Authentic management as a moderator of the relationship between the congruence of gender role identity - gender management characteristics, and leader-member exchange (LMX)

Congruence and its components . Discussion of the variable “congruence” s decomposition and definition of its components in order to its subsequent conceptual reconstruction. In regard to the present study, congruence means that female managers act according to expectations and beliefs attributed to them by their gender and according to their perceived gender identity. The assumption is that women make an effort to match their gender role to their management role despite frequent contradictions, which might form a management style that is different than men's ( Rosette & Tost, 2010).

Gender role identity (androgynous/non-androgynous). Gender roles in society are shared expectations and beliefs that are attributed to individuals based on their gender. Gender roles rights and obligations that are defined as befitting men and women in society. Gender roles affect behavior not only because men and women react to society's expectations, but also because most people internalize their gender roles ( Eagly and Johanneson, 2001).

Androgyny is defined as the degree of one's psychological flexibility regarding gender-related stereotypical behaviors, namely, women that combine male and female stereotypical behaviors. Operationally, based on Bem (1974) Sex Role Inventory, an androgynous woman manager receives high scores on both the female and the male scales ( Kark et al., 2012).

Gender management characteristics (communal/agentic). Managers are affected not only by their place in the hierarchy, but by their gender roles. There is agreement today that gender roles boil over to organizations, and therefore gender serves as an “identity background” in the workplace ( Eagly and Johanneson, 2001 ). On the basis of the Social Role Theory regarding gender differences and similarities, expectations from leaders based on their categorization as male/female are usually defined as either agentic (a style attributed mainly to men and described as assertive, controlling, and confident) or communal (a style attributed mainly to women and described as being helpful, kind, gentle, sympathetic, and sensitive to others) ( Eagly et al., 2000).

Do men and women act differently as managers? This has been a very controversial question for many years in the academic and organizational worlds. However, there is general consensus that women ener more obstacles to becoming managers, probably because management roles invariably incorporate the dominance of male characteristics ( Eagly & Karau, 2002; Koenig et al., 2011 ).

Studies on this topic range from traditional perceptions that male and female management styles are totally diverse to social perceptions that suggest minimizing the importance of gender differences ( Eagly and Johanneson, 2001 ). Three main trends can be identified. First, the traditional dichotomous point of view that basically says: “Think manager – think man”, which is based on gender stereotypes. Second, a more modern outlook, which claims that effective leadership in fact s skills that are stereotypically perceived as “feminine” ( Duehr & Bono, 2006; Kark et al., 2012 ). The explanation of this outlook is that “feminine” leadership is more suitable to modern organizations. The third trend, typical of most recent research and the focus of the present study, is the understanding that the combination between both management styles is what s effective leadership ( Rosette & Tost, 2010; Vinkenburg et al., 2011 ).

We will try to break away from the traditional dichotomy and explain management differences between men and women in a social and organizational context that fits the third trend mentioned above.

Theoretic rationale of similarities and differences in gender management styles . The theoretic rationale derives from the Social Role Theory regarding gender-related similarities and differences, according to which expectations from managers or leaders are based on their categorization as male or female ( Eagly and Johanneson, 2001 ). Thus, this approach assumes the existence of gender stereotypes.

Gender stereotypes are simplistic generalizations about the gender attributes, differences, and roles of individuals and/or groups. The typical distinction is that women are perceived as more “communal” and men as more “agentic” ( Duehr & Bono, 2006).

Agentic style is generally attributed to men. It is depicted as assertive, controlling, and confident, and is expressed by aggression, ambition, belligerence, independence, daring, competitiveness, and self-confidence. In the work and management world it means: assertiveness, competition for attention, task-orientation, and focus on the problem to find solutions ( Eagly and Johanneson, 2001).

Communal style is attributed to women, and is usually described in terms of sharing and concern for others, i.e., to be useful, to be gentle and kind, to help, to be sympathetic, and to be sensitive to others. In the work and management world it is expressed as: hesitant speech, not drawing attention to oneself, accepting the other, providing support and help, finding solutions for personal problems, and focusing on the process rather than the task and bottom-line ( Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rosette & Tost, 2010 ).

The differences between the styles and their gender attribution form the general opinion that a good manager is aggressive, competitive, self-confident, independent, and has a great deal of control. This approach is gender-oriented, and thus assumes that women lack these qualities. Furthermore, women are perceived as less controlling and more cooperative than men. Male managers are described as unemotional and analytic, as women are viewed as intuitive and empathetic ( Hayes & Allinson, 2004).

Moreover, Dickerson (2000) argues that these differences explain why women are under-represented in management positions. Apparently, they lack the male abilities that are perceived to produce effective, successful managers. Whether or not this is true and whether it is a result of social structuring, it affects women's place in management hierarchy and their own self-esteem ( Hayes & Allinson, 2004 ). Confirmation of this can be found in a recent study that examined the existence of these stereotypes. The results indicated that 72% of all women in senior managerial positions claimed that stereotypes regarding job expectations and women's abilities were their main, most significant obstacle to senior management positions ( Koenig et al., 2011 ). Other studies over the years were harsher in their assessment, claiming that it is just about impossible to change these stereotypes, even in view of awakening social changes ( Duehr & Bono, 2006).

It is clear today that the social environment concerning respect for women has changed, expressed in the organizational environment primarily by giving more women the opportunity to climb the corporate ladder and by making diversity a business goal. The inevitable questions are: can the mentioned social changes break the glass ceiling?; can they alter gender stereotypes?

Congruence: A simultaneous perception of gender roles and management roles . In view of the above, it is obvious that managers are affected not only by their place in the hierarchy but also by their gender roles.

Scholars agree today that gender roles boil over to organizations, and therefore gender serves as an “identity background” at the workplace ( Eagly and Johanneson, 2001 ). What is more, studies conducted in the field have concluded that there is not much new under the sun: although some stereotypical gender differences were eroded by organizational roles, some are still alive and kicking and can be seen on a daily basis ( Eagly, 2005 ). Another study, which examined behaviors in a wide variety of work definitions, found that behaviors categorized as agentic were observed between the participants and the supervisor rather than the boss. On the other hand, communal behaviors were affected by the participant's gender regardless of status, and women tended more to this type of behavior, especially with other women ( Eagly & Karau, 2002).

In this context, congruence means that women managers act according to gender expectations and beliefs, and their perceived gender identity. Gender role has various implications to men's and women's behavior as managers, not only because of the different content of men‘s and women's roles, but primarily because of the inconsistencies between the communal traits expected of women and the belief that agentic qualities are d in order to succeed as a manager in the corporate world ( Rosette & Tost, 2010).

Thus, incongruence between gender and management roles tends to prejudices against women managers in two ways:

• a.

  Women are not perceived as having ‘management potential’ because management abilities are stereotypically attributed to men.

• b.

  Women are perceived as possessing lesser leadership abilities because agentic behavior is attributed more to men than to women ( Eagly and Johanneson, 2001).

Analysis of congruence and incongruence sheds new light on the discussion, as it clarifies the insight that promoting women to managerial jobs is limited by threats from two directions: on one hand, women must conform to their gender roles, which could cause them to fail to meet the ments of their managerial position; on the other hand, conforming to their management role could cause them to fail in their gender role ( Koenig et al., 2011 ). Thus, for instance, women could ener more negative reactions if they choose agentic-style behavior, because it s power and control over others ( Mor et al., 2011).

We can sum up and say that gender roles are evident in organizations. Female managers’ gender identity could easily lead to behaviors that clash with their gender role ( Eagly & Karau, 2002 ). Therefore, it is harder for women, because their gender role does not necessarily match their management role, which s obstacles and prejudices for women managers ( Duehr & Bono, 2006).

Androgyny and the “winning combination” . In recent years, the discussion of stereotypes has decreased and has moved on to concepts of agentic and communal styles, and the degree to which women adopt the former, more masculine style ( Rosette & Tost, 2010 ). Studies over the years have found an increase in women's statements that they adopt traits that were previously considered male, primarily due to the social climate for women, and which is significantly expressed in the workplace ( Duehr & Bono, 2006; Hayes & Allinson, 2004 ).

The common assumption today is that men and women who can combine “male” and “female” characteristics derive considerable benefits, as the combination allows them to switch between traits according to context rather than remaining chained to a specific range of behaviors ( Mor et al., 2011).

In view of the above, one can assume that this “androgynous” ability could serve as a solution for women in management positions, and solve the inherent incongruence between gender and management roles ( Rosette & Tost, 2010).

But, is it enough? Can androgyny make the difference, or rather obscure it? Recent studies ( Kark et al., 2012; Mor et al., 2011 ) indicate that when managers combine characteristics and adopt an androgynous gender identity, men still have an advantage. Furthermore, Mor et al. (2011) assert that women derive usefulness only from “male” traits, since their sense of control over their life depends on instrumental rather than expressional traits.

Kark et al. (2012) add the surprising finding in this context, namely that not only do they derive less benefit, but women pay a higher price when they are diagnosed as non-androgynous compared to non-androgynous men.

Is it enough for women? The discussion of this question follows.

Women managers that are perceived by their subordinates as having an androgynous gender role identity and combined agentic and communal management style will be perceived as more authentic managers than others .

Authentic management and LMX . Leadership, by definition, is a system of interactions. The early Trait Theory ignored the fact that a relationship is actively built by both parties. In reality, leadership is always a social construct that is red by the relationships between leaders and those they aspire to lead ( Goffee & Jones, 2005). Avolio and Gardner (2005) claim that authentic management has a multi-dimensional impact on organizations, and referred to the levels of individual, group, and pair. The pair level relates to the exchange relationship between manager and subordinate (LMX). They state that authentic leadership/management can a positive exchange relationship between managers and their subordinates.

Theoretically, authentic management focuses on the leader's behavior. LMX focuses on the congruence of the relationship between manager and subordinate. Since female managers are more willing to share information and to express their thoughts and inner feelings, they can more trust, loyalty, and identification ( Wang et al., 2005 ). Furthermore, their integrity and trustworthiness help them form long-term mutual relationships with their female subordinates, so that they act as partners with common expectations and goals ( Hsiung, 2011 ). Thus, it can be assumed that authentic management will affect the quality of LMX, and that authentic leadership relates positively to the quality of LMX.

A positive relationship will be found between the degree of authentic management and the quality of LMX between female managers and their subordinates (as reported by managers and subordinates).

Authentic management as a moderator between the congruence of gender role identity-gender management characteristics, and leader-member exchange (LMX) . We have noted that androgyny and integration of both management styles are not sufficient to serve as a solution for women managers who deal with a double set of expectations rooted in their gender and management identities. Since, as a rule, men lead groups, women are less perceived as the prototype of leadership. Consequently, when leadership is perceived in masculine terms, the demand is usually for masculine leaders irrespective of their gender ( Rosette & Tost, 2010 ). Furthermore, if women become leaders and managers, their success is not perceived immediately, and it takes longer for them to gain recognition by their subordinates ( Kark et al., 2012 ). If they adopt characteristics that are seemingly opposite to their gender (incongruence) perhaps they can achieve success and be perceived as charismatic, but they pay the price of being disliked and regarded as outsiders that act against expectations ( Eagly, 2005; Kawakami et al., 2000 ).

In the last two years, research has moved the discussion a step forward by showing that as for men “feminine” characteristics serve as an additional means to achieve control, women do not enjoy this advantage. Namely, when both genders integrate male and female traits and develop androgyny, only men benefit from it, while women are seen in a negative light ( Kark et al., 2012; Mor et al., 2011 ). This sheds new light on the discussion and s a fresh asymmetry that women managers are forced to deal with.

The question, then, is: What, apart from an androgynous gender identity and combining male and female characteristics, can help women managers to be considered successful and to maintain high quality LMX with their subordinates?

Studies have found that women who are aware and authentic, and are able to combine management styles within context, can avoid this paradox. How so? Authenticity is based on awareness and sincerity, and therefore one can assume that the more aware and true to herself she is, the better she can influence her subordinates and gain their appreciation ( Hsiung, 2011 ). The same parameters determine whether she is perceived as “real” and as a woman who integrates styles based on her values and management agenda rather than social desirability. Substantiation of this can be found in a study that concluded that women managers who are “masculine” in style yet aware, are perceived by men as more successful than women who adopt a male style but are not sincere and not aware ( Kawakami et al., 2000 ). That is to say, even when women do not integrate management styles and adopt a male style out of awareness and congruence with their role identity (which in this case is male), their authenticity helps them to be seen as successful and sincere. Surprisingly, this viewpoint is common among women too, especially when regarding other women in senior management positions ( Rosette & Tost, 2010).

In view of the above, adding the variable of authentic management promotes the explanation of the relationship between the variables: since authenticity is related to LMX, subordinates must identify with their manager and accept her values, which fit and serve the community/group that they belong to and in which the manager has authority ( Goffee & Jones, 2005 ). It is not enough that managers are aware of their values; they must also believe that they serve their community. Namely, the leader must reflect their common ideas and values in order to gain her subordinates’ legitimization ( Eagly, 2005 ). Additionally, legitimization by subordinates is necessary, because a manager cannot identify or declare herself as authentic. Authenticity is identifiable by others, so that only subordinates that have experienced an authentic manager can perceive her as such ( Goffee & Jones, 2005 ). Thus, we believe that combination of styles and androgyny adopted by women managers reinforces the quality of exchange with their subordinates. Nevertheless, this is not the full solution, and authentic management can explain this relationship and contribute to it. Consequently, we hypothesize that:

Women subordinates that perceive that their manager has an androgynous gender role identity and combined management style will report higher quality LMX than subordinates that do not perceive their manager so.

Women managers that are perceived by their subordinates as having an androgynous gender role identity and combined management style will report higher quality LMX than managers that are not perceived so.

Authentic management moderates the relationship between the congruence of gender role identity (androgynous/non-androgynous) – gender management characteristics (agentic/communal), and LMX.

Hypothesis 1 : Women managers that are perceived by their subordinates as having an androgynous gender role identity and combined agentic and communal management style will be perceived as more authentic managers than others.

Hypothesis 2 : A positive relationship will be found between the degree of authentic management and the quality of LMX between female managers and their subordinates (as reported by managers and subordinates).

Hypothesis 3 : Women subordinates that perceive that their manager has an androgynous gender role identity and combined management style will report higher quality LMX than subordinates that do not perceive their manager so.

Hypothesis 4 : Women managers that are perceived by their subordinates as having an androgynous gender role identity and combined management style will report higher quality LMX than managers that are not perceived so.

Hypothesis 5 : Authentic management moderates the relationship between the congruence of gender role identity (androgynous/non-androgynous) – gender management characteristics (agentic/ communal), and LMX.

The data were collected from 144 women, of whom 24 were managers and 120 were subordinates. Each respondent was asked to fill out a questionnaire that examined the relevant variables for managers and subordinates separately.

Subordinates. The mean age was 35.05 (SD = 9.4); the minimum age was 20 and the maximum age was 60; 68.3% were married, 25.8% single, 5% divorced, and 0.8% widowed; 79.2% of the subordinates were professional workers and 20.8% were administrative workers; 46.7% held a BA degree, 25% held a MA degree, 15% secondary education, and 13.3% high school education. The mean number of children was 1.46 ( SD = 1.37, minimum number of children 0, maximum 6); 34.2% had no children, 41.7% had 1-2 children, 22.5% had 3-4 children, and 1.6% had 5-6 children.

Managers.The mean age was 37.29 (SD = 6.64); the minimum age was 24 and the maximum age was 60. Most (87.5%) were married, 6.7% were single, and 5.8% were divorced; 79.2% of the managers were mid-level management, 25% were senior management (directors), and 20.8% were junior management; 59.2% held a MA degree, 40% held a BA degree, and 0.8% had secondary education. The mean number of children was 1.87 ( SD = 0.99, minimum number of children 0, maximum 4); 12.5% had no children, 58.3% had 1-2 children, and 29.1% had 3-4 children.

Identification of management patterns as “male” or “female” . An instrument was used to preliminarily identify general male and female management patterns as perceived by the subordinates. The instrument was developed by Annes (1997) as part of her thesis and s 20 statements that describe behaviors and characteristics. The respondents were requested to categorize the statements in general (not about their own managers) as “agentic” (male) or “communal” (female). Table 1 presents an analysis of the responses. The results indicate that 7 of the examined characteristics were perceived as male, 11 as female, and 2 as neutral. These results served as a basis for consequently constructing the variables “agentic” and “communal” as male and female gender management characteristics.

LMX was assessed using a 6-item questionnaire based on Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) . The respondents answered on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( low quality LMX with manager) to 6 (high quality LMX with manager ). The variable was consequently calculated as the mean replies to the items (? = .907, M = 3.80, SD = 1.05).

Authentic leadership/management was gauged by means of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire developed by Avolio et al. (2007) . The questionnaire s 16 items relating to the four measures of authenticity. Participants indicated the frequency with which they experienced the situation described by each item using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( never) to 6 (all the time) (? = .944, M = 3.91, SD = 1.01).

Gender role identity was tapped using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (1974), which examines the respondents’ gender identity based on identification with various personal traits. We chose to use the Hebrew version, which was adapted to Israeli culture by Milgram and Milgram (1975), and consequently cited by Rosenberg (1991). The questionnaire s 60 items, which respondents were asked to grade about their managers on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( not characteristic at all) to 6 (very characteristic).

Male: ? = .938, M = 4.11, SD = 0.98; female: ? = .939, M = 3.86, SD = 0.98.

Gender management style was assessed reusing the preliminary questionnaire, but this time the respondents were requested to relate to their own manager on a Likert scale ranging from 1 ( never) to 6 (all the time ). The goal was to characterize the management style perceived by the subordinate as agentic or communal.

Agentic: ? = .881, M = 4.36, SD = 1.03; communal: ? = .953, M = 3.37, SD = 1.21.

LMX was measured using the same questionnaire as the subordinates’ questionnaire. The manager was requested to answer about her subordinates and a separate questionnaire was filled out for each subordinate (? = .876, M = 4.26, SD = 0.72).

Goffee and Jones (2005) emphasize that one cannot identify one's own authenticity – only subordinates can describe him or her as such. Therefore, this measure was gauged only with the subordinate respondents.

Congruence between gender role identity (androgynous/non-androgynous) and combined (communal + agentic) management style.

In the first stage, we built the variable “gender role identity” by categorizing two groups: A. androgynous – respondents that received a score higher than the median for male role characteristics (median = 4.4) and a score higher than the median for female role characteristics (median = 4.1); B. non-androgynous – all the others.

In the second stage, we constructed the variable “combined management style” by classifying two groups: A. combined – respondents that received a score higher than the median for “agentic” management (median = 4.57) and a score higher than the median for “communal” management (median = 4.0); B. non-combined – all the others.

In the third stage, we d the variable “androgynous and combining styles”, classified by two groups: A. congruent – respondents that were found to have androgynous gender role identity and a combined management style; B. incongruent – all the others.

Table 2 indicates that 20.8% of all the managers are perceived as both androgynous and having a combined management style.

Women managers that are perceived by their subordinates as having an androgynous gender role identity and combined agentic and communal management style will be perceived as more authentic managers than others .

An independent t -test was performed to examine the first hypothesis. The independent variable was congruence of androgynous gender role identity and combined management style and the dependent variable was authenticity. Table 4 presents the comparison results of the managers’ degree of authenticity between those that were perceived as congruent with those that were not.

The findings confirm the first hypothesis, that is to say that the degree of authenticity among managers that are perceived as congruent ( M = 4.93) is higher than that of managers that are not perceived as congruent ( M = 3.64).

A positive relationship will be found between the degree of authentic management and the quality of LMX between female managers and their subordinates .

Hotelling's T -squared test was run between the two dependent variables – subordinates’ LMX and managers’ LMX, and the independent variable – authentic management. The reason for employing this test was the high correlation between the two dependent variables ( r = .694, p < .01). The results were as follows: Hotelling's T-squared = 2.78, F(2, 117) = 163, p < .01.

We found a significant positive effect of authentic management on subordinates’ LMX, b = 0.889, p < .01, F (1, 118) = 317.63, and a significant positive effect of authentic management on managers’ LMX, b = 0.463, p < .01, F (1, 118) = 87.61. Hypothesis 2 was thus corroborated.

Hotelling's T -squared test was employed to examine hypotheses 3 and 4. The dependent variables were subordinates’ LMX and managers’ LMX, and the independent variable was congruence of androgynous gender role identity and gender management characteristics. The following results were obtained: Hotelling's T-squared = 0.311, F (2, 117) = 18.22, p < .01.

Women subordinates that perceive that their manager has an androgynous gender role identity and combined management style will report higher quality LMX than subordinates that do not perceive their manager so .

Table 5 indicates that a significant effect was found for the congruence of androgynous gender role identity and gender management characteristics on subordinates’ LMX, F (1, 118) = 34.4, p < .01.

The degree of LMX reported by subordinates with managers that are perceived as congruent ( M = 4.78) was higher than the reported degree of LMX with managers that are not perceived as congruent ( M = 3.55). Hence, hypothesis 3 was confirmed.

Women managers that are perceived by their subordinates as having an androgynous gender role identity and combined management style will report higher quality LMX than managers that are not perceived so.

A significant effect was found for the congruence of androgynous gender role identity and gender management characteristics on managers’ LMX, F (1, 118) = 23.55, p < .01.

Table 6 clearly shows that the fourth hypothesis was substantiated. Managers with higher congruence ( M = 4.83) reported a higher level of LMX than managers that are not perceived as congruent ( M = 4.11).

Authentic management moderates the relationship between the congruence of gender role identity (androgynous/non-androgynous) – gender management characteristics (agentic/communal), and LMX .

A two-step hierarchical regression was employed to examine the fifth hypothesis. In the first step, the independent variable was “congruence” and the dependent variable was “LMX”. In the second step, the variable “authentic management” was added as a possible moderator.

Table 7 indicates that the fifth hypothesis was corroborated. In the first %