Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Olin College of EngineeringDigitalCommons@Olin
2011 AHS Capstone Projects AHS Capstone Projects
4-1-2011
Transformational-Transactional Leadership TheoryAndrea LaiFranklin W. Olin College of Engineering, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.olin.edu/ahs_capstone_2011Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the AHS Capstone Projects at DigitalCommons@Olin. It has been accepted for inclusion in2011 AHS Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Olin. For more information, please [email protected].
Recommended CitationLai, Andrea, "Transformational-Transactional Leadership Theory" (2011). 2011 AHS Capstone Projects. Paper 17.http://digitalcommons.olin.edu/ahs_capstone_2011/17
1
Transformational-transactional leadership theory
Its application to student leadership styles at Olin College.
SYNOPSIS
Transformational-transactional leadership theory is one way in which the behaviors of leaders
can be described and evaluated. Transformational leaders exhibit charisma and shared vision
with their followers, stimulating others to produce exceptional work. Transactional leadership
describes more of a “give and take” working relationship – rapport between leader and follower
is established through exchange, such as a rewards system for meeting particular objectives.
Meta-analyses reveal that transformational leadership is correlated to more positive outcomes
than any other leadership style, and it also predicts better contextual performance, describing
follower performance above and beyond what is delineated by job requirements alone. Finally,
research has also shown that female managers typically outscore male managers on measures of
transformational leadership, leading some to suggest the existence of a "female leadership
advantage." However, stereotypes remain salient(since leadership is stereotypically a male
domain) and give rise to pressures such as role incongruity and a double-bind effect that remain a
challenge today.
A modified Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was distributed on campus to assess
student leadership styles at Olin College. The primary research question was to determine if
project-based curriculum, which encourages communication and corroboration skills that
resemble transformational leadership behaviors, had any influence on the development of any
particular leadership style. Results (n=61, 21 male and 38 female) revealed no correlations
between student coursework and leadership style. However, frequency of leadership roles and
measurements of transformational leaderships were positively correlated, with interesting arising
as a function of gender. General results from the survey indicate that stereotype-induced
pressures are still very salient and influential to student behaviors on campus. This study, of
course, is preliminary; further work needed to understand what factors may contribute to the
development of transformational leadership as a whole.
2
TRANSACTIONAL-TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: A PRIMER
Leadership matters – while some believe that business outcomes are more governed by
historical, structural, or environmental factors, research has demonstrated a relationship between
managerial effectiveness and positive organizational performances (Kaiser, 2008). Successful
organizational outcomes have been linked to the quality of management, both through meta-
analytic studies and anecdotally. In Good to Great (Collins, 2001), a management book on
common characteristics among above-average companies, Jim Collins tells the story of Darwin
Smith and his subsequent transformation of Kimberly-Clark. Under his twenty-year leadership as
CEO, the company went from being a straggler in its field, lagging 36% in market share behind
its competitors, to becoming the leading paper-products brand in the world.
Given that good leaders do have an impact on their followers and organizations, much research
has gone into the field of leadership theory to better understand the characteristic behaviors of
people who demonstrate success. Over the past twenty-five years, a large body of research has
emerged around transformational-transactional leadership theory. First described by James
Burns in 1978, transformational leadership represents a leadership style that is exemplified by
charisma and shared vision between leaders and followers (Burns, 2010). The power of
transformational leaders comes from their ability to stimulate and inspire others to produce
exceptional work. In contrast, transactional leadership describes more of a “give and take”
working relationship – rapport between leader and follower is established through exchange,
such as a rewards system for meeting particular objectives.
Bernard Bass further expanded on Burn’s theory in 1985todescribespecificbehaviors that
comprise each leadership style. We can examine transformational leadership along the following
five dimensions: two types of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individual consideration (Bass, 1985). Each item is described in more detail
below.
3
Idealized influence. Also known as charismatic leadership, this characteristic describes
the extent to which leaders are capable of being role models to their followers and display
solid moral and ethical principles. Idealized influence is described in two types: attributed
(what traits are assigned to a leader) and behavioral (what one does). Those measuring
high in idealized influence would respond positively to statements such as “I instill pride
in others for being associated with me” and “I emphasize the importance of having a
collective sense of mission” (Alvolio and Bass, 1995).
Inspirational motivation. This characteristic reflects the extent to which a leader is also
capable of being a cheerleader, so to speak, on behalf of his or her followers. These
leaders demonstrate enthusiasm and optimism, and emphasize commitment to a shared
goal.
Intellectual stimulation. Transformational leadership instills creativity, as well –
followers are encouraged to approach problems in new ways. Intellectually stimulating
leaders relate to statements such as “I re-examine critical assumptions to question
whether they are appropriate” and “I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete
assignments” (Alvolio and Bass, 1995).
Individual consideration. Transformational leaders are invested in the development of
their followers – they serve also as mentors and coaches, and take into account individual
needs and desires within a group. Two-way communication is particularly recognized
under this dimension.
Transactional leadership is defined by different elements. The first, contingent reward, describes
the extent to which effective transaction and exchange is set-up between leader and followers.
Leaders practicing contingent reward relate to statements such as “I provide others with
assistance in exchange for their efforts” and “I express satisfaction when others meet
expectations.” The second dimension, management-by-exception, describes whether leaders act
to either prevent (active management) or resolve (passive management) problems as they arise.
Someone who practices passive management-by-exception would respond to statements such as
“I fail to interfere until problems become serious,” while those adhering to active management-
by-exception might instead relate to “I concentration my full attention on dealing with mistakes,
complaints, and failures.” Finally, the absence or avoidance of any leadership behaviors is
termed “laissez-faire leadership.”
4
EFFICACY OF TRANSFORMATIONAL VS. TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Researchers have sought to identify which leadership style – or which elements of particular
leadership styles – can be linked to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, follower
motivation, and organizational performance. The body of literature in this field is vast; Judge and
Piccolo performed a meta-analysis of 626 correlations from 87 sources to relate transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership characteristics to the aforementioned outcomes (Judge
and Piccolo, 2004). Their findings support a link between effective leadership and all dimensions
of transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration), as well as a single dimension of transactional
leadership, contingent reward. Though transformational and transactional leadership are often
presented as being at opposing ends of a spectrum, a combination of select elements from both
leadership styles may yield the best results.
These meta-analytic findings are consistent with a more recently published study – Wang et al.
showed that transformational leadership had a positive impact at personal, team, and
organizational levels, with the strongest boost to performance occurring at the team level (Wang,
2011). They also further elucidated the impact of contingent reward (a dimension of transactional
leadership linked to positive outcomes) as compared to that of transformational leadership. They
noted that contingent reward better predicted individual task performance (behavior prescribed
by the job role), while transformational leadership predicted better contextual performance
(organizational citizenship behavior, which describes performance above and beyond what is
delineated by job requirements alone).
THE INFLUENCE OF GENDER
A 2003 meta-analysis of 45 studies comparing male and female managers found that female
leaders were more transformational (significant on all dimensions except for one subscale,
attributed idealized influence) and more demonstrative of contingent reward behavior (for a
discussion, see Eagly and Carli, 2003). Male leaders, in contrast, were more likely than women
to exhibit management-by-exception (a dimension of transactional leadership) and laissez-faire
leadership. Interestingly, since women have been shown to outscore men on the components of
leadership that are linked to leadership efficacy and other positive workplace outcomes (all
dimensions of transformational leadership, and from transactional leadership, contingent
5
reward), some have suggested that there may actually be a slight female leadership advantage in
performance (Smith and Smits, 1994; Eagly and Carli, 2003).Given the increasing emphasis on
collaboration and cooperation in the modern workplace, women may, in fact, be better suited to
managerial roles.
Though females may have a slight edge in performance over men as leaders through a greater
tendency to exercise transformational leadership, a number of sources of female disadvantage
remain in the workplace. Research on stereotypes about men, women and leaders has shown that
traits associated with the prototypical leader (such as ambition, competency, agency, and
likeliness to stand one’s ground) are stereotypically more masculine and more strongly
associated with men than women (Sczesny et al., 2004). In society, men, not women, are thought
to exhibit agentic behavior, and this expectation contributes to a “think manager, think male”
effect (for a discussion, see Eagly and Carli, 2003). Over the past half-century or so, women
have become increasingly represented in leadership positions – the number of women in
managerial or administrative positions has risen from 18% to 46% in the last 30 years (Eagly and
Carli, 2003). Furthermore, some scholars have suggested that the increasing female
representation in leadership has given rise towards a more facilitative, consensual process
(describing characteristics typically associated with femininity) in the workplace (Leithwood,
1992; Smith and Smits, 1994). However, despite these cultural shifts, stereotype still prescribes
that men, not women, are more capable of being leaders.
The fact that these gendered expectations are still salient today remains an obstacle to female
leadership, despite the slight edge that adherence to transformational leadership styles may offer.
Research has demonstrated that leadership endorsement and evaluation is linked to how similarly
the leader matches group norms and expectations, and non-prototypical leaders are consistently
rated less effective than others (Hogg, 2006). Role incongruity arises where female leaders are
concerned, since women are less likely to fit the conventional model of leadership. Women, in
contrast to men, are expected to be communal and adhere to behaviors that are perceived as
“warm” and “nice,” none of which are associated with leadership behaviors (Eagly and Carli,
2003). Thus, in order for women to match the expectations of a prototypical leader, they have to
exhibit traditionally masculine behaviors such as assertiveness, ambition, and the ability to stand
one’s ground. However, these behaviors, which are more strongly associated with authoritative
6
power, are simultaneously incongruous with the conventional definitions of the feminine role.
Research conducted by Hogg and other groups has found that women perceived to be acting
outside this stereotypically-prescribed communal societal role take a hit in likeability and
perceived effectiveness as a leader, in contrast to their male peers. A meta-analysis has shown
that female leaders are consistently evaluated less favorably than their male counterparts,
particularly for measures of leader competence and follower satisfaction (Eagly et al., 1992).
Furthermore, because less is expected from women, female leaders must demonstrably show that
their performance exceeds that of a male counterpart simply to be perceived as equally
competent (Carli, 2001). The pressure to maintain not just average, but exceptional performance
in order to be taken seriously is something that female leaders may experience in the workplace;
another source of pressure is discussed in greater detail in the following subsection.
THE DOUBLE BIND
Not only do female leaders have to compete with the existing prejudices that women aren’t
suited to the leader role, they also have to balance conflicting expectations with regards to their
own behavior as women. Research has shown that others are more likely to be receptive to
female influence if the woman in question fits the prescriptive female stereotype of being warm
and communal (Carli, 2001). At the same time, female leaders who exhibit dominant behaviors
often associated with influence and authority, such as assertiveness, self-promotion, and
expressing disagreement, meet greater disapproval and rejection than men do for the same set of
behaviors (Eagly and Carli, 2003). Women have to find ways to influence others without
stepping far outside the bounds of what is conventionally feminine, or face resistance from their
followers; as such, leadership roles put pressure on women to behave authoritatively while still
exuding warmth and niceness in a manner consistent with the expectation that women behave
more communally than men.
This pressure has been termed the “double bind” in the literature (Appelbaum et al., 2003; Eagly
and Carli, 2003). Acting too femininely reduces one’s perceived ability as a leader and raises
doubts about one’s competence; however, failing to act in a sufficiently feminine manner also
hampers one’s likeability and influence. This double bind is distinctly a feminine disadvantage;
men are subject to no such pressure. On the subject, psychologist Linda Carli writes, “in other
words, a man can influence others even when they do not particularly like him, but a woman
7
must be likeable to be influential” (Carli, 2001). This double bind can also harm female
advancement in the workplace – women, but not men, who frame their accomplishments in a
self-promoting manner are seen as less deserving of the recognition, less influential, and less
likeable (Carli and Eagly, 2010).
As women ascend to leadership positions, they strive to find a middle ground of behavior that
remains effective and produces desirable results without coming across to others as either too
masculine or feminine (Eagly, 2007). Transformational leadership, which, as previously noted, is
a style favored by female leaders more than male leaders (Eagly and Carli, 2003), is one such
middle ground. Since transformational leadership is so dependent on building relationships and
the capacity to inspire and develop others (items largely reliant on high social and emotional
intelligence), it sets itself apart from more stereotypically autocratic and masculine aspects of
other leadership styles. Women, through the more androgynous character of transformational
leadership, can wield and succeed in a managerial role without exhibiting behaviors that might
be deemed “too masculine.”
Gender-role congruency does not have the same impact on the evaluation of male leadership.
Based on the reasoning by which the female double-bind arises, one might expect men who
exercise a more communal, feminine style – perhaps heavy on the “individualized consideration”
dimension of transformational leadership – to similarly have their competency called into
question. However, Eagly et al.’s meta-analysis revealed that this was not the case; their results
suggested that all-else held equal, men have more freedom than women to exercise a broad range
of styles without receiving negative evaluations; leaders of either gender were evaluated
equivalently when they utilized more democratic and interpersonally-oriented styles which are
consistent with the female stereotype (Eagly et al, 1992).
Male leaders do not have to prove their competency in the same manner women do – their
legitimacy in the role is already assumed since it is more consistent with gender stereotyping
(Eagly et al., 1992). Given this, and the aforementioned latitude that men have in the range of
leadership styles available to them, it is unsurprising that male managers are more likely to
demonstrate other styles of the leadership, transactional or laissez-faire leadership, than their
female counterparts, despite the fact that these styles not as strongly linked to positive workplace
outcomes.
8
Despite the large body of literature detailing transformational leadership theory, its efficacy, and
differences in leadership style that arise on account of gender, little research has been conducted
with regards to factors that contribute to the development of either transformational or
transactional leadership styles. Since many universities pride themselves on shaping new, young
leaders, examination of the leadership styles of current college students may help elucidate some
of the reasons for emergence of particular leadership behaviors. The following section details an
attempt to characterize the leadership styles of students at Franklin W. Olin College of
Engineering and determine if factors such as project-based coursework or exposure to female
faculty contribute to the development of one leadership style over another.
STUDENT LEADERSHIP STYLES AT OLIN COLLEGE
INTRODUCTION
What factors give rise to transformational leadership over transactional leadership styles?
Previous literature has established links between transformational leadership and personality
traits such as high emotional intelligence, internal locus-of-control, and self-confidence (Mandell
and Pherwani, 2003). However, little work, if any, has been performed to identify environmental
links that may contribute to the development of transformational leadership style in individuals.
To that end, an informal research study was performed during the spring semester of 2011 at
Olin College as an attempt to determine if factors such as project-based coursework and
exposure to female faculty might influence the leadership style that its students exhibit. Colleges,
after all, strive to shape the next generation of leaders – given the more positive outcomes that
arise from transformational and contingent reward behaviors, one would hope that they would
produce leaders who adhered to such leadership styles. Several hypotheses are detailed below.
9
Hypothesis #1: Olin students, in general, exhibit more transformational than transactional or
laissez-faire leadership behavior.
Olin College, in particular, might be an interesting place for studies on student leadership styles.
Its curriculum is unique in that it highly emphasizes project-based coursework, which demands
collaboration and teamwork among peers. Furthermore, the small size of the university (around
300 students only) lends itself to a strong community feeling, and a shared vision held by
community members is the desire to be a part of an experimental approach to engineering
education. All of these factors resonate strongly with elements of transformational leadership,
and because of this, I hypothesize that this school environment would encourage behaviors
consistent with transformational leadership styles.
Hypothesis #2: Students who have completed more project-based coursework experience will
score higher on measures of transformational leadership.
Project-based coursework at Olin is almost entirely collaborative in nature – projects often
involve teams of 3-4 students working for 2-3 weeks at a time. One would assume that those who
succeed at this sort of coursework demonstrate behaviors that enhance team performance. A
recently conducted meta-analysis suggests that team performance (such as that required by a
highly team-oriented project curriculum) is best improved through transformational leadership
methods (Wang, 2011). Therefore, it is possible that students adopt characteristic behaviors of
transformational leadership with experience (e.g. completion of more project-based courses), as
they might be linked to more positive project outcomes.
While the primary aim of this study was to obtain a general sense of the leadership styles utilized
by students at Olin College, a secondary aim was to identify whether exposure to female role
models had any link to measures of transformational leadership. The literature has established
that such exposure can both reduce gender stereotypes associated with leadership (such as those
that contribute to the aforementioned double bind effect), and increase female interest in
adopting leadership roles (Dasgupta and Asgari, 2004).
Hypothesis #3: Increased exposure to female leaders, as measured by the number of courses
taken with female faculty, will correspond with higher scores on measures of transformational
leadership.
10
Dasgupta and Asgari (2004) found that gender stereotypes about women could be undermined in
environments in which women frequently occupy counterstereotypic leadership roles. Since
transformational leadership is already a leadership style that is less adherent to existing
stereotypes, an overall reduction of gender stereotypes resulting from exposure to female role
models may enhance the degree of communal and collaborative behavior among students of both
genders. Secondly, it is likely that female faculty exercise forms of transformational leadership –
female managers, in general, have scored higher on the measures of transformational leadership
(Eagly and Carli, 2003) – and student exposure to such leadership styles may also contribute to
the development of transformational leadership behavior in students themselves.
Hypothesis #4: Students at Olin College will describe leadership characteristics in more
transformational than transactional terms (for example, using terms such as “visionary” or
“charismatic” instead of “authoritative”), and students will be more likely to describe qualities of
leaders that are consistent with their leadership style. Though females, who typically score
higher on measures of transformational leadership, are more likely to describe leadership with
more communal terms (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995), I expect gender differences in leadership
descriptors at Olin to be reduced and that male students will use words more associated with
transformational leadersihp.
Alimo-Metcalfe explored gender differences in the traits people ascribed to leadership. To this
end, she surveyed a number of UK housing managers and found that women tended to attribute
people-oriented, communal traits as characteristic of leadership more than their male
counterparts did; women were more likely to describe leaders with descriptors of interpersonal
relationships, such as “people-oriented” instead of “confident” (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995). Since
students at Olin College are exposed to team-oriented projects so early on in their academic
careers and continue to work in such groups, I hypothesize that both male and female students
alike will use more transformational, communal-oriented terminology to describe characteristics
of leadership.
11
MATERIALS AND METHODS.
Survey.A survey was distributed to the Olin student body through two public mailing lists, to
which approximately 325 people (including both current students and alumni) subscribe. It
comprised of a selection of items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), a
validated, standardized measure of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
(Alviolo and Bass, 1995). Survey respondents ranked themselves on descriptive statements
relating to transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership.
Example statements for each category are shown in Table 1 below. Four statements
corresponded to each listed leadership dimension, with the exception of contingent reward,
which was assessed by only two statements, for a total of 26 survey items.
Table 1: Dimensions of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership assessed through an
abbreviated version of the MLQ distributed at Olin College, spring 2011.
Category Example Statement
Transformational Leadership
Idealized influence (attributed and behavioral) I talk about my most important beliefs and values.
Inspirational Motivation I talk optimistically about the future.
Intellectual Stimulation I seek differing perspectives when solving problems.
Individualized Consideration I spend time teaching and coaching.
Transactional Leadership
Contingent Reward
I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for
achieving team goals
Passive Management-by-Exception I wait for things to go wrong before taking action.
Laissez-Faire Leadership I am absent when needed.
Furthermore, 7 additional questions were appended to the MLQ to study potential correlates to
the development of transformational over transactional leadership styles. They are listed below:
12
1. How many project-based courses have you taken at Olin?
2. How many leadership positions have you held during your Olin career?
3. How often do you adopt the leader role in group situations?
(Rank 0-4 – 0 = Never; 4=Frequently, if not always)
4. My collaborative work has been…
Mostly male
Mostly female
Gender-balanced
5. How many courses have you taken with female faculty?
6. List some qualities of leaders.
7. Did you like UOCD1?
A full copy of the survey can be found in the appendix.
Interviews. Informal interviews with four current Olin students spanning three class years were
conducted in order to provide greater qualitative context for MLQ items. Interviewees were
volunteers solicited through Olin’s public mailing lists (the same through which survey
respondents were obtained). All interviews were conducted in the dining hall on campus (a
neutral, public location) and approximately 20 minutes in length. Interview transcripts can be
found in Appendix A. Though all interviews varied somewhat based on the flow of conversation,
the following questions were asked of all participants.
1. How would you describe leadership?
2. How would you describe effective leadership?
3. How has the Olin experience shaped your views on leadership? Can you provide any
anecdotal examples of positive or negative examples of student leadership in your
project-based coursework?
4. How would describe your own behavior in leadership positions?
5. In such positions, do you feel any pressure? Can you describe it?
6. Given that Olin is a gender-balanced engineering environment, is gender still an issue
here?
1 UOCD (User-Oriented Collaborative Design) is an Olin design course that is required for all students. It is taken
sophomore year, and 4-5 students work together on a particular project for the entire semester. This course
emphasizes teamwork, interpersonal skills (off-campus interviews are a large component), and the ability to
articulate one’s vision for an end project deliverable, skills that are all very relevant to the dimensions of
transformational leadership.
13
RESULTS
Sixty-one students completed the survey. Respondents represented all current classes of Olin
students and included four alumni as well. The distribution of responses is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Distribution of survey respondents by gender and class year.
--------Alumni-------- ------------------Current Students------------------
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Male 3 0 6 5 6 3 23
Female 0 1 7 8 15 7 38
Total 3 1 13 13 21 10 61
Student leadership styles at Olin College
Without data from other locations for comparison, it cannot be said whether Olin students
measure higher on transformational leadership than at other locations. Based on self-reports,
students engaged in behaviors that contribute to positive follower outcomes (such as contingent
reward and individualized consideration) at higher frequencies than those that contribute to
negative follower outcomes (management by exception, laissez-faire leadership). The average
scores are shown below in Figure 1. The maximum possible average for any dimension is a 4,
which would mean that every respondent claimed to exhibit the representative behavior
“frequently, if not always.”
14
Figure 1: The average scores on dimensions of the MLQ as self-reported by students at Olin College. Results
represent 61 students (23 male and 38 female). Error bars represent standard deviation.
These results contrast those of the meta-analysis performed by Eagly and Carli (2003), which
found that female managers outscored men on all dimensions of transformational leadership, and
male managers outscored women on management-by-exception and laissez-faire behaviors.
Instead, female students at Olin College scored lower on measures of transformational leadership
and higher on management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership than their male
counterparts. However, a t-test revealed that only gender differences in scores of inspirational
motivation were statistically significant (p = 0.044). Recorded differences in scores of other
transformational leadership dimensions, passive management-by-exception, and laissez-faire
behaviors were not statistically significant.
Examining correlates to transformational leadership
In order to examine my second hypothesis, that the collaborative aspects of Olin’s curriculum
contributed to the development of transformational leadership behaviors in its students, students
were asked to provide their best estimate of the number of project-based courses they had
completed in their college careers. In order to quantify their exposure to female leaders, I also
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
female
male
all
transformational transactional
15
asked students to report how many courses (project-based or not) they took with female faculty.
These values were reported as falling within a range of either 0-3, 4-7, or greater than 7. This
latter metric was used to assess the link, if any existed, between the presence of female role
models (acting as counterstereotypic leaders) and the development of transformational
leadership.
Table 3: Survey variables and their correlations to student measures of transformational leadership.
Class Year
# of project-based courses
# of leadership roles held
Courses with female faculty
Adoption of leader role
Transformational Leadership
Class Year
Pearson Correlation 1 -.722** -.103 -.278* .208 -.005
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .432 .032 .110 .972
N 61 61 60 60 60 61
# of project-based courses
Pearson Correlation -.722** 1 .154 .251 -.070 -.010
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
.240 .053 .594 .942
N 61 61 60 60 60 61
# of leadership roles held
Pearson Correlation
-.103 .154 1 .095 .351** .225
Sig. (2-tailed) .432 .240
.474 .006 .084
N 60 60 60 59 59 60
Courses with female faculty
Pearson Correlation -.278* .251 .095 1 -.110 -.131
Sig. (2-tailed) .032 .053 .474
.406 .318
N 60 60 59 60 59 60
Adoption of leader role
Pearson Correlation .208 -.070 .351** -.110 1 .388**
Sig. (2-tailed) .110 .594 .006 .406
.002
N 60 60 59 59 60 60
Transformational Leadership
Pearson Correlation -.005 -.010 .225 -.131 .388** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .972 .942 .084 .318 .002
N 61 61 60 60 60 61
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Results showed that as class graduation year decreased (and thus, as students completed more of
their education), the number of project-based courses and courses taken with female faculty
increased. As far as determining which factors influenced transformational leadership – the
16
primary aim of this study – the only statistically significant correlate was the frequency with
which students took leadership roles in groups. Thus, students who claimed to take on a
leadership role “frequently, if not always” when asked about their behavior in group situations
also tended to score higher on dimensions of transformational leadership (correlation = 0.388; p
= 0.002). This correlation increased when filtering by female respondents alone; both formal
number of leadership positions held as well as high self-ascribed frequency of leadership were
linked to higher measures of transformational leadership (correlation = 0.475, p = 0.003 and
correlation = 0.495; p = 0.002, respectively). The relationship between both formal leadership
roles and self-ascribed leadership and transformational leadership scores was reduced to non-
significance, however, when examining the data for male respondents alone; however, the
sample size (n=23) was too small to adequately test the relationship (data in Appendix B). Thus,
to address hypothesis #2, it appears that project-based curriculum appears to have no effect on
the development of any particular leadership style. Instead, leadership style appears to related to
the frequency with which students take up leadership positions. Interestingly, this relationship is
only statistically significant among female survey respondents; the relationship between formal
leadership roles and development of transformational leadership in male students remains
unclear.
I also hypothesized that exposure to female faculty would positively affect student measures of
transformational leadership. Though the results are not statistically significant, the survey data
revealed that there was a slight, but negative correlation between exposure to female faculty and
measures of transformational leadership. Looking at gender specifics, exposure to female faculty
had no effect on transformational leadership of female students; a larger negative correlation was
found among male students (correlation = -0.325, p=0.131). Again, since these results are not
statistically significant, a larger study (and better sampling) are required to reduce overall
random error and identify the trends, if any, that are present in this data.
17
Descriptors of Leaders
Finally, I wanted to examine how students at Olin College described qualities of leaders, and
whether these corresponded to their measures of leadership styles according to the MLQ. Table 4
shows descriptors of leadership that were mentioned by more than 10% of the survey
respondents and broken down by gender.
Table 4: Descriptors of leadership as provided by survey respondents at Olin College. Values reported are
those that were utilized by more than 10% of the survey respondents.
Male (n=23)
word frequency > 2
Female (n=38)
word frequency > 3
confident
confident
others inspiring
understanding organized
decisive
able
Females survey respondents scored lower on measures of transformational leadership (Figure 1);
interestingly, unlike their male counterparts (and in contrast to the findings of Alimo-Metcalfe
(1995), they were more likely than men to use more stereotypically masculine descriptors
(“decisive” and “able”) to describe leadership.
The slight gender differences in descriptions of leaders, however, were not apparent in follow-up
interviews. The ability to communicate and articulate a vision (characteristics associated with
transformational leadership) was a consistent theme among the four interviewees, who spanned
three class years and both genders. Leaders were said to “listen to other people and actively seek
out other opinions”, “pay close attention to the people they’re leading,” “have a vision and
actually take it forward,” and “have an understanding of where things are going – foresight.”
In the following subsection, I speculate as to why the trends pertaining to leadership style at Olin
College are inconsistent with findings in the literature.
18
DISCUSSION
Why are female students at Olin less transformational than their male counterparts?
Contrary to my expectations, female students at Olin College scored lower on measures (on the
MLQ) of transformational leadership than male students, and higher on measures of
management-by-exception and laissez-faire behaviors. Interestingly, the characteristics
associated with the latter leadership styles are more stereotypically masculine. Further
corresponding with this slight masculinizing tendency, female students included more agentic
terms when describing qualities of leaders such as “decisive” and “able” than their male
counterparts. The inclusion of “able” as a descriptor was something I found particularly
interesting. Given that the feminine is stereotypically incongruous with competent leadership, the
fact that female students consciously mention “able” (in context, “able to divide tasks”, “able to
make decisions,” “able to organize,” and “able to be authoritative”) in their descriptions may
reflect the pressure on female students to prove their competence (in leadership, or in a technical
context alone); male competence is more often already assumed.
It is possible that the tendency of female engineering students to demonstrate leadership
behaviors that are more associated with the masculine arises from knowledge of gender
stereotypes. Even though Olin College itself is largely gender-balanced, the field of engineering
remains largely male-dominated, a fact that is well-recognized by members of the student body.
A series of studies published in 2004 explores the bifurcation of gendered identity – women in
math (a male-dominated field) were found to distance themselves from characteristics associated
with the feminine (such as flirting and wearing make-up) that would stereotypically be
associated with decreased success in their field (Pronin et al., 2004). The fear of appearing to
fulfill, and thus confirm, negative stereotypes associated with one’s in-group is termed stereotype
threat (Pronin et al., 2004), and may account for some of the emerging trends in my leadership
survey. As a response to stereotype threat, for example, female respondents might have
downplayed their responses to questions concerning more feminine characteristics, such as
mentorship and communal behavior, resulting in the decreased scores of transformational
leadership compared to male peers.
19
Interestingly, in Pronin’s study (2004) of female math students, women who spent more time in a
male-dominated math environment reported less identification with traits such as being
flirtatious, which are stereotypically viewed as incompatible with mathematic ability, than those
who had taken fewer math courses. However, there was no difference between respondents in
identification with feminine traits that were not as strongly associated with lack of mathematical
competency such as empathy and being nurturing, supporting the existence of identity
bifurcation, in which selective disassociation from certain in-group characteristics, but not
others, occurs. Furthermore, females who reported distancing themselves from stereotypically
feminine in-group behavior (make-up, flirting, and expressing the desire to have children, among
other things), were no more likely than others to increasingly accept and adopt stereotypically
out-group (masculine) characteristics. Interestingly, in my survey data, the female student
members in demonstrating transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviors, both of which are
more associated with masculine traits, may suggest some adoption of stereotypically out-group
characteristics, contrary to Pronin’s findings (2004).
Interviews were conducted to try to understand the pressures students felt while holding
leadership roles. All three female students with whom I spoke brought up, to some extent, a
desire to avoid leadership roles while on campus, though the reasons for each individual were
different. One student cited burnout (“I’m too tired to step up to leadership, and I don’t feel like
it’s my responsibility”), while another pointed out that, in order to take on leadership roles
(which are largely organizational), students have to compromise their ability to further their
technical skills on a team. She noted, “Maybe after Olin, it’ll be easier to say, like, okay, I feel
technically competent now, I don’t need to give up developing my own technical skills to take on
more responsibility.” Proving her own technical competency is her current academic priority;
taking on positions of leadership, though perhaps more prestigious, does not advance this
particular goal. It is possible that, by putting themselves in positions where participation in the
technical (and stereotypically masculine) and not organizational elements (perhaps more
stereotypically feminine) is evident, female students are able to alleviate some of the pressures to
demonstrate competence in a traditionally male-dominated environment.
20
Frequency of leadership role adoption and transformational leadership
No correlations were identified between amount of work on collaborative, project-based
coursework at Olin to transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire leadership. The survey
data, instead, revealed a correlation between the self-ascribed frequency with which one took on
leadership roles and higher scores of transformational leadership. Filtering the results by gender
was even more interesting – among female survey respondents, not only was self-ascribed
frequency correlated to higher transformational leadership scores, but so was a slightly more
objective measure of leadership frequency, the number of more formal leadership positions (such
as club titles, committee participation, and teaching assistantships) held over the course of their
Olin career. Furthermore, these correlations were reduced to non-significance when examining
male survey data alone.
The positive correlation between frequency of leadership and transformational leadership among
female students suggests one of two things: (1) students gradually develop transformational
leadership as they increase their formal leadership experience, perhaps learning what is most
effective with time; or (2) female students who already demonstrate effective leadership
behaviors (e.g., behaviors associated with transformational leadership) are the ones who are
more likely to obtain formal leadership roles to begin with. The latter case is particularly
interesting when one considers the same relationship among male survey respondents: there is a
negative (if non-significant) correlation in frequency of formal leadership and measures of
transformational leadership. This suggests that though female students may have to first
demonstrate their efficacy to obtain formal leadership roles or, at least, believe enough in their
own efficacy as leaders before pursuing said roles, male students take on formal leadership
regardless of whether or not they are good at it. One interviewee said, “A lot of times, leadership
and technical know-how are, I guess, conflated,” noting that students often got placed in
leadership positions based on technical qualifications; however, technical qualifications as a
selection criteria for leadership positions often gave rise to ineffective leadership practices.
Though it went unsaid, “technical know-how” is largely stereotypically associated with the
masculine. The link between technical competency and assignation to formal leadership may
account for some of the positive correlation of leadership frequency and transformational
leadership among females and the negative correlation among male students. One explanation
21
the gender effects may tie back to the concept of role incongruity – unlike their male
counterparts, the competency of female students in the engineering field is not largely assumed.
Female students, to whom engineering technical qualifications are stereotypically linked, may
have to prove their efficacy as leaders before obtaining more formal leadership roles.
CONCLUSION
The original intent of this study was to identify links between aspects of Olin’s project-based
curriculum and the development of transformational leadership. However, no correlations
between student coursework and leadership style were identified. Instead, general results from
this study preliminarily support that stereotype-induced pressures remain salient on campus. In
contrast to the general population, female survey respondents at Olin College scored lower on
transformational leadership than their male counterparts, suggesting that stereotype threat and
identity bifurcation may be at play. Though Olin is largely gender-balanced, a unique
accomplishment for conventionally male-dominated engineering school, survey data suggests
that female students are still responding the subtle pressures to prove their competence in this
field. However, though most female students interviewed did acknowledge that gender was a
salient issue in engineering, they did not necessarily feel that it particularly influenced them
personally or their work. A more thought-out and targeted interview process may reveal more
relevant insights. Thus, in general, results preliminarily suggest that the male-dominated
engineering environment does produce interesting gender effects on student leadership styles;
however, further work is needed to understand what factors may contribute to the development
of transformational leadership as a whole.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to Dr. Linda Carli for her guidance over the course of this project, especially for her
extensive knowledge in this field (and her expertise with SPSS!). I’d also like to acknowledge
professor Caitrin Lynch and students Leah Mendelson and Katie Sullivan for their feedback
throughout this process.
22
REFERENCES
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995). An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and
empowerment. Women in Management Review, 10, 3-8.
Appelbaum S.H. et al. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the
landscape of theories. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(1)¸43-51.
Avolio, B.J., andBass, B.M. (1995).Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: The benchmark measure
of transformational leadership. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. (1985) Leadership: good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.
Burns, J.M. (2010). Leadership. New York City, NY: Harper Perennial.
Carli, L.L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725-741.
Carli, L. L. and Eagly, A. H. (2010).Gender and leadership. In D. Collinson, A. Bryman, K. Grint, B.
Jackson, and M. U. Bien (Eds.), Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 103-117). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. London:
Random House
Dasgupta, N. and Asgara, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: exposure to counterstereotypic women
leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 40, 642-658.
Eagly, A.H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: resolving the contradictions.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1-12.
Eagly, A.H., andCarli, L.L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence.
The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807-834.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., andKlonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22
Hogg, M.A. et al. (2006). Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: a social
identity analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 335-350
Judge, T.A. andPiccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transformational leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
Kaiser, R.B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63, 96-110.
Leithwood, K.A. (1992). The move towards transformational leadership. Educational Leadership,
49(8), 8-12.
Mandell, B. and Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3),
387-404.
Pronin, E. et al. (2004). Identity bifurcation in response to stereotype threat: Women and
mathematics. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 152-168.
Sczeny, S. et al. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: a cross-cultural
comparison. Sex Roles, 51, 631-645.
Smith, P.L, and Smits, S.J. (1994). The feminization of leadership? Training and Development,
48(2),43-46.
Wang, G., et al. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a
meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group and Organization Management, 36, 233-270.
23
APPENDIX A
SURVEY
Gender
o Female
o Male
Class Year
o 2014
o 2013
o 2012
o 2011
o Other
Rank yourself on the following descriptive statements from 0-4. For all items: 0 = Not at all; 1 = Once in a while; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Fairly often; 4 = Frequently, if not always
1. I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
2. I do not interfere until problems become serious
3. I avoid getting involved when important issues arise.
4. I talk about the values and beliefs I consider important.
5. I am absent when I am needed.
6. I seek various and differing perspectives when solving problems
7. I talk optimistically about the future
8. I wait for things to go wrong before taking action
9. I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.
10. I spend time teaching and coaching.
11. I am a firm believer in “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
12. I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group
13. I treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group
14. Problems must become chronic before I will take action
15. I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
16. I convey a sense of power and confidence.
17. I articulate a compelling vision of the future
18. I avoid making decisions
19. I consider an individual as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others
20. I get others to look at problems from many different angles
21. I help others develop their strengths
22. I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
23. I delay responding to urgent questions
24. I express confidence that goals will be achieved
25. I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving team goals
26. I express satisfaction when others meet expectations
24
How many project-based courses have you taken during your Olin career?
How many leadership positions have you held during your Olin career?
(e.g. committees, club positions, board memberships, etc.)
How often do you adopt the leader role in group situations? (0-4 scale, as above)
My collaborative work has been largely:
o Mostly male
o Mostly female
o Gender-balanced
How many courses have you taken with female faculty?
o 0-3
o 4-7
o >7
List some qualities of leaders
Just for fun: Did you like UOCD?
o Yes
o No
o N/A
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
Olin Senior, Female
Q: How do you describe leaders?
A: People who are very eager to take control over something. Okay, so not necessarily control,
but take on responsibility.
Q: What about effective leadership? Is this different?
A: The leaders that are more effective are more likely to listen to other people, and actively seek
out other opinions, other than just assuming what they believe to be right is right.
These people seek out opinions, and they won't bias the answers by way they're phrasing
questions.
Q: What about you? How would you describe yourself in leadership positions?
A: I'm too tired to step up to leadership. I don't feel like it’s my responsibility either. There are
other people who are interested and will do a much better job than I would.
Q: Fair enough. In that case, can you provide any particularly positive or negative anecdotes
about your experience with student leadership in your group/coursework?
A: Yeah – I worked on a project when I was a sophomore where the group leader didn't
communicate with anyone else. He was kind of in his own little world. It was very unsuccessful,
nothing got done.
25
Micromanagement is actually kind of good management – a little bit of “you know you need to
do this”, “you need to do that”. Scheduling meetings is very important too. Communication, too,
to a certain point.
And right now on SCOPE, I'm working with [name redacted] – what makes him a good PM
[project manager] is that he doesn't want to be PM, which is kind of weird.
Q: I can understand what you're saying
A: Yeah, he didn't actively seek it out, he kind of accepted it.
Q: Any reason why you think this may be?
A: More empathy for everyone else, I guess.
Q: Lastly – and I know this is really general – when in positions of some responsibility
(leadership or not), do you feel any sort of pressure? Can you describe it?
A: Absolutely. Within groups, I always feel like… I always get the fear that I'm not contributing
as much as other people. I try to, as much as I can, find things to do and just do them. I just feel
bad about letting other people down, and if they're working more than I am, I feel bad. Kind of a
guilt thing.
Olin Junior, Female
Q: How would you describe leadership?
A: Good leaders do one of both of two things: lead by example. They are motivating to do
something. If there's someone else that is like, I don’t know, working really hard and excited
about something, I will be too.
The second thing is paying close attention to the people they're leading. Find things that they're
interested in doing, allow them to structure their time.
Q: I noticed you started off distinguishing “good” leadership. What about more generally?
A: I guess there are more stereotypical qualities: good public speaking skills, panache.
Perhaps on a larger scale – such as the president of United States – people are less capable of
leading by paying attention to every person he's leading. Some panache is actually a valuable
aspect. And public speaking skills.
I guess there’s maybe a distinction between large and small scale leadership.
Q: Yeah, I think you might be on to something there. Given that we’re probably working with
small-scale leadership on campus… can you tell me about your experience with group
26
experiences at Olin? Does anything stand out as examples of particularly good or bad examples
of leadership?
Hmm… leadership at Olin… Well, I think it definitely changes with time. For example, if you
walk into Olin, and ask people in DN [Design Nature, a project-based course for first semester
freshmen] who wants to be the project leader, almost everybody will raise their hand. If you walk
into SCOPE [Senior Capstone Program in Engineering], well, it’s like, “nose game”. No one
wants to do it.
Things change, right? In high school, taking a leadership position looks really good but didn't
involve any leadership; people are more inclined to do it. Here, it requires more time and
responsibility, and forces you to do less of other stuff. We’re a little more averse.
Q: Yeah, you mean like how PMs for projects such as, say, SCOPE, end up not doing any of the
technical work?
Exactly. Sometimes I think instead of developing leaders, we're developing people that don't
want to do any leading. Our interests tend to be in things that tend not to be leading – they’re
more technical.
Maybe after Olin, it’ll be easier to be like, okay, I feel technically competent now, I don’t need to
give up developing technical skills to take on more responsibility. I’ll take that leadership
position. Or maybe you start getting hired into leadership?
Q: Have you had any standout leadership experiences (good or bad) at Olin?
Most projects I’ve been on have avoided explicitly having leaders. It worked out because
everyone was very excited about the project. Since everyone is very excited about it, we
motivated each other. Most of the projects at Olin are 4, maybe 5 person teams. People are
inspired by and get excited about other people's ideas and actions more than by them stepping
into a leadership position.
Q: Do you ever feel any sort of pressure (and yeah, sorry, I know this is vague) in positions
where you have significant accountability? Can you describe it? What do you do in these sort of
positions?
I don’t really feel pressure, but there are certain things that I will step up to -- if no one is doing
it, I will say something or they will. Increasingly, though I have been avoiding them, if no one is
managing the schedule or the budget for a larger project, I'll step in. We'll put someone in charge
of it.
So I guess not necessarily leadership –but just kind of taking care of stuff.
Q: You talk a lot about motivation to get excited and inspired about things. Would you describe
your motivation as intrinsic or extrinsic?
27
It’s more internal. It’s fortunate that I'm internally motivated to do lots of things -- i respond
negatively to external motivation. That is why I quit Frisbee and HPV [Human Powered Vehicle
Team]–they kept trying to send the message, "you need to be here otherwise you're a bad
person", and I was just like, “um, no”.
That's my personality –I don’t get guilted into, "oh no, I should go help!"
Q: You’ve also brought up some of the doing technical work vs. taking on a leadership role
balance that I feel like is pretty common around here. Especially regarding the, “we’re maybe
developing people averse to being leaders”, can you speak more?
People I consider very ineffective but are placed in leadership position are often the most
technically qualified for the project. A lot of times, leadership and technical know-how are, I
guess, conflated. It’s ironic, because as much as we’d like to say we’re being leaders– it looks
good – you can’t do the technical work if you take on that role.
People feel weird putting someone they can’t trust to know what they’re doing in a project.... it’s
ahard to evaluate skills. But at the end of the day, you don’t need the most technically qualified
person. You need the one who is organized, who can plan meetings, and keep spreadsheets.
I guess we tend to think of this as leadership, when it's not. Maybe… the idea of single small-
scale leader is nonexistent.
Q: Yeah, that is a pretty interesting point. Some divergence from topic here, however – so, given
that Olin is a gender-balanced engineering environment, is gender salient to you? (Is it a
significant factor to you?)
I do think there is actually a surprising amount of sexism at Olin, but I don’t think it happens in
engineering as much as in sports.
In engineering– there’s a tendency that men grab stuff and start working on it immediately;
women will wait and see what's left to pick up. Women will talk about the projects. “Who will
be best for this job" and try to parcel out tasks-- and then all the jobs disappear while they’re
talking.
I was talking to [name redacted] about this -- this happened at orientation. It’s interesting that
this memory was so striking to him. There were some actual physical objects strewn about the
ground. I don’t remember what the task was, but it was pointed out by the activity leaders that
“all the people touching the items are men”. I think this still happens metaphorically in classes.
Q: Along those lines, I know you subscribe to ThinkTank [an Olin mailing list for discussions on
engineering, education, etc.]. What are your thoughts on the recent interview that was linked?
The one questioning whether Olin female graduates were performing as well as their male
28
peers? Given, you know, the expectation that if you have gender-balance in a male-dominated
field, we must be compromising quality somehow-w?
I think there’s certainly much more weight put on your project experience and knowledge and
skill in judging how good of an engineer you are (not that anyone overtly judges), than gender.
One of those articles said that men were judged on potential, women judged on things they've
actually done. I'm curious if that happens at Olin.
Q: Interesting point. Do you buy it?
I think I would buy that a little bit. Direct experience does ties in with how we’re judged. It's
hard too, because a lot of the men coming in have a lot more direct experience with say, the
machine shop. So even if you were to judge by actually experience, there’s a lot of catching up
that has to happen.
Olin Sophomore, Female
Q: How would you describe leadership?
A: Leaders are people that have a vision, and can actually take it forward and get it together with
different strengths and weakness. They leverage the skills available to them. They have to people
people... people.
Q: Haha. I know what you mean.
A: I don't think you're going to be very effective if you can't communicate. You just can't get
people together. No matter what field you’re in, you have to be a people person and get your
ideas across. You have to have vision -- know where you want to go and how you want to get
there. And, have people help you with it.
Q: How do you think college has shaped your own development as a leader?
My experience may be somewhat unique. In high school, like any other person, ran all the clubs,
played all sports. I spent so much time developing leadership skills - getting organized, and so
on, I wanted to be a bum and do things for myself once I got to college. The entire first semester,
I didn't get involved. Oh, group projects are going to be great. I'm just going to follow.
I wanted to learn about other people and what they're like.
Since then, I've had a few different leadership experiences.
Q:Yeah, I remember you being involved with SWE [Society for Women Engineers].
That was a really bad leadership experience, experience. At first, you know, I'm learning the
ropes, I have a handle on things –and then I just became the go-to- person for everything, and
there’s so much to deal with at a small school. People are a little lazy. You have to add structure
29
as a leader, but some people are resistive to structure. It’s hard to do that. Resistance to structure,
resistance to trying to make things more streamlined and efficient – people just wanted you to be
the lackey. They were micromanaging, and not giving any individual flexibility.
This semester is totally different. I’m taking three and a half project based courses. In mech
solids and software design, I find myself to be a leader-type person. I have to deal with people
who strongly disagree with each other. In mech proto and UOCD (not like in soft design), I'm
with people where I know I don't have to step in. I’m a very big picture sort of person. I'm that
person in a group, the "big picture person".
Q: So given that you’ve been pretty heavily involved from high school on… has your leadership
approach changed since?
It definitely changes from high school –I know how to work cooperatively with people now. You
start to get weary of it, yes? But yeah. So much people interaction is exhausting. I think the
group work is a very good idea, but it should be limited in a semester, or at least reduce the AHS
[our arts and humanities requirements] to fewer semesters.
I’ve also identified this issue -- there's not a lot of team feedback going on. It starts in design
nature, where it’s brought up briefly, but never touched on again. We touched on it once in
UOCD, but very early on in the phase. Grudges are already starting to form on the team, you
know? “Oh, you talk too much. Shut up.”
There’s not enough of genuine team reflection. We need to sit down as a team and discuss it.
“This fucked up – why?” Was it that we weren't communicating? What happened? There’s just
not enough of that discussion. No time spent doing this, since there’s too much course material.
We should just make the team feedback mandatory.
Q: Yeah, and it makes you learn tact, right?
A: People, individually, need to stand up for themselves. Sometimes, not a lot happens, things
don’t get done, and people get stuck doing stuff on their own. Knowing when to say people need
to pitch in is essential.
Q:Alright, slight divergence of topic here. Given that gender-balance in engineering is so
unusual, does gender strike you as a salient issue at Olin?
It’s not all that relevant until someone starts doing all the Solidworks [a CAD modeling
software] and they're a boy. I’ve been on and am on teams with all girls, teams where I’m the
only girl, and everything in between. There’s a very corroborative atmosphere, which Ilove for
sure. There are certain things which boys do… They, unconsciously, do more of a certain thing;
they’re not thinking about group dynamics, and they’re not involving everyone in the team
dynamics. It becomes about efficiency and who's good at what vs. fostering a good learning
environment, not “let's fail and it will be okay we’re just learning”.
30
Olin Senior, Male
Q: How would you describe leadership?
A: A leader anyone with a vision. It doesn't have to be a big vision, just kind of an understanding
of where things are headed. Foresight is key.
Q: So, any particular qualities you would associate with having vision and foresight?
Leaders kind of step back and understand the situation. Whatever the case they happen to be in.
Sometimes people that are defined as leaders might not actually be leaders. Managers are
supposed to be leaders, but get so caught up in other things that they're not capable of doing so.
Q: What kind of lessons have you learned about leadership (good or bad) through your Olin
experience?
My personal philosophies have changed a little bit. I learned the most about leadership when I
was not the leader of the team, but when we define someone else as a project manager of a team,
partly because you could see what he or she is doing well and what he or she is not. But also
because there are so many different ways to change the direction of the team. Even small
decisions, but they’re built into everybody that's on the team.
For me personally, later on in the Olin cycle, I learned more about how good teams function. I’ve
kind of sneakily been putting myself in the position where I wouldn't have to deal with students
who I know are not productive. No one is really defined as a leader –I can put a lot of trust in the
other students.
Q: Yeah. What about the negatives?
Part of being able to lead well (not sure if I do) and trust the group is being able to realize when
your foresight is wrong, and how much your team should shape things.
For example, last semester, my HFID [Human Factors Interface Design] team was a mess. One
person was defined as a PM, but this person didn't want to get into any confrontation or disagree
with anyone’s ideas. We had another person who was very strong minded. When this person
tried to push her ideas, leadership had to facilitate someway to move forward and seldom did.
We just didn’t have enough structure.
I guess, good leaders produce structured environments.
Q: That’s really interesting. I haven’t thought of it that way before.
A: Yeah, I only just thought about this in this discussion. I guess along with trusting people, you
have to put them in the right position to make decisions. If you don’t organize things in a good
way, then it's just you.
31
Q: Do you feel any sort of pressure in leadership positions?
When I first came here, in leadership, I was very pushy. There was a “I'm the leader, I need to set
orders” mentality. I’ve since learned that just because you have the title doesn't mean you have
that kind of control over people.
Q: A little divergence here – given that we’re gender-balanced and all, does gender matter to
you? Is it salient?
A: Gender-balanced is bullshit, just because we have the equal numbers doesn’t mean a thing.
It’s similar to race things. Even if you feel like you have the same make-up of people, you still
have to be careful about how you approach things.
There are implicit and explicit things in how you do so. People here don't think enough about
how important gender is. Students here at Olin (among a lot of the guys) are very pushy -- and
they're always right. They’re never wrong, they're always right. It's not being sexist, it's just how
they are. But once you treat – I mean, you just can’t treat people like that in general.
If you take that mentality and also treat women that way, it's a different context. We're in a
context where women have been underrepresented, all these like, not enough support for females
in the science field. Once you bring that mentality of "I'm always right", creates a weird balance,
and might reinforce some things that happened in the past. The whole are females not supposed
to be scientist thing.
People are afraid to admit that things aren't equal. Same thing happened with race things. People
like to believe that white people, Hispanic people, and so on… everyone is all equal, but it's not
all true. We reinforce stereotypes, way of suppressing individuality.
People of different races exist, people have tendencies -- embrace that, embrace the cultural
background. I come from a unique culture, very Korean. But at the same time, when white
people try to say that they know where I’m coming from, it kind of offends me. (I'm coming
from a background of understanding, having had exposure to both sides of the culture divide. But
the way they see it, nerdy Asian guy, slutty Asian girl, reinforce the stereotypes, even if they
don’t individuallymean it.)
It’s the same thing for gender –people here don't think about it very much besides the admissions
process. People need to be more careful about how they tread –in structuring, roles on
teams…Gender affects everything!
32
APPENDIX B
Below, the correlates of class year, project-based coursework, leadership roles held, self-
described frequency of leader role adoption, courses taken with female faculty, and scores of
transformational leadership are shown for male survey respondents (Table 4) and female
respondents (Table 5).
Table 5:Correlates to transformational leadership, filtered by male respondents.
Class Year
# of project-based courses
# of leadership roles held
Courses with female faculty
Adoption of leader role
Transformational Leadership
Class Year
Pearson Correlation 1 -.654** .103 -.268 .350 .101
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001 .648 .217 .102 .645
N 23 23 22 23 23 23
# of project-based courses
Pearson Correlation -.654** 1 .041 .197 -.144 -.156
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
.856 .367 .513 .476
N 23 23 22 23 23 23
# of leadership roles held
Pearson Correlation .103 .041 1 .084 .145 -.197
Sig. (2-tailed) .648 .856
.710 .519 .379
N 22 22 22 22 22 22
Courses with female faculty
Pearson Correlation -.268 .197 .084 1 -.077 -.325
Sig. (2-tailed) .217 .367 .710
.728 .131
N 23 23 22 23 23 23
Adoption of leader role
Pearson Correlation .350 -.144 .145 -.077 1 .352
Sig. (2-tailed) .102 .513 .519 .728
.100
N 23 23 22 23 23 23
Transformational Leadership
Pearson Correlation .101 -.156 -.197 -.325 .352 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .645 .476 .379 .131 .100
N 23 23 22 23 23 23
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
33
Table 6: Correlates to transformational leadership, female respondents only.
Class Year
# of project-based courses
# of leadership roles held
Courses with female faculty
Adoption of leader role
Transformational Leadership
Class Year
Pearson Correlation 1 -.791** -.249 -.413* .075 .013
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .132 .011 .659 .939
N 38 38 38 37 37 38
# of project-based courses
Pearson Correlation -.791** 1 .200 .327 -.014 .038
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
.228 .049 .936 .821
N 38 38 38 37 37 38
# of leadership roles held
Pearson Correlation -.249 .200 1 .091 .419** .475**
Sig. (2-tailed) .132 .228
.593 .010 .003
N 38 38 38 37 37 38
Courses with female faculty
Pearson Correlation -.413* .327 .091 1 -.164 .061
Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .049 .593
.339 .718
N 37 37 37 37 36 37
Adoption of leader role
Pearson Correlation .075 -.014 .419** -.164 1 .495**
Sig. (2-tailed) .659 .936 .010 .339
.002
N 37 37 37 36 37 37
Transformational Leadership
Pearson Correlation .013 .038 .475** .061 .495** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .939 .821 .003 .718 .002
N 38 38 38 37 37 38
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
