Small Group Research-2008-Türetgen-588-615

http://sgr.sagepub.com/Small Group Research

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/39/5/588The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1046496408319884 2008 39: 588 originally published online 19 June 2008Small Group Research

Ilknur Özalp Türetgen, Pinar Unsal and Inci ErdemEmergence : Does Culture Make a Difference?

The Effects of Sex, Gender Role, and Personality Traits on Leader

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Small Group ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/39/5/588.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 19, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 8, 2008Version of Record >>

by anca elena on October 11, 2012sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/39/5/588

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/39/5/588.refs.html

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/39/5/588.full.pdf

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/06/19/1046496408319884.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


The Effects of Sex, GenderRole, and Personality Traitson Leader EmergenceDoes Culture Make a Difference?Ilknur Özalp TüretgenPinar UnsalIstanbul University, TurkeyInci ErdemMarmara University, Istanbul

This study investigated the effects of sex, gender roles, and personality (self-monitoring, self-efficacy, and dominance) on leader emergence in Turkish uni-versity students. Two hundred and nineteen business students filled in personalityand gender role inventories, and 60 of them were selected by personality and sexto join in a 4-person leaderless group discussion involving a gender-neutral task.At the completion of the sessions, they evaluated each other on leadership per-ception and preferences. Results showed that the only personality trait predictingleader emergence in Turkish students was self-monitoring. Differing from stud-ies conducted in Western cultures, dominance, self-efficacy, sex, and gender roleorientation were not found to predict emergent group leaders. This difference isexplained within the context of Turkey’s feminine and collectivist cultural char-acteristics. The study supports the idea that North American research findings ongroup leadership perceptions should be tested in other cultures. This issue is espe-cially important for global organizations functioning worldwide.

Keywords: leader emergence; sex; gender role; dominance; self-efficacy;self-monitoring; culture

Early research on leadership focused on trait differences betweenleaders and nonleaders. Nevertheless, both Stogdill’s (1948) and

Mann’s (1959) reviews indicating that traits are not stable in predicting

Small Group ResearchVolume 39 Number 5

October 2008 588-615© 2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/1046496408319884http://sgr.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

588

Authors’ Note: This work was supported by the Research Fund of Istanbul University (ProjectNo. UDP 703/24032006) and is a part of Ilknur Özalp Türetgen’s PhD thesis completed atIstanbul University and chaired by Pinar Unsal. Please address correspondence Ilknur ÖzalpTüretgen, Istanbul Universitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, Beyazit, Istanbul,Turkey 34126; e-mail: [email protected].



leadership caused different leadership approaches to emerge. However,today there is a renewed interest in the trait theories of leadership. One ofthe causes of this renewed interest is research findings showing that traitsare stable in explaining leadership (e.g., Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; Zaccaro,Foti, & Kenny, 1991). Moreover, some researchers have revisited earlierwork with new statistical methods and have suggested that traits are asso-ciated with leadership (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986).

Interest in the roles of followers in the leadership process has alsoencouraged research on leadership traits in this area. Social-cognitive stud-ies suggest that individuals have implicit leadership theories or prototypesabout leadership traits (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). Mischel (1973)emphasized that traits are important for individuals when they are perceivedby others. Many investigators suggest that people share a set of generalbeliefs about characteristics relating to leadership for diverse situations(e.g., Foti, Fraser, & Lord, 1982; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994).Moreover, studies on implicit leadership theories show that cognitiveschemas predict leadership perception and leader emergence (Lord et al.,1986). In other words, these schemas cause people to evaluate the traits ofothers and classify them either as leaders or as nonleaders.

It is important to identify the leadership traits that are considered essen-tial for an individual to be categorized as a leader by others. Many studiesconducted in North American culture show that some kind of traits, such aspersonality, intelligence, sex, and gender roles, are related to leader emer-gence (e.g., Hall, Workman, & Marchioro, 1998; Moss & Kent, 1996; Ritter& Yoder, 2004; J. A. Smith & Foti, 1998; Taggar, Hackett, & Saha, 1999).However, many studies demonstrate that implicit leadership theories maydiffer from culture to culture (Brodbeck et al., 2000; House, Javidan,Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002; Konrad, 2000). As House, Javidan, andDorfman (2001) suggest, it is important to know the effect of culture onleadership because the globalization of world’s marketplace often requiresmanagers and employees to work in different countries.

Consistent with these views, some authors (e.g., Ellis, 1988; Gershenoff& Foti, 2003; Goktepe & Schneier, 1989) propose that similar studies beconducted in different cultures. Therefore, this study was conducted toinvestigate the relationship of sex, gender roles, and personality to leaderemergence in Turkey. The personality traits investigated in this study con-sist of dominance, self-efficacy, and self-monitoring, each of which hasbeen investigated in North American studies and found to be relevant toleader emergence (e.g., Hall et al., 1998; J. A. Smith & Foti, 1998).

Özalp Türetgen et al. / Leader Emergence 589



Cultural Differences

Recently, the number of studies conducted in the area of societal cultureand its organizational effects has increased (Brodbeck et al., 2000;Hofstede, 1983; P. B. Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996; Triandis,McCusker, & Hui, 1990). One of the most comprehensive of these studieswas carried out by Hofstede (1980), who compared societies with culturaldimensions. In this large-scale study, conducted between 1967 and 1973,116,000 employees who worked for one large U.S.-based multinationalcorporation operating in 40 countries around the world were surveyed.Hofstede identified four cultural dimensions based on societal values.

In his work published in 1980, 1983, and 1998, Hofstede described the char-acteristics of these dimensions and compared them across countries. One ofthese cultural dimensions was called “power distance,” which concerns status,hierarchy, and power inequalities between people in societies and in its institu-tions. Societies showing large power distance believe that power is a basic factof society, that power holders are entitled to privileges, and that superiors areinaccessible. On the other hand, in societies that show small power distance,everyone should have equal rights and superiors are accessible. In terms of thisdimension, Turkey was found to have large power distance, whereas the UnitedStates and Canada were found to have small power distance.

The second cultural dimension was called “uncertainty avoidance,”which indicates the extent to which people in a society feel threatened byuncertain and ambiguous situations. People in societies high on this culturaldimension experience higher anxiety and stress and have concern for secu-rity in life and, consequently, need written rules. On the contrary, people insocieties showing weak uncertainty avoidance experience lower stress andlower anxiety, are more willing to take risks in life, and need fewer rules.Concerning uncertainty avoidance, Turkey also differed from the UnitedStates and Canada—Turkey was ranked above the average, whereas theUnited States and Canada were ranked below the average.

“Individualism-collectivism” is the third dimension identified byHofstede. This dimension describes the extent to which individuals feelloyal to their communities. In individualistic cultures, the general belief isthat people are supposed to take care of themselves and their immediatefamilies only, everybody has a right to a private life and opinion, and iden-tity is based within the individual. However, in collectivist cultures, thegeneral belief is that people are born into families or clans, private life isinvaded by their clans, and identity is based within the social system.According to Kagitcibasi (1994), in these societies family membership is

590 Small Group Research



important in the definition of self. On this dimension, Turkey was classifiedamong the collectivist societies in comparison to the highly individualisticsocieties of the United States and Canada.

The last cultural dimension suggested by Hofstede is called “masculin-ity.” This dimension emphasizes masculine values in society—assertive-ness, money and material things, and not caring for others. In femininesocieties, in contrast, caring for others and building warm relationships arethe dominant values. In masculine societies, people live in order to work,whereas in feminine ones, people work in order to live. Turkey was foundto be a moderately feminine society, whereas the United States and Canadawere considered moderately masculine societies.

In a more recent study, Kabasakal and Bodur (1998), in the context of acomprehensive project (Project GLOBE) spanning 62 countries, found fur-ther evidence that Turkey is a society showing stronger uncertainty avoid-ance, larger power distance, and higher collectivism. Aycan et al. (2000),who carried out a study with 1,954 employees from business organizationsfrom 10 countries, found Turkey to be more collectivist; to have higherpower distance; and to have higher paternalist relationships in which therole of the superior is to provide guidance and nurturance, whereas the roleof the subordinate is to be loyal. In summary, according to these studies,Turkish culture is different from U.S. and Canadian cultures, and for thisreason these societies are appropriate for studying leader emergence in rela-tion to cultural differences.

Sex, Gender Role, and Leader Emergence

One of the earliest variables investigated in relation to leader emergencewas sex. Research in this field has resulted in conflicted findings. Someresearch concluded that there were no differences between men and womenin leader emergence (Goktepe & Schneier, 1989; Kent & Moss, 1994; Moss& Kent, 1996; Schneier & Bartol, 1980). In a review, Powell andButterfield (1982) saw that there was no difference between men andwomen being perceived as leaders if they exhibited the same initiation orconsideration behavior. In contrast, some research indicated that menemerged as leaders more frequently than women did (Carbonell, 1984;Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, & Clemons, 1990; Hall et al., 1998; Megargee,1969). In addition, Neubert and Taggar (2004), who investigated this topicwith teams in real work settings, found that men emerged as informalleaders more frequently than women did.




These conflicting results were explored by Eagly and Karau (1991), whocontended that the type of leadership (task oriented or interrelation oriented)and the gender type of the task (masculine, feminine, or gender neutral) hadmoderator effects on this relationship. The literature showed that menemerged as leaders more frequently in masculine tasks (Carbonell, 1984; Hallet al., 1998; Karakowsky & Siegel, 1999; Megargee, 1969; Ritter & Yoder,2004; Wentworth & Anderson, 1984), whereas women emerged as leadersmore frequently in feminine tasks (Carbonell, 1984; Karakowsky & Siegel,1999; Wentworth & Anderson, 1984). In gender-neutral tasks, the findingswere conflicting, as some studies showed that men emerge as leaders morefrequently (Megargee, 1969; Wentworth & Anderson, 1984), whereas someothers demonstrated no difference between the sexes (Goktepe & Schneier,1989; Hall et al., 1998; Kent & Moss, 1994; Kolb, 1997; Moss & Kent, 1996;Schneier & Bartol, 1980). Also, in a meta-analytical study by Eagly andKarau (1991), men emerged as leaders in short-term groups and in groupscarrying out some specific tasks, whereas women emerged as social leadersin groups. Furthermore, Karakowsky and Siegel (1999) investigated leaderemergence in male-dominated, female-dominated, and balanced-sex groupsthat worked on both masculine and feminine tasks. The results proved thatalthough men emerged as leaders less frequently in the feminine task, womenemerged as leaders less frequently in the masculine task. They found thatbeing in a minority position did not always reduce the chance of emerging asa leader. Moreover, the expertise on the task could cause leaders to emerge.

Meta-analytic studies in this field assert that men emerge as leadersmore frequently. For example, Eagly and Karau (2002), focusing on rolecongruity theory, postulated that women would be preferred less frequentlythan men because of the incongruity between leadership and women’sgender roles. Moreover, they found in their meta-analytic study that in taskgroups men emerge as leaders more frequently than women do. Also,Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsky (1992) showed that women were evaluatedless positively than men, especially when they displayed a masculine stylesuch as being autocratic or directive. Particularly, it seemed that lower eval-uations arose for women when they were in masculine-dominated roles andwhen the evaluators were men.

An important factor determining whether sex affects leader emergencemay be the culture’s masculinity and femininity. According to Hofstede(1998), in masculine cultures it is believed that men should dominate insociety and be assertive; also, sex roles in society are clearly defined. Infeminine cultures it is believed that sexes are equal, and men are notexpected to be assertive; in addition, sex roles in society are more flexible.




Although Turkish culture was classified as feminine, gender inequalitiesmay be observed in many fields in favor of men, as in the rest of the world.In general, statistical data also show that in Turkey women are disadvan-taged in comparison to men with respect to education level, income level,and participation in the decision-making process in society (UnitedNations, 2000). For instance, in Turkey the proportion of women inParliament is rather low (9.09 %; www.tbmm.gov.tr). However, it should benoted that Turkish women gained their right to vote and to be elected ear-lier (in 1934) than women in many European countries, and Turkey evenhad a female prime minister, elected in 1993 (www.tbmm.gov.tr).

Education plays an important role in reducing the effect of gender inequality. Data from the Turkish Statistical Institute inform us that the pro-portion of women with higher education joining the workforce is muchhigher than women with lower education, and the gap between highly edu-cated men and women becomes much smaller (TÜIK, 2006). In Turkey, theproportion of women working in public administration is much higher(17%) than the proportion of women in this area in many other Europeancountries including Germany (5%) and Belgium (6%; United Nations,2000). Furthermore, no differences have been recorded between the sexesin relation to attending university in Turkey (www.osym.gov.tr). Based onthese data, in this study conducted in Turkey, men and women are notexpected to differ in terms of leader emergence. Based on this argument,Hypothesis 1 is formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Sex will not predict group leader emergence in a Turkish sample.

In addition to sex, the effect of gender roles on leader emergence wasinvestigated. Bem (1974) suggested that individuals have gender roles thatcan be independent from their biological sex. The author classified genderroles into masculinity and femininity and asserted that people may haveboth masculine and feminine identities at the same time, that is, androgyny.Thus, a man or a woman can have one of these roles or both. According toBem, masculinity is associated with an instrumental orientation and gettingthe job done, whereas femininity is related to an expressive orientation andwelfare of others.

Some studies investigated the relationship of sex roles to leader emer-gence and found that in groups that worked together for a long time mas-culinity was significantly related to leader emergence (Goktepe & Schneier,1989; Kolb, 1997; Moss & Kent, 1996). In another study, Kent and Moss(1994) found that not only masculinity but also androgyny had an effect on




leader emergence. Finally, Hall et al. (1998) indicated that androgynyimproved the perception of leadership for women but lessened the leader-ship perception for men. They also found that androgyny predicted leaderemergence in a gender-neutral task type but did not predict this in a mas-culine one. However, when they explored the effects of masculinity andfemininity, masculinity was seen as having a significant effect on leaderemergence. Consistently, meta-analytic studies found masculinity to be atrait of emergent leaders (Lord et al., 1986). In summary, in Western cul-tures androgyny was not a significant factor alone in leader emergence, buttogether with masculinity it was.

As Hofstede (1998) stated, in masculine cultures norms and values dif-fer for men and women; in contrast, in feminine cultures these differencesare less, and unisex and androgyny are ideal. Consistent with these views,in a study conducted with a Turkish sample, the values of women and menwere found to be similar (Ogur & Cesur, 2002). Furthermore, in masculinesocieties men in particular are expected to be decisive, ambitious, andassertive (Hofstede, 1998), which is closely related with the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). In a study comparing sex differences in self-efficacy across 22 nations by Schwarzer and Scholz (2000), it was foundthat in the United States men obtained higher values than women did.However, in two different studies carried out with white-collar employeesand university students in Turkey, no difference was observed between thesexes (Özalp Türetgen & Cesur, 2005, 2007). For this reason, in communi-ties having low masculinity traits it might not be expected that a leaderwould be either masculine or feminine but to possess both of the sex roles.Therefore, Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c are stated as follows:

Hypothesis 2a: Masculinity will not predict group leader emergence in aTurkish sample.

Hypothesis 2b: Femininity will not predict group leader emergence in aTurkish sample.

Hypothesis 2c: Androgyny will predict leader emergence in a Turkish sample.

Personality Traits and Leader Emergence

The relationship between some personality traits and leader emergencehas been studied using various methodologies. One study found leaderemergence to be related to masculinity and dominance (Lord et al., 1986).Many other studies have shown that leader emergence is associated with




conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness, extraversion, and emotionalbalance (Judge et al., 2002; Kickul & Neuman, 2000; Stewart, 2001; Taggaret al., 1999).

In the present study, dominance, self-efficacy, and self-monitoring person-ality traits were examined. Each of these traits, especially self-monitoring, hasbeen investigated to some extent in previous North American studies and wasfound to be relevant to leader emergence (e.g., Hall et al., 1998; J. A. Smith &Foti, 1998). Dominance and self-efficacy could also be important in a differ-ent culture because they reflect the characteristic features of masculine andindividualistic societies. Studying these personality traits in the feminine andcollectivist Turkish society would help to develop a deeper understanding offactors, independent from culture and associated with leader emergence.

Dominance, self-efficacy, and self-monitoring could also be explored inrelation to the dimensions mentioned in the taxonomies of personality. TheBig Five personality theory is the most widely accepted (Costa & McCrae,1995) taxonomy and includes five personality traits: extraversion, open-ness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Dominance is oneof the characteristics that is related to the extraversion dimension (Somer &Goldberg, 1999). Self-efficacy was found to be negatively related with neu-roticism and positively related with extraversion, openness, and conscien-tiousness (Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen, 2006; Özalp Türetgen & Cesur,2005). Finally, self-monitoring was shown to be positively related withextraversion, openness, and emotional balance (Barrick, Parks, & Mount,2005; Furnham, 1989; Lennox & Wolfe, 1984).

Dominance is one of the oldest constructs linked to leader emergence.Lord et al. (1986) concluded that previous reviews, which had not found alink, were too pessimistic, and in fact dominance was related to leaderemergence. In their recent meta-analytic study, Judge et al. (2002) con-cluded that dominance did predict leader emergence.

Moreover, Hogan’s (1978) study, which was conducted with studentfootball team players, and other studies (Carbonell, 1984; Nyquist &Spence, 1986; J. A. Smith & Foti, 1998) carried out in leaderless group dis-cussion settings proved that dominance has a positive relationship withleader emergence. However, some have found that dominance predictsleader emergence in same-sex groups but not in mixed-sex groups(Carbonell, 1984; Davis & Gilbert, 1989; Megargee, 1969; Nyquist &Spance, 1986; Ritter & Yoder, 2004). In mixed-sex groups with the tasksbeing either gender neutral or masculine, men emerged as leaders more fre-quently. However, when the task type was feminine, dominance instead ofgender influenced the selection of leaders.




Another personality trait that has been investigated in North Americanresearch in relation to leader emergence is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is theexpectation that one can perform a behavior successfully to generate adesired outcome (Bandura, 1977). Even though Bandura conceived of self-efficacy as specific to certain situations, other researchers have described itas a broader or more global concept (Harter, 1978). Shelton (1990) arguedthat self-efficacy is a personality trait and defined it as a “global trait, rela-tively stable, [which] changes over time with an accumulation of successand failure experiences” (p. 992). Similarly, Sherer et al. (1982) referred toself-efficacy as a general trait and explored it as a combination of one’stotal past successes and failures.

There have been few studies about the relationship between self-efficacyand leader emergence. In one of the most important studies in this field,however, J. A. Smith and Foti (1998) examined the roles of dominance,intelligence, and self-efficacy. They showed that all three traits predictedleader emergence, and they suggested that future research include a self-efficacy trait to which no attention had been paid.

To develop an understanding of the relationship of leader emergence todominance and self-efficacy, it is helpful to assess these traits in light ofHofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. As stated above, Turkish culture hasbeen found to be more feminine than American culture (Hofstede, 1980).Assertiveness, performance, money, and independence are more valued inmasculine cultures, whereas quality of life, people, environment, and inter-dependence are dominant values in feminine cultures (Hofstede, 1980).Hofstede (1991) also proposed that masculine and feminine cultures createdifferent kinds of leader heroes. He explained that hero managers in mas-culine communities are assertive, aggressive, and decisive, but in femininecommunities they are less visible, are more intuitive, and seek more con-sensus. Consistent with this view, a study conduced in Turkey with white-collar employees showed that the most highly expected traits from leadersare closely related to femininity, such as building good relationships withothers, being humanistic, and being fair (Pasa, 2000).

At the same time, Turkish society has been defined as more collectivistthan American society by Aycan et al. (2000), Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2001),and Kabasakal and Bodur (1998). According to these authors, conformityand collaboration are more valued in collectivist cultures, but in individu-alistic ones performance and achievement are seen as more important. Self-efficacy is a trait that causes people to focus on their own successes andperformances, which is more valued in masculine and individualistic soci-eties. However, as mentioned, in feminine and collectivist cultures other




people and relationships are seen as more important than success.Dominance, like self-efficacy, may also cause people to focus their atten-tion on themselves and impose their ideas on others, which are more char-acteristic features of masculine and individualistic cultures. On the otherhand, in feminine and collectivist cultures, seeking consensus and collabo-ration are more valued. Taking these views into consideration, Hypotheses3a and 3b are formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 3a: Dominance will not predict group leader emergence in aTurkish sample.

Hypothesis 3b: Self-efficacy will not predict group leader emergence in aTurkish sample.

Another personality trait that has been investigated frequently in NorthAmerican studies in relation to leadership is self-monitoring (e.g., Hall etal., 1998; Zaccaro et al., 1991). According to the self-monitoring theory(Snyder, 1974), individuals differ in the extent to which they monitor andcontrol their self-presentations in social situations. Some people can con-trol their self-presentations and expressive behavior and are particularlysensitive to clues about the appropriateness of the behavior. According toSnyder, high self-monitors are especially sensitive to clues indicatingwhich behavior is appropriate in which situation, and they use these cluesefficiently to arrange their own behavior. On the other hand, low self-mon-itors control their behavior by their attitude instead of by cluing into thedemand of the situation. Furthermore, they do not monitor or control theirself-presentations, and they behave as they feel.

Based on the idea that high self-monitors may be better in accommodat-ing their behavior to the demand of the situation by adapting their behaviorto answer a group’s needs, the relationship between self-monitoring andleader emergence has been investigated. For example, Cronshaw and Ellis(1991) investigated whether high self-monitors are perceived as leadersmore frequently than low self-monitors are and found that people high inthis trait used social clues as a guide for their social behavior. Indeed, thefindings of many studies in this area have shown that there is a consistentrelationship between self-monitoring and leader emergence (Day,Schleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002; Dobbins et al., 1990; Ellis, 1988;Ellis, Adamson, Deszca, & Cawsey, 1988; Garland & Beard, 1979; Hall etal., 1998; Kent & Moss, 1990; Zaccaro et al., 1991).

As leadership is traditionally considered a masculine task, Anderson andMcLenigan (1987) suggested that self-monitoring is especially important for




female leaders. However, experimental studies have shown that men whowere high self-monitors emerged as leaders more frequently than did women(Ellis, 1988; Ellis & Cronshaw, 1992; Hall et al., 1998). Other studies alsoconcluded that sex does not play a role in this relationship (Ellis et al., 1988).

Unlike self-efficacy and dominance, self-monitoring facilitates theunderstanding of cues in a social setting. Lord, Brown, Harvey, and Hall(2001) asserted that leaders benefit from this type of sensitivity to the envi-ronment and are better able to respond to group situations. Likewise,Zaccaro et al. (1991) underlined that behavioral flexibility plays a key rolein leader emergence. We believe that self-monitoring is likely to be animportant determinant for leadership perception regardless of culturebecause individuals high on self-monitoring are able to flex their behavioraccording to the needs of the environment and make it appropriate for thesituation. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 4: Self-monitoring will predict group leader emergence in aTurkish sample.

Method

Participants

Participants were business management students of one of the largestuniversities in Turkey. This sample may represent the Turkish culture quitewell because the university is located in Istanbul, which attracts manystudents from various parts of Turkey. The students received extra credit intheir courses for their participation in the study.

The initial data were collected from 219 voluntary students. However,the leaderless group discussions were conducted with 60 students—30women and 30 men. The mean age of this group was 19.1 years.

Procedure

This study consisted of three stages, explained in detail below. Ninety-one female and 128 male students participated in the first stage when thedata on participants’ sex, gender role, and personality traits were collected.

In the second stage, participants were placed in discussion groups.Group placements were made based on participant sex and the median splitof the personality score. Each person whose scores were higher than





median splits in all self-monitoring, self-efficacy, and dominance traits wasclassified into the high-high-high (HHH) pattern, and each person whosescores were lower than median splits in all self-monitoring, self-efficacy,and dominance traits was classified into the low-low-low (LLL) pattern. Tofind out whether significant differences exist between the two sexes on thepersonality traits, t tests were conducted. Results showed that there were nodifferences between the two sexes in terms of the three personality traits;thus, to compose the HHH and LLL groups, median values belonging to thetotal group were used. Descriptive statistics including total group’s and sexgroups’ median values for the variables of personality traits are presentedin Table 1.

From the original 219 participants, 93 were classified into either theHHH or the LLL pattern. While composing the discussion groups, in addi-tion to personality, participant sex was also taken into consideration.Consequently, each discussion group consisted of four individuals: an HHHwoman, an HHH man, an LLL woman, and an LLL man. The participantswere assigned into groups randomly. The total number of groups that couldbe composed was 19. However, the number of groups was reduced to 15(60 total participants) because 4 students from one of the patterns (HHHwoman) did not participate in the group discussions. Two of these partici-pants could not be reached to inform them about the date of the group work,and the other two started to work in part-time jobs after first stage of thisstudy and were not available for this study.

Table 1Descriptive Statistics for the Three Relevant Personality Traits

Mean Standard Deviation Median ta df

Self-monitoring 47.1 6.8 47.0 –.22 217Women 46.9 6.5 46.0Men 47.2 7.0 47.0

Self-efficacy 73.5 10.1 74.0 –.13 217Women 73.4 10.3 75.0Men 73.6 10.1 74.0

Dominance 15.5 4.5 16.0 –.60 217Women 15.7 4.5 16.0Men 15.3 4.5 16.0

Note: Table shows all participants included in the first stage of the study, N = 219 (91 womenand 128 men).a. All t values are nonsignificant.



In the third stage of the study, participants who were classified into thegroups were called to join the leaderless group discussions. These applica-tions were carried out in a room at the university building that was usedsolely for this purpose during this period. In some research, it has beenfound that the role orientation of the task caused a difference in perceptionsof women and men as leaders (Carbonell, 1984; Hall et al., 1998;Karakowsky & Siegel, 1999; Ritter & Yoder, 2004; Wentworth & Anderson,1984). Thus, we chose a gender-neutral task. The task was a brainstormingrecommendation for dealing with children with AIDS, which had been usedby Hall et al. (1998) and Zaccaro et al. (1991). For the purpose of the testof the gender role orientation of the various tasks, including the one used inthe present study, a pilot study with a sample of 69 students (36 women and33 men) was conducted. Participants were asked to read the description ofthe each task and to evaluate its gender role orientation on a 7-point scale(1 = extremely feminine and 7 = extremely masculine). For the task used in thepresent research, the highest percentage of the participants (44%) selected4, which is the midpoint of the scale (M = 3.8, median = 4, SD = 1). Thesex of the participants did not have a significant effect on the evaluations ofthis task, t(67) = –1.29, p > .05.

Two of the tasks (organizing a wedding and organizing a football game)in the pilot study were previously used by Ritter and Yoder (2004).Consistent with those authors’ results, a wedding organization task wasfound to be highly feminine (M = 2.6, median = 2, SD = 1.9), and the foot-ball game organization task was found to be highly masculine (M = 6.1,median = 7, SD = 1). The task used in the present study (dealing withchildren with AIDS) differed from the highly feminine wedding organiza-tion task and highly masculine football game organization task on a signif-icant level, F(1, 68) = 10.167, p < .05. This result showed that the dealingwith children with AIDS task is gender neutral.

After the experimenter explained the task, the groups were given 30minutes to complete the session. At the end of the session, the groupmembers rated each other and themselves regarding perceptions of leader-ship. Participants also ranked themselves and each other in terms of leaderpreference if the group were to meet again to work on a similar task.

Questionnaire

Demographic form. A demographic form was used to gather data abouteach participant’s name, sex, age, and personal contact information.




Dominance. The Dominance subscale of the California PsychologicalInventory (Gough, 1948) was used. The original Dominance subscale con-sists of 46 items, with a true–false response format. However, in the adap-tation study (Demirtürk, 1983), 25 items were found as adequate for theTurkish version. For this reason, only these 25 items were used for thisstudy. Demirtürk reported the Turkish version of the scale’s test–retest reli-ability coefficient as .83. Some sample items from the Dominance subscaleare as follows: “I think I would enjoy having authority over other people”and “I’m a better talker than listener.” The Kuder-Richardson 20 reliabilitycoefficient was found to be .80 for this sample.

Self-efficacy. The Self-Efficacy Scale’s (Sherer et al., 1982) Turkish ver-sion (Özalp Türetgen & Cesur, 2005) was used to measure self-efficacy.The original scale has 23 items and measures two factors: general self-effi-cacy (17 items) and social self-efficacy (6 items). A 5-point Likert-typescale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used. Theinternal consistency reliability for general self-efficacy was .86, and forsocial self-efficacy it was .71. Much evidence has been collected relating tothis scale’s reliability and validity (Sherer & Adams, 1983; Sherer et al.,1982). Some example items from the Self-Efficacy Scale are as follows:“When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work” and “If I can’t doa job the first time, I keep trying until I can.”

The Turkish adaptation study of the scale was conducted by ÖzalpTüretgen and Cesur (2005). They found that 19 items were appropriate forthe Turkish version. The scale has high internal consistency reliability(Cronbach’s α = .84) and has three factors: (a) willingness to struggle withdifficulties, (b) willingness to initiate behavior and to complete, and (c)social efficacy. The internal consistency reliability coefficient was .82 forthe present sample.

Self-monitoring. The Revised Self-Monitoring Scale’s (Lennox &Wolfe, 1984) Turkish version (Özalp Türetgen & Cesur, 2004) was used asa measure of self-monitoring. The original test contains 13 items and con-sists of two components: (a) ability to modify self-presentation (7 items)and (b) sensitivity to expressive behavior of others (6 items). A 6-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all true of me) to 5 (very true ofme) is used. Evidence regarding the reliability and validity of the scale maybe found in works by Lennox and Wolfe (1984) and Wolfe, Lennox, andCutler (1986). Moreover, this scale has been used in many studies on lead-ership (Anderson, 1987; Anderson & Tolson, 1989; Dobbins et al., 1990;




Ellis, 1988; Ellis & Cronshaw, 1992; Hall et al., 1998; Rubin, Bartels &Bommer, 2002). Some example items from the Revised Self-MonitoringScale are as follows: “I have trouble changing my behavior to suit differentpeople and different situations” (reversed) and “I’m often able to readpeople’s true emotions correctly through their eyes.”

The scale was adapted to Turkish by Özalp Türetgen and Cesur (2004).The Turkish version of the scale’s internal consistency coefficient is .83 andhas two components and 13 items, as does the original version. The inter-nal consistency reliability for this sample was .76.

Gender roles. Participants’ gender roles were evaluated by the Bem SexRole Inventory’s (Bem, 1974) Turkish version (Dökmen, 1991, 1999). Theoriginal inventory consists of a total of 40 adjectives: 20 masculine and 20 fem-inine. A 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never true) to 7 (always true)is used. Some examples from the Masculinity scale include “ambitious” and“aggressive,” and from the Femininity scale, “loyal” and “soft spoken.” Thisinventory was adapted to Turkish by Kavuncu (1987). Dökmen (1991, 1999)tested the Turkish form’s psychometric traits in other studies. The Masculinityand Femininity scales’ test–retest and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficientschanged from .70 to .77. Also, some structural validity analysis showed that thescale was valid. The internal consistency reliability coefficients of both theMasculinity and Femininity scales were .79 for the present sample.

To adapt a test to another culture, one of the important steps is estab-lishing the norm values based on the sample representing that culture(Geisinger, 2003). Therefore, in this study, the norm values, which wereobtained in Dökmen’s (1999) work, were used. According to these Turkishnorms, the femininity median is 111, and the masculinity median is 104.Thus, in this study, a participant whose femininity score was below 111 andmasculinity score was above 104 was described as a masculine person. Onthe other hand, a participant whose femininity score was above 111 andmasculinity score was below 104 was described as a feminine person. Aparticipant who obtained scores above the median on both the Masculinityand Femininity scales was categorized as an androgynous person. Finally,a participant who scored below the median on both scales was described asan undifferentiated person.

Leader emergence. Leader emergence was assessed using two measures.The first was the General Leadership Impression (GLI) Scale’s (Cronshaw& Lord, 1987; Lord et al., 1984) Turkish form (Özalp Türetgen, 2006). Theoriginal GLI has five items, with response options ranging from 1 (none) to




5 (extreme amount). All members of the group rated themselves and theother group members on these items. The GLI has been used in many stud-ies on leader emergence, and its internal consistency reliability coefficientsrange from .93 to .96 (Ellis, 1988; Ellis & Cronshaw, 1992; Hall et al.,1998; Rubin et al., 2002; J. A. Smith & Foti, 1998). A sample of questionsused in the GLI is as follows: “How much leadership did the personexhibit?” and “To what extent is this person typical of a leader?” The scalewas adapted to Turkish by Özalp Türetgen (2006), and the internal consis-tency reliability was found to be .90. Moreover, the Cronbach’s alpha coef-ficient for this sample was .93.

A total GLI score was calculated for each group member by summingthe ratings given by other members, excluding self-ratings. Before aggre-gating the scores, the level of agreement among group members wasassessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; Bartko, 1976). Thisvalue was .51 for the groups of this study. This result indicated a high levelof agreement among group members and made it possible to sum up thescores within each group.

As a second measure to assess leader emergence, a ranking scale wasused. Participants responded to the following: “If you were asked to meet asecond time with this group to work on a similar task, please rank the groupmembers, including yourself, in order of your preference for a leader.”Group members were asked to include themselves in the ranking, but in theanalyses these rankings were excluded. Thus, participants ranked the groupmembers, giving a 1 to the most and 4 to the least preferred member for theleadership. Rankings were reversed coded and summated over the threeraters for each participant to obtain a total score. Many researchers in thisfield have used this kind of measurement (e.g., Cronshaw & Ellis, 1991;Hall et al., 1998; Zaccaro et al., 1991). Again, the agreement level amonggroup members was assessed by ICC (Bartko, 1976). This value was foundto be .42, which is an acceptable level of agreement among group members.

Results

Table 2 presents the intercorrelations among the study variables. Thefirst hypothesis of this study was about the effect of sex on leader emer-gence. Table 2 shows that sex was not found to be significantly related withany of the personality traits or leader emergence. Consistent with thehypothesis, the results showed that sex did not have any effect on leaderemergence.





Zero-order correlations in Table 2 indicate that among the gender rolesthe only one that was significantly related to leader emergence was androg-yny. Thus, Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported. Table 2 also shows thatleader emergence is related to dominance, self-efficacy, and self-monitor-ing. Therefore, to reveal the effects of each personality trait and androgynyon leader emergence, two regression analyses were performed. The depen-dent variable in the first analysis was leadership rating, and in the latter itwas leadership ranking. The results can be seen in Table 3.

As can be seen in Table 3, the regression models explained 26% of thevariance in leadership rating and 18% in ranking. Although both modelswere significant, the only independent variable that predicted both leader-ship rating and ranking was self-monitoring. However, as the regressionanalyses revealed, androgyny did not predict leader emergence. However,there are a few points to note: As mentioned in the Method section, the par-ticipants were assigned to the HHH and the LLL groups on the basis oftheir three personality traits rather than on their gender roles. In other

Table 2Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Sexa – .04 –.42*** .32** –.10 –.09 –.10 –.07 –.022. Androgynyb – –.33*** –.32** .53*** .59*** .66*** .41*** .34***3. Femininityc – –.32** –.19 –.24 –.18 –.14 –.174. Masculinityd – .16 .12 –.01 –.20 –.135. Dominance – .84*** .80*** .36*** .28**6. Self-efficacy – .77*** .34*** .30**7. Self- – .50*** .40***

monitoring8. Leadership – .83***

rating9. Leadership –

ranking

Note. Table shows participants included in the leaderless group discussions, n = 60.a. For the statistical analysis, women were coded 1 and men were coded 2. b. Androgynous individuals were coded 1, and all other gender role groups were coded 0.c. Feminine individuals were coded 1, and all other gender roles groups were coded 0.d. Masculine individuals were coded 1, and all other gender roles groups were coded 0.**p < .05. ***p < .01.




words, androgyny was not among the selection criteria of participants. Afurther analysis conducted to explain the effect of androgyny on leaderemergence showed that the individuals in the HHH group were rated, F(1,58) = 11.4, p < .01, and ranked, F(1, 58) = 8.44, p < .01, higher than theparticipants in the LLL group. However, it was discovered that all androg-ynous participants were in the HHH group. These results suggest that thereis a relationship between androgyny and leader emergence, but the regres-sion analysis suggests that this relationship is due to the effect of self-monitoring. To test this suggestion, a MANOVA was carried out, and theresults showed that androgyny had significant effects on measures of leaderrating, F(1, 58) = 11.4, p < .01, and ranking, F(1, 58) = 7.4, p < .01.However, when the analyses were repeated with self-monitoring as acovariance variable, androgyny was no longer found to be a significant pre-dictor of the leader emergence variables. In this case, only a significanteffect of self-monitoring was observed both on the rating and ranking mea-sures, F(1, 57) = 7.1, p < .05. Depending on these results, Hypothesis 2cwas not supported, whereas Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 4 were supported.

Discussion

In this study, the effects of sex, gender roles, and personality traits onleader emergence in a Turkish sample were investigated: a topic that has been

Table 3Linear Regression of Leadership Rating and Ranking on Self-

Efficacy, Dominance, Self-Monitoring, and Androgyny

R2 F ß t

Leadership rating .26 4.898***(General LeadershipImpression Scale)Dominance –.041 –0.172Self-efficacy –.099 –0.436Self-monitoring .504 2.273**Androgyny .152 0.966

Leadership ranking .18 2.939**Dominance –.110 –0.438Self-efficacy .000 0.001Self-monitoring .410 1.750*Androgyny .124 .746

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.




explored in North American cultures for many years. The results of this studyshowed that only self-monitoring predicted leader emergence. Dominance,self-efficacy, gender roles, and sex did not predict leader emergence.

The finding that sex and leader emergence were not related is oppositeto results obtained in North American studies (e.g., Dobbins et al., 1990;Megargee, 1969; Wentworth & Anderson, 1984). This result may beexplained in terms of Turkey’s feminine cultural characteristics. As men-tioned before, according to Hofstede (1991), in masculine cultures theexpected behavior and traits from men and women are different; on theother hand, in feminine cultures these kinds of differences are not so obvi-ous. Therefore, in Turkish culture, which is feminine, men may not beexpected to be leaders as often as in masculine North American andCanadian cultures (Eagly & Mladinic, 1994; Offermann et al., 1994).

In addition to the cultural characteristics, this finding may result fromthe task type used in the study. As Eagly and Karau (1991) suggested, thesex and leader emergence relationship could be explained by the moderat-ing effect of the kind of task. A lot of studies that used a gender-neutral dis-cussion task and university students, as this study did, concluded that sexdid not have any effect on leader emergence (Goktepe & Schneier, 1989;Kent & Moss, 1994; Moss & Kent, 1996; Schneier & Bartol, 1980). Thus,it would be expected that the task used in the present study might also havehad an effect on this result. Hall et al. (1998) used the same task andshowed that sex was related neither to leadership ratings nor to rankings.The investigation of sex on leader emergence with a different task structure(e.g., masculine task) within the same research design in further studies inTurkey would help develop a better understanding of the topic.

Previous studies conducted in masculine cultures, using similar discus-sion tasks and student samples, found androgyny and masculinity to berelated to leader emergence (Hall et al., 1998; Kent & Moss, 1994; Kolb,1997; Moss & Kent, 1996). In the present research, as expected, neithermasculinity nor femininity was found to be influential in leader emergence.As stated before, in masculine cultures norms and values differ for men andwomen; in contrast, in feminine cultures these differences are less(Hofstede, 1998). For this reason, in communities having low masculinitytraits it might not be expected that a leader would be either masculine orfeminine. As expected, androgyny was found to be positively related withleader emergence, but it was overshadowed by the strong link between self-monitoring and leader emergence. This result is not surprising. Androgynyas a gender role may be expected to be highly related to the self-monitor-ing personality trait because both characteristics reflect behavioral flexibil-ity (Hall et al., 1998). To clarify their effect on leader emergence,



androgyny and self-monitoring should be examined in detail in futureleader emergence studies.

As opposed to the results obtained in North America (e.g., J. A. Smith &Foti, 1998), this study carried out with a Turkish sample did not demon-strate the effects of self-efficacy and dominance on leader emergence. Assample and task characteristics are similar to those of North American stud-ies, it is suggested that this result stemmed from the feminine and col-lectivist characteristics of Turkish culture, in which relationships andcollaboration are more important than success and individual performance.As proposed by Triandis (1989) and Triandis et al. (1990), in collectivistsocieties individuals are expected to make sacrifices of their own wishes forthe purpose of achieving group coherence, although in individualistic cul-tures they emphasize their own goals. If a conflict occurs between the goalsof the individual and those of the group, the individual looks to find anothergroup in which achieving these goals is easier. For this reason, in Turkishculture, which is collectivist, dominance and self-efficacy traits may not beappreciated in groups.

The result of this study—that self-monitoring predicts leader emer-gence—supports the view of Lord et al. (2001). Self-monitoring as differentfrom self-efficacy and dominance would facilitate the understanding of cuesin a social setting. The similarity of results obtained from North American(e.g., Ellis & Cronshaw, 1992; Hall et al., 1998; Kent & Moss, 1990;Zaccaro et al., 1991) and Turkish cultures conducted with similar samplesand using similar tasks suggests that self-monitoring is important for lead-ership perception and seems to be free from culture. Researchers have sug-gested that individuals who emerge as leaders across situations might havea common characteristic that could be called behavioral flexibility. It isassumed that this behavioral flexibility stems from self-monitoring (Kenny& Zaccaro, 1983; Zaccaro et al., 1991). High self-monitors are more likelyto emerge as leaders because they are more sensitive to environmental cluesand are able to use these clues to adapt their behavior to specific situationsand consequently are able to meet the expectations of group members(Bedeian & Day, 2004; Lord et al., 2001). As a consequence, it is possibleto suggest that the self-monitoring personality construct would providebehavioral flexibility in every culture, and this flexibility might help indi-viduals to emerge as leaders in groups regardless of cultures.

This result in relation to self-monitoring and leader emergence showsclearly to organizations that this is an important characteristic to be soughtin employees working as managers. As Anderson and Thacker (1985)described, a high self-monitoring manager can effectively modify his or her




behavior according to role prescriptions and other situational demands. Inother words, high self-monitoring managers’ behavioral repertoires mightbe richer than low self-monitoring ones, which might be useful in leadingtheir subordinates. Therefore, if employees high in this trait are selected asmanagers, they are more likely to be perceived as leaders by their groupmembers. This result is especially important for international organizationsin which managers are required to work in foreign cultures and have to leadlocal employees in that culture. The reason for this conclusion is that peoplewho are high in self-monitoring can experience sociocultural and psycho-logical adaptation more easily than those low in self-monitoring can (Kosic,Mannetti, & Sam, 2006). Consequently, being high in self-monitoringwould help expatriate managers adjust their behavior according to therequirements of host cultures (Harrison, Chadwick, & Scales, 1996).Through this kind of adjustment, managers can perceive the needs of orga-nizations and subordinates and meet these needs.

These results should be discussed in relation to their relevance to othercultures that are similar to Turkey’s. In a study known as Project GLOBE,a cultural classification was made based on geographical position, andTurkey was categorized in the Middle East cluster, containing Iran, Kuwait,and Qatar (Kabasakal & Dastmalchian, 2001), and these countries werecompared with each other in various cultural dimensions. In another classi-fication made within the same project, Turkey was classified within theArabic cluster, together with Morocco, Kuwait, Egypt, and Qatar(Kabasakal & Bodur, 2002). The authors emphasized that although all thesecountries are similar to Turkey in some respects (e.g., they are all predom-inantly Muslim), Turkey is different from them in terms of being secularand also in terms of some sociocultural elements (e.g., language and eth-nicity). Indeed, as Moghadam (1993) emphasized, in comparison to manyArabic and Middle East countries, the status of Turkish women in societyis stronger (e.g., Turkish women have legally equal rights in society).Hofstede (1983) stated that Arabic countries are more masculine thanTurkey. Because of this characteristic of Arabic cultures, men may emergeas leaders more frequently than women do. However, like Turkey, they arecollectivist cultures. For this reason, dominance and self-efficacy may notbe influential for those wishing to be viewed as leaders. On the other hand,in these countries, self-monitoring, like in Turkey, Canada, and the UnitedStates, may also be an important trait in leader emergence.

Ronen and Shenkar (1985), in their classifications of cultures, placedTurkey together with Greece, Iran, and Yugoslavia. However, in his recentwork, Ronen (2006) put only Turkey and Greece in one class and emphasized




the similarities between them. Iran and Greece were also considered to befeminine and collectivist by Hofstede (1983). As in feminine cultures, sexdifferences in leader emergence are not expected. In Iran and Greece—bothfeminine—the emergence of women as leaders may not differ from the emer-gence of men as leaders. Because of their collectivist characteristics, in thesecountries dominance and self-efficacy may not be influential like in Turkey.On the other hand, self-monitoring may be an important trait in leader emer-gence, like in Canada, the United States, and Turkey.

Conclusion and Limitations

This study contributes to the group leadership literature by demonstrat-ing that prominent characteristics associated with leader emergence inWestern culture may not matter in different cultures. Future research mustidentify the traits related to leader emergence (e.g., the Big Five) in differ-ent societies. In addition, leader emergence in Turkey should be investi-gated using various research designs differing in task types and groupcomposition.

The study also has some limitations. First of all, it was conducted witha sample of students. This sample was considered to be representative ofTurkish university students, as the students of this university come fromvarious parts of Turkey to study. However, one should be cautious whengeneralizing results to all Turkish society. For these reasons, in the futureresearchers should continue to study this subject with various samples.These results should also be tested in real work settings. Another limitationof the study is the use of self-report data when measuring personality traitsand gender role orientation. However, this was the best way to measurethese variables for the purposes of this study. All other studies in this fieldalso used self-report measures in assessing personality and gender roles. Itis important to note that in this study leader emergence was measured onthe basis of the evaluations of group members; thus, common method vari-ance, a biasing factor, was mainly avoided.

References

Anderson, L. R. (1987). Self-monitoring and performance in nontraditional occupations. Basicand Applied Social Psychology, 8, 85-96.

Anderson, L. R., & McLenigan, M. (1987). Sex differences in the relationship between self-monitoring and leader behavior. Small Group Behavior, 18, 147-167.





Anderson, L. R., & Thacker, J. (1985). Self-monitoring and sex as related to assessment centerratings and job performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 345-361.

Anderson, L. R., & Tolson, J. (1989). Group members’ self-monitoring as a possible neutral-izer of leadership. Small Group Behavior, 20, 24-36.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K. C., Deller, J., Stahl, G., et al. (2000). Impactof culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 49, 192-221.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Self-monitoring as a moderator of the rela-tionships between personality traits and performance. Personnel Psychology, 58, 745-767.

Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. PsychologicalBulletin, 83, 762-765.

Bedeian, A. G., & Day, D. V. (2004). Can chameleons lead? Leadership Quarterly, 15, 687-718.Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., et al. (2000).

Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 1-29.

Burke, R. J., Matthiesen S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality correlates of workaholism.Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1223-1233.

Carbonell, J. L. (1984). Sex roles and leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,44-49.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary traits of Eysenck’s P-E-N system: Three-and-five factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 308-317.

Cronshaw, S. F., & Ellis, R. J. (1991). A process investigation of self-monitoring and leaderemergence. Small Group Research, 22, 403-420.

Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorization, attribution, and encodingprocesses on leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 97-106.

Davis, B. M., & Gilbert, L. A. (1989). Effect of dispositional and situational influences onwomen’s dominance expression in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 57, 294-300.

Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring person-ality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87, 390-401.

Demirtürk, B. (1983). A preliminary study towards the development of the Turkish form of theCalifornia Psychological Inventory. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bogazici University,Istanbul, Turkey.

Dobbins, G. H., Long, W. S., Dedrick, E. J., & Clemons, T. C. (1990). The role of self-moni-toring and gender on leader emergence: A laboratory and field study. Journal ofManagement, 16, 609-618.

Dökmen, Z. (1991). Bem Cinsiyet Rolü Envanteri’nin gecerlik ve güvenirlik calismasi [Thevalidity and reliability study of Bem Sex Role Inventory]. Dil ve Tarih—CografyaFakultesi Dergisi, 35(1), 81-89.

Dökmen, Z. Y. (1999). Bem Cinsiyet Rolü Envanteri Kadinsilik ve Erkeksilik Ölcekleri Türkceformunun psikometrik özellikleri [The Turkish version of the Bem Sex Role Inventory].Kriz Dergisi, 7(1), 27-40.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685-710.



Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice to female leaders.Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation ofleaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.

Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answersfrom research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. EuropeanReview of Social Psychology, 5, 1-35.

Ellis, R. J. (1988). Self-monitoring and leadership emergence in groups. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 14, 681-693.

Ellis, R. J., Adamson, R. S., Deszca, G., & Cawsey, T. F. (1988). Self-monitoring and leader-ship emergence. Small Group Behavior, 19, 312-324.

Ellis, R. J., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1992). Self-monitoring and leadership emergence: A test ofmoderator effects. Small Group Research, 23, 113-129.

Foti, R. J., Fraser, S. L., & Lord, R. G. (1982). Effects of leadership labels and prototypes onperceptions of political leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 326-333.

Furnham, A. (1989). Personality correlates of self-monitoring: The relationship between extra-version, neuroticism, Type A behaviour and Snyder’s self-monitoring construct.Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 35-42.

Garland, H., & Beard, J. F. (1979). Relationship between self-monitoring and leader emer-gence across two task situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 72-76.

Geisinger, K. F. (2003). Testing and assessment in cross-cultural psychology. In J. R. Graham &J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 10. Assessment psychology (pp. 95-117).New York: John Wiley.

Gershenoff, A. B., & Foti, R. J. (2003). Leader emergence and gender roles in all-femalegroups: A contextual examination. Small Group Research, 34, 170-196.

Goktepe, J. R., & Schneier, C. E. (1989). Role of sex, gender roles, and attraction in predict-ing emergent leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 165-167.

Gough, H. G. (1948). A new dimension of status: I. Development of a personality scale.American Sociological Review, 13, 401-409.

Hall, R. J., Workman, J. W., & Marchioro, C. A. (1998). Sex, task, and behavioral flexibilityeffects on leadership perception. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 74, 1-32.

Harrison, J. K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-culturaladjustment and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 167-188.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. HumanDevelopment, 21, 34-64.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories applyabroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 14, 75-89.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Hogan, J. (1978). Personological dynamics of leadership. Journal of Research in Personality,

12, 390-395.





House, R., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: An introduction. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 50, 489-505.

House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicitleadership theories across the Globe: An introduction to Project GLOBE. Journal of WorldBusiness, 37, 3-10.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: Aqualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.

Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (1998). Leadership, values and institutions: The case of Turkey.Research paper, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2002). Arabic cluster: A bridge between East and West. Journalof World Business, 37, 40-54.

Kabasakal, H., & Dastmalchian, A. (2001). Introduction to the special issue on leadership andculture in the Middle East. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 479-488.

Kagitcibasi, Ç. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: Toward a newformulation. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.),Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 52-65). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Karakowsky, L., & Siegel, J. P. (1999). The effects of proportional representation and genderorientation of the task on emergent leadership behavior in mixed-gender work groups.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 620-631.

Kavuncu, A. N. (1987). Bem Cinsiyet Rolü Envanterini Türk toplumuna uyarlama çalismalari[The study of adaptation of Bem Sex Role Inventory to Turkish]. Unpublished master’sthesis, Hacettepe Üniversity, Ankara, Turkey.

Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 678-685.

Kent, R. L., & Moss, S. E. (1990). Self-monitoring as a predictor of leader emergence.Psychological Reports, 66, 875-881.

Kent, R. L., & Moss, S. E. (1994). Effect of sex and gender role on leader emergence.Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1335-1346.

Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of personalityand cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAS. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 15, 27-52.

Kolb, J. A. (1997). Are we still stereotyping leadership? A look at gender and other predictorsof leader emergence. Small Group Research, 28, 370-393.

Konrad, E. (2000). Implicit leadership theories in Eastern and Western Europe. Social ScienceInformation, 39, 335-347.

Kosic, A., Mannetti, L., & Sam, D. L. (2006). Self-monitoring: A moderating role betweenacculturation strategies and adaptation of immigrants. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 30, 141-157.

Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-1364.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual constraints onprototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions.Leadership Quarterly, 12, 311-338.

Lord, R. G., De Vader C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relationshipbetween personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity general-ization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.



Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory:Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 34, 343-378.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance insmall groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.

Megargee, E. I. (1969). Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 53, 377-382.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality.Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

Moghadam, V. M. (1993). Modernizing women: Gender and social change in the Middle East.Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Moss, S. E., & Kent, R. L. (1996). Gender and gender-role categorization of emergent leaders:A critical review and comprehensive analysis. Sex Roles, 35, 79-96.

Neubert, M. J., & Taggar, S. (2004). Pathways to informal leadership: The moderating role ofgender on the relationship of individual differences and team member network centralityto informal leadership emergence. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 175-194.

Nyquist, L. V., & Spence, J. T. (1986). Effects of dispositional dominance and sex role expec-tations on leadership behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 87-93.

Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Jr., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories:Content, structure and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43-58.

Ogur, S., & Cesur, S. (2002, September). Evli ciftlerde degerlerin uyumu ve aile islevlerininiliskisi [Values of married couples and their relationships with family functions]. Paperpresented at the meeting of the XII Congress of National Psychology, Ankara, Turkey.

Özalp Türetgen, I. (2006). Kendini ayarlama, öz etkinlik ve dominantlik özellikleriyle birliktecinsiyet degiskenlerinin lider olarak algilanmadaki etkisinin deneysel ve alan calis-malarinda incelenmesi [The effects of self-monitoring, self efficacy, dominance personal-ity, and gender traits on to be perceived as a leader: A laboratory and a field study].Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Özalp Türetgen, I., & Cesur, S. (2004, September). Revize Edilmis Kendini AyarlamaÖlcegi’nin Türkce’ye uyarlama calismasi [The adaptation study of the Turkish version ofthe Revised Self-Monitoring Scale]. Poster session presented at the meeting of the XIIICongress of National Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey.

Özalp Türetgen, I., & Cesur, S. (2005). Öz Etkinlik Ölcegi’nin psikometrik özellikleri [Thepsychometric traits of Self-Efficacy Scale]. Öneri Dergisi, 24(6), 305-312.

Özalp Türetgen, I., & Cesur, S. (2007). Öz Etkinlik Ölcegi’nin psikometrik özellikleri–II [Thepsychometric traits of the Self-Efficacy Scale–II]. Öneri Dergisi, 28(7), 337-343.

Pasa, S. (2000). Türkiye ortaminda liderlik özellikleri [The leadership traits in the context ofTurkey]. In Z. Aycan (Ed.), Türkiye’de yönetim, liderlik ve insan kaynaklari uygulamalari(pp. 225-241). Türk Psikologlar Dernegi Yayinlari, Ankara, Turkey.

Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1982). Sex, attributions, and leadership: A brief review.Psychological Reports, 51, 1171-1174.

Ritter, B. A., & Yoder, J. D. (2004). Gender differences in leader emergence persist even fordominant women: An updated confirmation of role congruity theory. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 28, 187-193.

Ronen, S. (2006, July). The new cultural geography: A meta analysis of country cluster. Paperpresented at the meeting of the XXVI Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece.

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review andsynthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435-454.





Rubin, R. S., Bartels, L. K., & Bommer, W. H. (2002). Are leaders smarter or do they just seemthat way? Exploring perceived intellectual competence and leadership emergence. SocialBehavior and Personality, 30, 105-118.

Schneier, C. E., & Bartol, K. M. (1980). Sex effects in emergent leadership. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 65, 341-345.

Schwarzer, R., & Scholz, U. (2000, August). Cross-cultural assessment of coping resource:The general perceived self-efficacy scale. Paper presented Asian Congress of HealthPsychology 2000: Health Psychology and Culture, Tokyo, Japan.

Shelton, S. H. (1990). Developing the construct of general self-efficacy. PsychologicalReports, 66, 987-994.

Sherer, M., & Adams, C. H. (1983). Construct validation of the Self-Efficacy Scale.Psychological Reports, 53, 899-902.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercadante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W.(1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51,663-671.

Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence.Leadership Quarterly, 9, 147-160.

Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of organi-zational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 27, 231-264.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 30, 526-537.

Somer, O. & Goldberg, L. R. (1999). The structure of Turkish trait-descriptive adjectives.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 431-450.

Stewart, M. L. (2001). Personality predictors of emergent leadership. Dissertation AbstractsInternational: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(4-B), 2045.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Taggar, S., Hackett, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams:Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 899-926.

Triandis, H .C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism andcollectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

TÜIK. (2006). Hane halki isgücü anketi [The Household Workforce Survey]. Haber Bülteni,53. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from Turkish Statistical Institute Access, http://www.die.gov.tr/TURKISH/SONIST/ISGUCU/k_270306.xls

United Nations. (2000). World’s women: Trends and statistics. New York: United NationsDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs.

Wentworth, D. K., & Anderson, L. R. (1984). Emergent leadership as a function of sex andtask type. Sex Roles, 11, 513-524.

Wolfe, R. N., Lennox, R. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1986). Getting along and getting ahead:Empirical support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 50, 356-361.

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance inleadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journalof Applied Psychology, 76, 308-315.



Ilknur Özalp Türetgen is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at IstanbulUniversity. Her research area is industrial and organizational psychology, and her primaryfocus is in leadership perception.

Pinar Unsal is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Istanbul University.Her research area is industrial and organizational psychology, and her primary focus is in per-sonality factors in organizations.

Inci Erdem is a professor in the business administration department at Marmara University.Her research area is change management and human behavior in organizations.




Documents

Small Group Research-2008-Türetgen-588-615