DO WOMEN HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO CONQUER THE GLASS CLIFF?
A theoretical model on female leadership effectiveness regarding crisis leadership
Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management,
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
February 21, 2011
MELANIE M. DE WAAL
Student number: 1468464
Schuitemakersstraat 2-13,
9711 HW Groningen, The Netherlands
tel: +31 (0)645928009
e-mail: melaniedewaal@gmail.com
Supervisor/ university: Dr. J. Rupert
Second supervisor/ university Dr. F.A. Rink
Acknowledgement:
DO WOMEN HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO CONQUER THE GLASS CLIFF?
A theoretical model on female leadership effectiveness regarding crisis leadership
ABSTRACT
The objective of this thesis was to present a theoretical model which gives insight into the influence of gender on leadership effectiveness in dealing with the difficult circumstances that characterize glass cliff positions. The proposed influence of the glass cliff characteristics of crisis and change on leadership effectiveness can be explained by the degree to which a leader displays necessary crisis leadership traits combined in an effective transformational leadership style. Gender is believed to moderate this relationship, because female leaders are more likely to display a transformational leadership style. Despite some limitations concerning the theoretical nature of the presented model, this review contributed to glass cliff theory by specifying the female leadership advantage in regard to necessary crisis leadership in these positions. This was based on a detailed description of effective crisis leadership which demonstrated the importance of communal or interpersonal skills, charisma, vision and change management skills for leading in times of crisis. Hereby, more objective measures are provided for selecting capable candidates for precarious leadership positions. Future empirical research should substantiate the propositions of the theoretical model and investigate if in practice women have an advantage compared to men regarding their leadership abilities in crisis situations.
INTRODUCTION
Unfortunately we have to conclude that in the 21st century women are still under represented in executive positions (Eagly and Sczesny, 2009). Data of the UN Development Programme (2008) shows that just between 25 and 37 percent of the European management and other top positions are fulfilled by women. In this list Germany has the highest percentage of 37 % and Denmark scores the lowest with 25 %. According to data of the SCP and CBS1 (Emancipatiemonitor, 2009) this figure is only marginally higher in the Netherlands compared to Denmark, because women occupy 26 percent of management positions in small (SME’s) and large Dutch organisations in 2007. This is a slight improvement compared to 2006, when women fulfilled 24 percent of all management positions in the Netherlands (Emancipatiemonitor, 2006).
The debate on the advancement of women to the top was recently revitalized in the Netherlands, albeit a reaction to political developments. As in many cases, a picture speaks louder than words. The picture2 of the newly formed Dutch government, traditionally assembled after its inauguration on the steps of the Royal Palace and posing with Her Royal Highness Queen Beatrix, is not an ideal one in the eyes of many advocates of the slogan ‘more women to the top’. The new formation of ministers and their parliamentary undersecretaries of state consists mainly of elderly men, and includes only four women. Influential people, from both sexes and different backgrounds, gave their displeased reactions in Dutch media on this development. For instance, Neelie Kroes (European commissioner for the Digital Agenda) argues that this amount of women in the new government is unnecessarily small. In her view there are enough capable women out there, when you look and recruit well. Kroes, the self acclaimed ‘excuus truus’ 3
in the European Commision, goes a bit further in her plea for more women to the top and proposes the introduction of a quota to regulate the amount of women in the government, as is already the case in Norway. Herman Dijkhuizen (Chairman of KPMG) underscores the advantage of diversity in the top of organisations and politics. Both diversity advocates base their opinions on research, which demonstrated that diversity in management teams leads to better results (e.g. Milliken and Martins, 1996), but it would also be a fairer representation of the population in their view.
These data and opinions lead to the conclusion that the glass ceiling is still relevant in the 21st century (Baretto, Ryan and Schmitt, 2009). The glass ceiling describes the invisible barriers that women encounter when advancing to top leadership positions. These women experience a sudden halt in their ascent on the career ladder and find that it is difficult to obtain the highest positions. Meanwhile men still represent the majority of top positions and are seemingly profiting from glass escalators up the organisational ladder (Williams, 1992). Maume (1999) found that white men advanced easily to management positions in women-dominated occupations, such as nursing, teaching and social work, because they represented a minority. Further, men were
1 Sociaal en Cultuur Planbureau; Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek
2
The picture (ANP) belongs to the article: http://nos.nl/artikel/191224-kabinetrutte-is-een-feit.html
3 A Dutch description of a woman who has been appointed to a position based on positive
promoted to higher positions to boost morale under the male minority in these occupations, often because these men bonded with male supervisors in a way females never could (Williams, 1992). Thus, even when men represent a minority they still have an advantage over women when it comes to leadership positions.
Women & the Glass Cliff
Although female representation on top management positions has improved (UN Development Programme, 2008), women also have to worry about glass cliffs (Ryan and Haslam, 2005). Research shows that when women do break through the glass ceiling they obtain top positions under more difficult financial circumstance than men (Ryan and Haslam, 2005). Their findings indicate that the moment women are appointed to such positions is preceded by a decline in share price. Men were generally appointed to board of directors after stable financial performance of the organisation (Ryan and Haslam, 2005). This predicts that difficult times lie ahead for women in glass cliff positions.
Therefore, glass cliff positions are rather precarious and involve risks for those who fulfill them (Ryan and Haslam, 2005). The bad results which precede the appointment of female leaders to top positions increase the risk for women to fail and to get personally damaged during their occupation of these positions. Women selected for these precarious jobs felt they were set up to fail, but were not in the position to turn down the offered position (Wilson-Kovacs, Ryan and Haslam, 2006). Glass cliff positions are also characterized by risk of more negative attention, unfair criticism and blame for negative outcomes under female leadership (Ryan and Haslam, 2005; Ryan, Haslam, Postmes, 2007). It appears that the performance of women who take on these precarious jobs is evaluated with more scrutiny than men’s performance in top positions (Eagly, Karau and Makhijani, 1995). However, the precariousness of glass cliff positions is not recognized by everyone, especially not by men (Ryan et al., 2007b). Men tend to deny the existence of glass cliff positions in organisations or they explain this phenomenon in a way that downplays the risks these positions bring along. Women, on the other hand, recognize the phenomenon as well as the dangers and risks it involves for their group. This denial on the side of men makes the glass cliff a rather subtle barrier for women to overcome and is also problematic, since men are still the major decision makers in organisations when they occupy the majority of leadership positions (UN Development Programme, 2008).
Then why are women appointed to these positions? A number of explanations is given for the existence of glass cliff positions in organisations. (1) A first explanation is that these positions are a form of sexism wrapped in a charitable package. This means that men see these positions as good opportunities for women to ascend the corporate ladder (Ryan and Haslam, 2007). (2) A related explanation for the appointment of women to glass cliff positions is sex discrimination. Men are still in power when it comes to recruitment and selection procedures for top positions (Claringbould and Knoppers, 2007). The underrepresentation of women in these upper layers could be a result of this, because men select other men to complete their management team (Ibid). When against this tendency a woman is appointed to a glass cliff position other explanations are necessary. Ryan and Haslam (2007) provide as possible reasons a desire for appointing a scapegoat in times of crisis. (3) A third explanation is that assigning women to top positions in male-dominated sectors could also be meant as a signal of change. It is a sign to the world and the organisation that traditional leadership has lost its potential and that women represent the necessary new leadership (Ryan and Haslam, 2007). (4) A final explanation is based on the implicit theories regarding gender and leadership that guide selection and evaluation processes for glass cliff positions (Ibid). These theories concern stereotypes which are positively biased regarding female suitability in dealing with the challenges of glass cliff positions. This idea that stereotypes guide the selection of women for glass cliff positions provides my research motive. I will further elaborate on this motive and its background in the next section.
Motive & Background
It appears that women are appointed to these precarious positions, because some powers are ascribed to them that men do not possess. Ryan and Haslam (e.g. 2007; Haslam and Ryan, 2008) highlighted this perceived exceptional suitability of women to manage crisis in glass cliff positions. A consequence could be that these appointments are based on stereotypes of female leadership which do not fit all women. This is interesting in light of common beliefs about male suitability for leadership (Schein, 1973; 1975) and their task oriented skills opposed to the more soft skills which women display (Abele, 2003). Apparently women are still not perceived most suitable for leadership positions in general, but stereotypes about specific female skills seem to match the ideas about necessary leadership in times of crisis. This raised my curiosity to further study the suitability of women in terms of their personality traits and leadership style, corresponding to stereotypes, for leading effectively in glass cliff positions.
the glass cliff I will provide some background to my research motive. After discussing research on the link between the glass cliff factors of crisis and change management I will present the aims and contribution of this research. Further on, I will present the theoretical model which is the result of this research effort. The first part of this model deals with the influence of glass cliff characteristics on leadership effectiveness. The following part discusses the necessary competences a successful crisis leader possesses. Then I will consider the most effective leadership style for glass cliff positions and the effectiveness of the leadership style women use in this regard. This will lead to a discussion of the implications and limitations of the proposed theoretical model. Finally, I will draw conclusions regarding the influence of gender on leadership effectiveness in glass cliff positions by answering the research question.
The basics of gender stereotypes. Stereotypes present in organisations, on gender differences and leadership ability, can influence the selection of women for glass cliff positions (Heilman, 1997), although this bias is not found by all research (Adams, Gupta, Leeth, 2009). In general, stereotypes describe people’s beliefs about individuals based on group membership and can be either descriptive or prescriptive (Fiske, 1993). Descriptive stereotypes describe how people in the relevant group supposedly behave. Prescriptive stereotypes are more controlling and describe how members of a certain group should behave. Stereotypes work especially well on ambiguous criteria such as individual abilities, which are present in selection processes (Fiske, 1993).
Drivers of human behavior are mainly discussed in terms of agency or communion (Bakan, 1966). Firstly, communion concerns the desire of people to form social relationships and to get along with other people (Bakan, 1996). On the other hand, agency is described in terms of gaining power and control over others (Bakan, 1966) or a focus on achievement (Abele, 2003). This distinction is also used in describing leader behavior. For instance, Fleishman (1953) mentioned consideration and initiating structure as two categories of effective leadership behavior. Blake and Mouton (1985) renamed consideration as concern for people and initiating structure as concern for production in their managerial grid. All terms adhere to the same idea where consideration is related to communion and initiating structure corresponds to agency.
Stereotypes & the glass cliff. In discussing the influence of stereotypes on the appointment of women to glass cliff positions there are three important issues which I will consider. These themes are: (1) congruency between stereotypes on the leadership role and stereotypes of female leadership, (2) changes concerning these stereotypes, and finally (3) their relation to glass cliff characteristics.
The first theme, concerning the match between stereotypes on leadership in general and female leadership, has a major influence on the ascent of women to the top in organisations. The unequal division of leadership positions among men and women can be explained by sex segregation (Jacobs, 1995). This means that there are stereotypical beliefs about which roles and jobs men and women should fulfill (Ibid). Further, the lack of fit model states that women’s capabilities, based on gender stereotypes, are perceived to be out of fit with the male characterization of managerial jobs (Heilman, 1983). Because of this misfit women are considered less suitable for leadership roles (Eagly and Karau, 2002).
Regarding this misfit we first have to consider the stereotypical and idealized image which exists of the leadership role. Managers or leaders are believed to display more agentic qualities in comparison to communal traits (Sczesny, 2005). Hence, male managers are perceived to be more similar to successful middle managers than is the case for female managers (Heilman, Block and Martell, 1995; Schein, 1973; Schein, 1975). According to Schein (1973; 1975) the biased idea was to ‘Think Manager-Think Male’.
Further, there are ideas about female leaders which contribute to this perceived misfit. Women in leadership positions are still stereotypically associated with communal terms, specifically sensitivity, compared to male leaders (Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie and Reichard, 2008). However, according to Heilman et al. (1995) women in leadership positions are ascribed more agentic than communal qualities, compared to women in general. Consequence is that women, who display agentic characteristics contradicting what gender stereotypes prescribe, will be evaluated more negatively than men possessing the same qualities (Eagly and Karau, 2002).
Rudman (1998) describes this disadvantage as a ‘backlash to agentic women’. This means that there are hidden costs or negative consequences for women who do not live up to the more communal image people have regarding the female manager (Rudman and Glick, 1999). Foschi (2000) argues that women experience double standards for competence in their pursuit for leadership positions. In practice this means that organisational decision makers use different requirements in determining if a person possesses a certain trait and let this evaluation depend on the individual being assessed (Foschi, 2000).
(Schein, 1992; Powell, Butterfield and Parent, 2002; Eagly and Carli, 2003; Duehr and Bono, 2006; Eagly and Szcesny, 2009; Rosette and Tost, 2010). This shift in leadership requirements can be explained by changing circumstances, which make these different leader traits more relevant (Eagly and Carli, 2003). Unfortunately, this did not lead to a closer match between beliefs about female leader competence and ideas of effective leadership (Eagly and Sczesny, 2009).
The arguments in favor of a parallel change of stereotypes concerning leaders in general and female leaders (Duehr and Bono, 2006), are overthrown by those who say that the incongruence with the leadership role remains in spite of slight changes (Eagly and Carli, 2003; Eagly and Sczesny, 2009; Johnson et al., 2008). Thus, women are still not perceived to match the image of an ideal leader. Furthermore, the double standard for women is not removed, because now women have to display both agentic and communal traits at the same time to be seen as effective (Johnson et al., 2008).
However, Haslam and Ryan (2008) state that ideal managers of unsuccessful organisations in general are mainly associated with the stereotypes of female leadership. It is argued that women are selected for these glass cliff positions based on stereotypic beliefs, because women are believed to have the characteristics (Ryan and Haslam, 2007; Ryan et al., 2007b) and leadership style (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and Van Engen, 2003) which are necessary to cope effectively with crisis. This has led Ryan, Haslam, Hersby and Bongiorno (2010) to propose that a new image has arisen, namely to ‘Think Crisis – Think Female’. Interestingly, it seems that women are still not associated with the general leadership prototype, but are seen as more effective leaders than men when it concerns leading in times of crisis.
Next, it would be interesting to see if females have a stereotypical advantage regarding charismatic leadership. Hence, charisma should be attributed to women. However, research which investigated the association between charisma and gender did not find evidence for this assumption (Grinnell, 2002; Johnson et al., 2008). Grinnell’s (2002) study to discover the sex-role typing of charismatic leaders supports an androgynous view of charismatic leaders. Women rate charismatic male leaders high on both masculine and feminine traits, where they rate charismatic female leaders higher on masculine than on feminine characteristics (Ibid). Johnson et al. (2008) found that charisma is not attributed more to either male or female leaders. This makes the authors argue that charisma is a non-gender specified trait (Ibid).
As crisis stereotypes do not seem to predict a clear triumph for women regarding charismatic leadership it is interesting to investigate the necessary qualities to lead effectively in times of crisis and if women excel on these traits compared to men. Hence, the question answered in this thesis is: do women actually have a leadership advantage in dealing with the contextual factors characterizing glass cliff positions? In the present research section I will elaborate on the research purpose and the related question in conjunction with the contribution this thesis makes to glass cliff research.
PRESENT RESEARCH
In this section I will demonstrate how my thesis will contribute to glass cliff research by answering the central research question. Firstly we have to put the importance of change management in perspective regarding the crisis context of glass cliff positions. As was stated in the introduction, change management is an important feature of the crisis situations which female leaders have to deal with in glass cliff positions. However, change management is not explicitly used by Ryan and Haslam (2005; 2007) to describe what accepting a glass cliff position entails. Interestingly, the account on stereotypes also did not focus on the change management capabilities of women necessary for crisis management. In this research change management and crisis management are considered to be highly intertwined. That up till now change management is ignored in this regard seems a true waste. To demonstrate this point, I will link research outcomes concerning crisis and change management.
Research on Crisis and Change Management
which caused the crisis (Wooten and James, 2005), which takes place in the learning phase following recovery of the crisis management process (Mitroff, Shrivastava and Udwadia, 1987). Organisations have to prepare their employees, from the shop floor to the top, to deal effectively with crises and learn from them in order to change (Reilly, 2008; Wang, 2008).
Furthermore, crisis and change management research also share a common interest in charismatic or transformational leadership styles. For instance, King (2002) proposed that effective crisis leaders use a charismatic leadership style. Further, Burns (1978) poses that transformational leadership is especially relevant in these turbulent times. The use of the term transformational can be directly related to radical organisational change which is the focus of this leadership style (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Next to this type of leader’s aim for organisational transformation, organisational members’ perceptions of the work are also transformed by charismatic leaders (Ibid). Finally, Eisenbach, Watson and Pillai (1999) argue, based on their integration of theory on transformational leadership and change management, that this transformational leadership style is useful to facilitate and lead change. In times of crisis organisational members are more receptive to the leader’s new vision and the necessary changes to accomplish this (Roberts and Bradley, 1988; Stern, 2009). Further, under these uncertain conditions charismatic or transformational leaders can flourish, because these leaders use their personality to communicate and persuade organisational members to commit to the new vision (Burns, 1978). Thus, both fields of crisis and change management consider transformational leadership to be an effective approach.
Finally, the value of participation regarding effective leadership in gaining commitment of employees to necessary measures and changes is demonstrated by crisis and change management literature (Burnes, 2004), as well as literature on transformational leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2005; Burns, 1978; Conger and Kanungo, 1998). This might seem at odds with the early ideas behind transformational leadership, since leaders of this type were described to be in need for dominance, influence and power (House, 1977). However, this statement was revised and the work of Burns (1987) already incorporated both issues of empowerment and change. The modern transformational leadership style highly values empowerment of employees (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-(Alimo-Metcalfe, 2005). It will be interesting to see if participation and empowerment are also considered to be useful in relation to crisis leadership.
Objectives, Central Question and Contribution of the Present Research
Even though research that found evidence for the glass cliff is very recent and the existence of the glass cliff is not entirely acknowledged in practice (Ryan et al., 2007b), Haslam and Ryan (2008) argue that the glass cliff is a robust phenomenon, since it was found in multiple settings. Evidence for the glass cliff phenomenon is found in the legal profession (Ashby, Ryan and Haslam, 2007), IT sector (Wilson-Kovacs et al., 2006) and the political arena (Ryan, Haslam and Kulich, 2010). Despite this, much is unknown about the glass cliff phenomenon and more research is necessary (Ryan and Haslam, 2007).
In this regard, the interrelated fields of crisis and change management, even tough they seem separate disciplines, should be considered both as factors in relation to glass cliff positions. Crisis management is a subject of research for over a couple of decades more than glass cliff positions. Still, it is a relatively new field of research worth exploring further. For instance, not much scientific research has been done that focuses on leadership in crisis (Peterson and van Fleet, 2008). Further, change management literature deals extensively with effective leadership styles, such as transformational leadership. Therefore, this link between crisis and change management should be explored further to make useful contributions concerning effective leadership styles in glass cliff positions.
The newness of the glass cliff phenomenon, the combination of characteristics which make up glass cliff positions and the different opinions on their existence in organisations (Ryan et al., 2007b) make it difficult to study this openly in practice. Therefore, my objective is to make a theoretical contribution to this field of research by presenting a conceptual model in which the contextual factors of glass cliff positions are linked to female leadership style effectiveness. Hence, this research adds insights to glass cliff research on the effectiveness of female leaders, and the role of gender in this regard, in relation to the necessary leadership characteristics and style to deal with both crisis and change management successfully in glass cliff positions.
Therefore, the research purpose is to theoretically explore the influence of gender on the relationship between characteristics of glass cliff positions and leadership effectiveness. In other words my aim is to find out if women actually should be preferred over men regarding leadership positions that involve crisis and change management, based on their actual traits, leadership style and hence their effectiveness in dealing with these characteristics of glass cliff positions.
This objective is reached by presenting a theoretical model and in this way answering the following research question and sub questions:
Sub questions:
Q1: Which competences do leaders need to deal effectively with the contextual factors of crisis and change which characterize glass cliff positions?
Q2: What is the gender typing of the crisis leadership role?
Q3: What is the most effective leadership style for leading in glass cliff positions?
Q4: What leadership style do women use and what is the effectiveness of this leadership style for glass cliff positions?
METHODS
Based on an extensive literature review and analysis of academic journals, scientific and management books, the relating concepts of crisis and change management, leadership style effectiveness and the role of gender are explored in-depth to answer the research question.
For search actions I used the following key words in different combinations: glass cliff, crisis, change management, leadership effectiveness, transformational leadership and gender. The results were critically looked through on relevance and this resulted in the use and citation of 130 articles and books in this literature review. For more information on the sources for this analysis a categorization scheme is provided (see Appendix 1).
It should be noted that academic research on leadership competencies in organisational crises is not abundantly available (Peterson and van Fleet, 2008; Wooten and James, 2008), therefore studies on emergency and disaster management (Boin, ‘t Hart, Stern and Sundelius, 2005; Borodzicz, 2004; Devitt and Borodzciz, 2008; Flin, 1996; Stern, 2009; Webb and Chevreau, 2006) are also included in this thesis regarding crisis leadership.
Further, concerning the section on leadership style I only report research that actually measured leadership behaviors based on subordinate ratings of their leaders or by observation. These are considered as useful methods, because they provide practical measures of behavior and personality traits (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Research in actual organisational settings is valued above laboratory or experiment results, because this would provide more realistic outcomes. This is based on the notion that laboratory and experimental studies often provide gender-stereotypic results (Eagly and Johnson, 1990).
THEORETICAL MODEL ON FEMALE LEADER EFFECTIVENESS IN GLASS CLIFF POSITIONS
Context is an important determinant of a leader’s effectiveness (Eagly and Karau, 2002). When we apply this line of thought to glass cliff positions, this leads to a direct influence of the glass cliff characteristics of crisis and change on leadership effectiveness (1). In general, the success of a leader in a crisis situation depends on the presence and matching combination of necessary competences for effective crisis leadership (Devitt and Borodzicz, 2008; Muffet-Willett and Kruse, 2009). This means that a leader’ specific abilities combined with the degree to which these competencies are useful for leading in crises explain the leader’s effectiveness in a glass cliff position. Hence, the necessary crisis leadership traits and transformational leadership style explain the relationship between the glass cliff characteristics and leader effectiveness in dealing with the factors of crisis and change, thus mediating this relationship (2/3). In recent research gender was found to influence the effectiveness of transformational leadership when gender-typing of the context matched the leader’ sex (Reuvers, van Engen, Vinkenberg and Wilson-Evered, 2008). For glass cliff positions this means that the gender typing of the crisis leadership role and its match with the gender of the leader influences a leader’s effectiveness in these situations. The communal nature of crisis leadership, which implies a feminine typing of the leadership role, makes transformational leadership the most effective leadership style in these circumstances (4). The review findings lead to the conclusion that women are more likely than men to display the necessary transformational leadership style. Gender as a moderator explains these sex-based differences regarding leadership styles. The moderating effect of gender is found in multiple contexts, for instance by relating emotional competences (Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008) and sensitivity (Johnson et al., 2008) to effectiveness of leaders of both sexes. In short, this theoretical model indicates that gender has a moderating effect on the degree to which a leader uses a transformational leadership style (5). Thus, when women use a transformational leadership style they are assumed to be more effective in dealing with crisis and change.
FIGURE 1:
Theoretical Model on Female Leader Effectiveness in Glass Cliff Positions
Glass Cliff characteristics: - Crisis
- Change
Crisis leadership traits & gender typing
Leadership effectiveness
(5) +
Transformational leadership style
(4) +
(2/3) +
Gender
GLASS CLIFF CHARACTERISTICS OF CRISIS AND CHANGE
Firstly, it is important to establish the conditions which are at play in glass cliff positions, because these contextual factors determine a leader’s effectiveness (Burnes, 2004). Hereby taking a contingency perspective on leadership effectiveness in this thesis. This means that we assume that there is not necessarily one best way of leadership, but context and climate have a major influence on leadership effectiveness (Yukl, 1981). Thus, what characterizes glass cliff positions? In this section the glass cliff characteristics of crisis and change are treated in more detail.
In the introduction section the most prominent characteristics of glass cliff positions regarding the difficult financial circumstances that surround these positions and the involved risk were already discussed. Furthermore, the nature of glass cliff positions is one of crisis and needed changes in these organisations aimed at recovery. Bad financial results, preceding the leadership change, push the organisation into a crisis. Crises relevant to glass cliff positions are categorized by Mitroff (2001: 34) as economic crises, because they are characterized by a ‘major decline in stock prices and fluctuations’. As a consequence, glass cliff positions involve ‘management of organisational units which are in crisis’ (Haslam and Ryan, 2008: 531).
After a crisis, organisations have to unlearn, hence abandoning the current way of working (Wang, 2008). This is often started by replacing people at the top of organisations. It is easier for new leaders to implement necessary changes based on a fresh vision, because they have no pending interests nor links to (bad) decisions that have been made (Robbins and Barnwell, 2006). Hence, this leadership refreshment should include the replacement of the CEO, because this is often the personification of the old regime (Ibid). Therefore, when women are appointed to these risky and visible positions this is often meant as a signal of change (Ryan and Haslam, 2007). By announcing that a woman will take on this challenging job and replace the old top manager a clear signal is given which says: old types of leadership are ‘out’. This assumes that glass cliff positions come with the responsibility for leaders to introduce change to successfully recover from a crisis. Before we can dive deeper in the defining features of an effective crisis leader we need to consider what crises are and what their management entails.
In management literature, a crisis is often defined in general terms as:
top manager, the crisis is already detected (phase 1). The crisis perspective on glass cliff positions makes clear that the focus should lie on how female leaders deal with this crisis in terms of action they take to react to the crisis at hand (Shrivastava, 1993). Thus, possible crisis management for women in glass cliff positions starts at phase two by dealing with the crisis, followed by recovery and ultimately learning from it.
Effective crisis management involves ‘improvising and interacting with key stakeholders so that individual and collective sensemaking, shared meaning, and roles are reconstructed’ and is focused on ‘individual and organisational readjustment of basic assumptions, as well as behavioral and emotional responses aimed at recovery and readjustment’ (Pearson and Clair, 1998: 66). These definitions imply that women in glass cliff positions have their crisis management work cut out for them on top of their daily leadership tasks. Thus, women who are appointed to glass cliffs have to deal with the organisational crisis at hand effectively in order to be successful.
This characterization of glass cliff positions implies that crisis and change management are important factors for leaders to deal with in these circumstances. As was argued in the present research section the challenges posed by crisis and change management to the leader in a glass cliff position not covered as such and will be investigated in this review paper.
Therefore, I propose the following concerning the influence of glass cliff characteristics on leadership effectiveness:
Proposition 1: the glass cliff characteristics of crisis and necessary change management influence the effectiveness of leaders in these positions.
CRISIS LEADERSHIP ROLE AND GENDER TYPING
The purpose of this section is to investigate which combination of competences makes up crisis leadership and which set of skills is necessary to deal effectively with the characteristics of crisis and change in glass cliff positions. The term leadership is used deliberately, because management means maintaining the status quo and in times of crisis this is the opposite of what a leader’s top priority should be (Burns, 1978). Furthermore, in this section I will establish the gender typing of the crisis leadership role.
Yusko and Goldstein, 1997). The effectiveness of a crisis leader also depends on the intelligent use and timing of these qualities in a challenging crisis situation (Borodzicz, 2004). Therefore, I will elaborate on the necessary competences for effective crisis leadership, as listed in figure 2 (see below), found in this review effort.
Further, establishing the gender typing of the defined crisis leadership role is important because it is argued that the gender typing of context is a major facilitator of leadership effectiveness (Eagly et al., 1995). The influence of context gender type on the effectiveness of male or female leaders is found by studies in different fields such as hospitals (Reuvers et al., 2008). This means that if a leadership position is described in more communal or feminine terms, this would make female leaders more effective in glass cliff positions (Reuvers et al., 2008).
As was described earlier behavior of people, and hence leaders, is usually categorized in two main divisions, traits associated with agency (task-oriented) and communion (interpersonal-oriented) (Bakan, 1966). To answer the question if the crisis leader role is characterized by masculine (agentic) or feminine (communal) traits, thus more associated stereotypically with men or with women, I will use this distinction to categorize the necessary competences for effective crisis leaders.
FIGURE 2:
Traits and Skills of an Effective Crisis Leader in a Glass Cliff Position.
Necessary traits and skills Self-confidence Decision making Interpersonal skills
(influencing, emotional intelligence, empathy, perspective taking and sensitive communication) Creativity Intelligence Integrity Charisma Optimistic vision Delegating
Change Management skills
Effectiveness crisis leadership
+
Glass cliff characteristics: - Crisis
- Change
Agentic Characteristics Crisis Leader
Self-confidence and decision making are important characteristics of an effective crisis leader and are considered as agentic traits (Abele, 2003, Eagly and Szcesny, 2009).
Self-confidence is an important characteristic asked for in effective crisis leaders (Devitt and Borodzicz, 2008; Flin, 1996, Grant and Mack, 2004, King, 2002). According to Robert and Lajtha (2002) rebuilding confidence inside and outside the organisation is the main objective of crisis management. A leader who is confronted with a crisis and has to deal with it effectively has to have faith in his or her ability to get this job done. Thus, not only should a good crisis leader have confidence in his or her capabilities, but this person should also be able to inspire the organizational members to display this same confidence (King, 2002; Yusko and Goldstein, 1997).
Decision making is often mentioned as a necessary skill for crisis leaders in crisis management and leadership literature (e.g. Boin et al., 2005; Wooten and James, 2005; Wooten and James, 2008; Yusko and Goldstein, 1997). Wooten and James (2005) argue that rapid and wise decision making is an important competency for crisis leaders, but they also mention courageous action taking. For leaders to make these swift decisions they have to abandon traditional information intensive methods (Wooten and James, 2008). Especially, since scarcely available information is what makes decision making difficult in crisis situations. A crisis situation does not only mean that decisions have to be made swiftly, but decision making also takes place under pressure and scrutiny (Wooten and James, 2008).
Based on the necessary agentic characteristics for effective crisis leaders, I propose the following:
Proposition 2a: An effective crisis leader possesses the agentic traits of self-confidence and decision making.
Communal Characteristics Crisis Leader
Crisis leadership focuses for a large part on interpersonal or communal skills (Bakan, 1966), such as relationship building, empathy and perspective taking and to use these traits in effective communication (Devitt and Borodzicz, 2008; King, 2002). It may be surprising, but creativity is also considered as a more communal characteristic necessary for crisis leaders (Johnson et al., 2008).
First of all, a crisis leader should have excellent interpersonal skills (King, 2002). A multitude of skills and behaviors constitutes the cleverness crisis leaders need to display when it comes to managing relationships with colleagues, subordinates and the organisational environment. Interpersonal skills include influencing skills, emotional intelligence and communication skills (Devitt and Borodzicz, 2008).
causes intense emotions of insecurity and uncertainty about what the future holds for an organisation. A crisis leader should not only be considerate of the emotions of subordinates in these troubling times, but also should be able to control his or her emotions.
This makes emotional intelligence a very important and required skill of crisis leaders. Basically, emotional intelligence is ‘a way of life that comprises a set of multiple capabilities to perceive, manage, assess and evaluate one’s own and other persons’ emotions, to optimize personal potential and performance, to manage relationships and to develop social, economic and political awareness and social understanding and sociability’ (Chopra and Kanji, 2010: 978). In this regard one could think of capabilities such as awareness, emotional control, self-motivation and relationships handling (Chopra and Kanji, 2010; Devitt and Borodzicz, 2008; Flin, 1996). Thus, crisis leaders should be great relationship builders and easily connect with others (Hackman and Johnson, 1996).
There is also a strong case for empathy and perspective taking as required capabilities of crisis leaders. Empathy as a leadership capability is especially suited to deal with the characteristics of organisations which are confronted with declining results (Ryan and Haslam, 2007). One could say that empathy is also a component of emotional intelligence when considering the definition of EQ (Chopra and Kanji, 2010). Namely, empathy means that a leader is capable of relating to the feelings and emotions of others (Eisenberg, 1991). Eisenberg (1991) makes a useful distinction between perspective taking, empathy and sympathy. She argues that perspective taking concerns the cognitive ability to understand another’s cognitive and emotional state, which often leads to empathy for the other’s situation. However, sympathy is a more intense response which adds a feeling of concern for that other person (Eisenberg, 1991).
Further, Wooten and James (2008) link perspective taking to empathy by stating that an effective crisis leader should be able to consider the viewpoint of all stakeholders. Devitt and Borodzicz (2008) divide stakeholder awareness in engaging with and satisfying the needs of a number of stakeholder groups. It makes sense for a crisis leader, in order to assemble the entire organisation to work towards better results, that understanding the viewpoints, emotions and feelings of those involved is necessary. Then the leader adjusts and optimizes the crisis approach according to these insights.
The function of communication is not only to share information with internal and external interest groups, but is also effective in building trust (Wooten and James, 2005). Communication can be used to manage expectations, which is important for building this trust (Ibid). In this regard Wooten and James (2008) warn crisis leaders to refrain from untransparent and defensive messages, because this will lead to distrust and provides room for rumors to dictate public opinion (Pearson and Clair, 1998).
Another important characteristic of a successful crisis leader is creativity (Borodzicz, 2004; Mitroff, 2001; Wooten and James, 2008; Yusko and Goldstein, 1997). This is perhaps notable when you adhere to the idea that crisis management entails following a predefined plan to limit the number of surprises. Crisis management is all the more about thinking outside the box (Mitroff, 2001) or ‘flexible rule breaking’ (Borodzicz, 2004: 418). Webb and Chevreau (2006) actually plea for stimulation of creativity in a crisis response, instead of the discouragement caused by centralized crisis plans. Furthermore, Wooten and James (2008) link creativity to taking risks aimed at innovation. Thus, the unforeseeable and destructive nature of a crisis asks for flexibility of the leader to come up with creative solutions even when this means taking risks.
Considering this list of necessary communal skills for crisis leaders, I propose the following:
Proposition 2b: an effective crisis leader possesses the following communal traits regarding necessary interpersonal skills; high emotional intelligence, empathy and perspective taking, sensitivity in communication and creativity.
Non-Gendered Characteristics Crisis Leader
Further there are a number of non-gendered leadership traits and skills which are important for crisis leaders, such as integrity, intelligence, charisma, presenting an optimistic vision and delegation (e.g. Johnson et al., 2008). Non-gendered means that these characteristics are not associated either with agency or communion, because no difference is visible on these traits between agentic or communal people (Johnson et al., 2008).
Firstly, intelligence is an important trait for leaders in order to grasp what is happening when an organizational crisis occurs (Devitt and Borodzicz, 2008). Crisis leaders should have a basic level of intelligence in order to deal with a crisis situation (Schoenberg, 2005). This intelligence is necessary to come up with solutions to manage crisis and change in a constructive manner (Mumford et al, 2007).
Charisma and vision are often mentioned together in relation to effective crisis leadership (e.g. Grant and Mack, 2004; King, 2002; Schoenberg, 2005). Charisma is in its origin a Greek word for ‘gift of grace’ (Nur, 1998). Basically, charisma is a certain energetic radiance a leader emits and which is visible for others. According to Weber (1947) charisma was one form of authority leaders could posses. This authority is based on a confidence in the leader who is blessed with ‘exceptional powers or qualities’ (p: 358). In line with Conger and Kanungo (1987) charisma is considered to be a personality trait of a leader, with the realization that this is related to the attribution of charisma by followers to their leader. The belief that this charismatic leader has unique personal traits will give employees the confidence that the organisational crisis can be overcome guided by this ‘superhuman’ (Weber, 1947: 358). Some attributes to charismatic leaders, such as strength, competence and inspiration, are especially needed in crisis situations, when people are confused and uncertain about the future (King, 2002).
A leader with a clear vision is also more likely to engage employees in distress to the recovery of the organisation. The sense of urgency posed by a crisis makes people more receptive to needed changes (Stern, 2009). This means that employees are more open for new ideas of the leader for the future (vision) when a crisis occurs (Hackman and Johnson, 1996). According to Wooten and James (2005) crisis leaders distinguish themselves from crisis managers, because they look further than ‘getting back to normal’ (status quo) and have a plan for the future to renew the organisation. This plan is also what employees ask of their boss when an organisation is in crisis. Leadership traits such as charisma and self-confidence are very useful to align the organisation based on a powerful and realistic vision (Conger and Kanungo, 1998).
This visionary message is best carried out by the use of a catchy rhetoric (King, 2002). Hackman and Johnson (1996) argue that this rhetoric should be brought in positive terms by making good use of the persuasive effect of language. In this vision crisis leaders should express an optimistic outlook on the situation (Grant and Mack, 2004). Employees would get extremely demotivated if even the leader does not have faith in a good outcome. According to Grant and Mack (2004) this optimism should be seen as having a winner’s mentality and to think positively about a successful way to survive this crisis. However, optimism should not lead organisational decision makers to believe that their organisation is untouchable by a crisis, but leaders should not be too pessimistic about the possibilities of coping with a crisis situation either (Janis, 1989). Thus, a leader with a compelling and concrete vision, and who can present this convincingly can bring a little peace of mind in this turmoil.
vision (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Delegation and a unifying vision provide employees with the feeling of working towards a common goal (Conger and Kanungo, 1998).
Based on this listing of necessary non-gendered traits for crisis leaders, I propose the following:
Proposition 2c: an effective crisis leader possesses a number of non-gendered traits such as intelligence, integrity, charisma, presenting an optimistic vision and delegating.
Change Management Skills
Effective crisis leaders need to have change management skills in their toolbox (Wooten and James, 2008), since crises lead to organisational changes and transformations (Roux-Dufort, 2007). These skills include building trust, taking on an inclusive mindset, the ability to identify weaknesses of the organisation, quick and smart decision making, courageous action taking and adopting a learning mentality (Wooten and James, 2005; Wooten and James, 2008). The overlap with other crisis leadership traits stresses the importance of change management for leading in glass cliff positions, because it is considered as an essential inherent part of effective crisis leadership. A learning mentality and sensemaking are specific change management skills necessary for a crisis leader (Weick, 1993; Wooten and James, 2005).
Managing change in a crisis involves learning from the past (Wang, 2008). Thus, a crisis leader should posses the competencies to learn from crises to implement changes (Wooten and James, 2005). Such a learning mentality entails that crisis leaders see crises as an opportunity for organisational change and learning (Morin, 1976; Simon and Pauchant, 2000; Yusko and Goldstein, 1997). Since, crises offer an opportunity to learn and unlearn, by giving new meaning to the unknown and analyzing the past (Roux-Dufort, 2007). Learning is an important crisis management phase, but its significance is often overlooked (Wooten and James, 2005). Learning from past crises makes leaders better prepared for another crisis (Yusko and Goldstein, 1997).
Another important skill for leaders in crisis and change situations is sensemaking. Since, these changes come from a failed belief in the efficiency of previous work procedures (Pauchant and Mitroff, 1992). The nature of crises implies that it destroys fundamental safeties and mechanisms that people belief in regarding how their organisation works, which is also known as a collapse in sensemaking (Weick, 1993). Hence, a crisis leader has the challenge of making sense of this new situation in order to come up with a solution (Boin et al., 2005).
women are appointed to glass cliff positions after this phase, sensemaking is an important competence, to understand what is happening and what has to be done to survive a crisis.
This collection of skills is not knowingly described by stereotypes or associated with either the male or female sex. It is possible to state that change management skills are very important for effective crisis leadership and therefore I propose the following:
Proposition 2d: An effective crisis leader displays excellent change management skills such as adopting a learning mentality and sensemaking.
TABLE 1:
Categorization of Crisis Leadership Traits
Conclusion on Gender Typing of the Crisis Leadership Role
Based on this elaboration of necessary characteristics for effective crisis leadership it is possible to determine the gender typing of the glass cliff leadership role. Hence, answering sub question two whether the crisis leadership role, necessary for effectively leading in glass cliff positions, is described in more communal or agentic terms.
As it turns out the number of agentic traits is rather low compared to the communal characteristics an effective crisis leader should possess (see table 1). From this analysis it is clear that communal traits dominate the necessary traits for effective crisis leadership. The quality of the set of interpersonal skills a leader demonstrates is one of the most mentioned in relation to effective crisis leadership (King, 2002; Devitt and Borodzicz, 2008). This focus on maintaining
Traits/skills Agentic Communal Non-gendered Not specified
interpersonal relationships and using empathy and perspective taking in communication are core elements of crisis leadership and also the essence of what communion entails. However, there are also a number of traits which are not seen as gender-specific or are not specified in that way, which are also considered important for crisis leadership. For instance change management is an important skill relating to effective crisis leadership, but is not subject to persistent stereotypical beliefs. However, when we use the division between agentic and communal traits the majority and crucial interpersonal skills making up this leadership role are of a more communal nature.
Therefore, when we consider the number of agentic and communal traits of an effective crisis leader then women are not necessarily at a disadvantage, but would rather have a stereotypical advantage compared to men. Since, these interpersonal skills are still mainly attributed to females (Johnson et al., 2008). Furthermore, career women are also considered as more agentic than women in general were in previous years (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick and Xu, 2002). Thus, considering the score of agentic and communal traits needed in times of crisis women are doing rather good.
Regarding the gender typing of the crisis leadership role (table 1) I propose the following:
Proposition 3: Crisis leadership is described in more communal, hence feminine, than agentic terms.
SIMILARITIES CRISIS LEADERSHIP AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
The
section on crisis leadership shows a very complete picture of a crisis leader, therefore it is possible to state that crisis leadership contains more important skills next to the large bulk of interpersonal skills which are communion-oriented. Since, non-gendered skills such as charisma and vision and change management skills are also very important traits of an effective crisis leader. To answer the posed research question more completely a larger amount of the necessary crisis leadership traits should be covered. Even tough the influence of gender typing on leader effectiveness is important to consider, only stating that the crisis leadership role is described in mostly female terms is not enough to determine the influence of gender on leadership effectiveness in glass cliff positions. Neither is it possible to propose a female leadership advantage solely based on the feminine description of the crisis leader role. Since, the match between leadership style and organisational conditions is also important for leadership effectiveness (Burns, 1978). Therefore, I will determine in this section which leadership style is most suitable for leading in glass cliff positions and in this way answer sub question three.Transformational Skills
Transformational leaders are characterized as diverging from the status quo by radical change (Burns, 1978). They inspire their subordinates through a compelling vision and in this way leaders gain commitment, trust and confidence of the subordinate (Bass, 1985). Important transformational leadership dimensions are valuing individuals, communication, empowerment, integrity, accessibility and decisiveness (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2005). Conger and Kanungo (1998) argue that charismatic leadership also incorporates these elements, albeit in different terms and from a different perspective. This can be related to the description of transformational leadership of Bass (1985), since this author considers charisma as the largest part of what constitutes transformational leadership and this makes charisma a trait which distinguishes transformational leaders from transactional managers.
First of all, an effective crisis leader is expected to be self-confident (e.g. King, 2002). Similarly to effective crisis leaders, self-confidence is asked for in charismatic leaders to promote their vision (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Further, quick and smart decision making as well as courageous action taking is seen as important in times of crisis and change (Wooten and James, 2005). A transformational leader is also seen as decisive and this concerns the willingness to make difficult decisions when needed (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2005). Moreover, delegating tasks to employees heightens the morale and confidence in a good outcome and is therefore necessary for effective crisis leadership (e.g. King, 2002). This empowerment is an important factor in transformational leadership to accomplish the vision (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2005). Delegating tasks is a way for transformational leaders to achieve this sense of empowerment among subordinates, because it heightens the feelings of self-efficacy among employees (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Consequently employees will have confidence in fulfilling tasks necessary to achieve the new vision (Ibid). Thus, a transformational approach is especially effective for crisis leadership, because these times ask for a decisive and self-confident leader which empowers employees by delegating task to them.
As was proposed earlier an effective crisis leader should also be charismatic and be capable of developing as well as presenting a catchy vision which unites an organisation to survive a crisis (e.g. King, 2002). Next to charisma, a transformational leader uses a realistic vision to influence and gain commitment from the employees to accomplish this vision (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Transformational or charismatic leadership is considered to be based on the charisma and vision of the leader (Conger and Kanungo, 1998), thus crisis leaders which use a transformational style are considered to be more successful in these challenging times.
implementing changes, which will successfully lead the organisation away from the current crisis situation, is similar to how transformational leaders focus on radical change (Burns, 1978). Moreover, just as sensemaking is an inherent part of change management in times of crisis this meaning-making after all sense has collapsed is also an important task of transformational leaders (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Further, when leaders are agents of radical change then they are seen as highly charismatic (Conger and Kanungo, 1987). Thus, not only is transformational leadership a suitable approach for leadership regarding change management in times of crisis, the use of this approach will also enhance the necessary charismatic perception of these leaders.
Moreover, sensitivity is very important in relation to crisis management as became clear by the found importance of interpersonal skills and sensitive communication regarding effective crisis leadership. This necessary sensitivity is reflected in the measurement of the change element in transformational leadership, namely by means of the scales of encouraging change and facilitating change sensitivity (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2005). In their effort transformational leaders should be sensitive to the interests and needs of all the stakeholders in such a way that all interest groups feel considered in the new vision (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2005). The importance for high emotional intelligence, which is asked for in crisis leaders, is also found in relation to transformational leadership (Clarke, 2010). This enhances the belief that a transformational approach is effective for crisis leadership.
Further, an optimistic rhetoric and an inspiring vision are considered necessary in times of crisis and change to commit the employees to join forces and work a way out of the crisis (King, 2002). Similarly, a transformational leader’s objective is to make his or her vision a shared goal together with employees and to spread this vision the leader should be an effective communicator (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). In this regard transformational leaders are considered to be masters of interpersonal communication (Sashkin, 1988). Moreover, communication needs to be inspirational for employees in order to let the vision become a shared future image of the organisation (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2005). The transformational way of influencing is centered on this vision and is focused at taking the lead in organisational change (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Thus, regarding sensitivity and optimism in communicating a new inspirational vision, in order to engage employees in times of crisis, transformational leadership is considered to be an effective approach.
Transformational leadership style
+
Glass cliff characteristics: - Crisis - Change+
Leadership effectivenessin glass cliff positions
Transactional Skills
On the other hand, it is argued that next to transformational leadership skills leaders should also possess transactional traits to manage daily tasks (Alban-Metcalfe, 2000; Bass, 1985). Transactional managers focus on the management of the organisation by maintaining status quo, hence the use of the term manager, by implementing incremental changes. These leaders focus on task completion, achieving clear goals and optimizing the performance of the organisation (Ibid). To motivate employees these leaders rely on the transaction of rewards to gain commitment (Burns, 1978). Transactional management is often described as the opposite of transformational leadership and more relevant in calmer times (Ibid). Even tough this would make a transactional style less effective for or crisis leaders this transaction focus could imply the need for task skills to manage daily operations (Devitt and Borodzicz, 2008).
Conclusion on Effective Leadership Style for Leading in Glass Cliff Positions
This comparison of the traits for effective crisis leadership and the dimensions of a more transformational or transactional leadership style shows that the focus of crisis leadership clearly lies on transformational traits. Commonalities can be found with transformational leadership regarding important crisis leadership traits such as self-confidence, decisiveness, empowerment, charisma, vision, change management, effective communication and sensitivity and also with creativity and integrity. On the other hand, transactional skills are necessary for and effective crisis leader when it concerns managing daily operations during a crisis. Interestingly, transformational leadership also focuses on more communal traits (Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), just as was established for crisis leadership in the previous section. Moreover, the essential crisis leadership traits of interpersonal sensitivity and communication, charisma, vision and change management are deeply anchored in transformational and charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Thus, transformational leadership can be considered as an effective approach for crisis leadership and hence explains leadership effectiveness in glass cliff positions. Therefore, I propose the following about the effectiveness of a transformational style regarding crisis leadership (see also figure 3):
Proposition 4: Transformational leadership is positively related to leadership effectiveness regarding the glass cliff characteristics of crisis and change.
FIGURE 3:
FEMALE LEADERSHIP STYLE EFFECTIVENESS IN GLASS CLIFF POSITIONS In this section I will answer the question which started this whole research endeavor: do women really have what it takes to be effective in glass cliff positions? In other words do women display the necessary leadership qualities combined in a transformational leadership style which are required to be an effective crisis leader? Therefore, I will discuss research on the leadership style of women and its effectiveness regarding crisis leadership.
Differences between Male and Female Leaders on Effective Crisis Leadership
To determine the effectiveness of a female leadership style in relation to crisis leadership I will compare research on gender differences regarding leadership style. I will discuss these review findings in three ways; firstly concerning the general debate, then by discussing more specific attributes and finally by treating the necessary leadership style for effective crisis leadership
The debate on gender based differences of leadership continues to be dominated by two opposite sides. For the ‘no difference’ camp Heilman (2001) argued that in reality there are no notable differences between the abilities, orientations and behavior of male and female managers. In line with this finding, Vecchio (2002) does not find evidence for a leadership advantage for either sex. Furthermore, Vecchio (2002) states that it is impossible to make such generalized statements, because the context should be considered. In favour of the opposite, empirical evidence was also found that proposes a female leadership advantage over men (Eagly et al., 2003). These last authors found evidence for differences between male and female leadership style even when they hold the same leadership role. Considering these contradicting findings and the concerns of Vecchio regarding context this research places differences between male and female leadership style in the context of crisis and change management relevant for glass cliff positions.
As I stated earlier interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence constitute a large part of the crisis leader’s toolbox and thus are important for effective leadership in glass cliff positions. Research that has investigated differences between men and women on these traits show two sides of the story. On one side, there are those authors who state that there are no differences between male or female leaders on social and emotional skills (Hopkins and Bilimoria, 2008). On the other hand, test results based on objective ratings of emotional intelligence demonstrated that women do score higher on these qualities (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner and Salovey, 2006).
men, made possible by their better social competences, but their leadership style was not mainly focused on establishing interpersonal relations.
In sum, it is rather inconclusive if women differ from men in the skills they possess which are important for effective crisis leadership. However, it is important to keep in mind the importance of interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence for effective crisis leadership. Thus, although findings are not consistent it is possible to state that women have a more social leadership style than men display, which resembles transformational leadership closely and this is important for crisis leadership.
Further, it is contemplated that women’s idea of effective leadership is more similar to transformational leadership than the ideas of men (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995). This could be an indication of the leadership style women prefer to demonstrate. It was found that female leaders are more inclined to use a transformational leadership style, where men prefer a transactional approach (Van Engen and Willemsen, 2004). Some researchers did not find any differences between observer’s scores of male and female leaders on the dimensions of transformational leadership (Manning, 2002, Van Engen, et al., 2001). These authors interpret these findings as proof of the androgynous nature of transformational leadership. However, the majority of studies on the relationship between gender and transformational leadership represent findings which favour women in demonstrating leadership style (Kark, 2004). The meta-analysis of Eagly et al. (2003) pointed out that women display the more effective transformational leadership style compared to men who portrayed lesser effective styles. This meta-analysis demonstrated that female managers score higher on transformational dimensions of ‘charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration’ (Eagly et al., 2003: 578).
Based on these convincing meta-analytic findings and because transformational leadership is considered an effective style for glass cliff positions, I propose the following:
Proposition 5: female leaders are more likely than male leaders to demonstrate the necessary transformational leadership style to effectively deal with the glass cliff characteristics of crisis and change.
DISCUSSION OF IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH Theoretical and Practical Implications
