gender stereotypes. In F. L. Denmark, & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories
(pp. 205–236). (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 1, 1–22.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader–member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in per-
sonnel and human resources management, vol. 15. (pp. 47–119)Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader–member exchanges. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
662–674.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the
MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
McClane, W. E. (1991). The interaction of leader and member characteristics in the leader–member exchange (LMX) model of leadership. Small Group Research,
22, 283–300.
Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 5, 267–276.
Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 5. (pp. 299–357)Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction,
and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2008). Leader evaluations: A new female advantage? Gender in Management, 23, 156–174.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & Toit, M. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software
International, Inc..
Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 845–858.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 428–436.
Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager—think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations
(pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology,
52, 591–620.
Tonidandel, S., Avery, D., Bucholtz, B., & McKay, P. (2008). An alternative explanation for the asymmetrical effects in relational demography research. Personnel
Psychology, 61, 617–633.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. A., III (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,
549–579.
Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A., III (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior–subordinate dyads. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 402–423.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and
followers' performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46(12),
1431–1440.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Sparrowe, R. T. (1994). Developing leader–member exchanges: The influence of gender and ingratiation. The American Behavioral Scientist, 37,
687–714.
Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (Eds.). (1988). Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A., III (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior, vol. 20. (pp. 77–140)Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.