Demographics and Leadership Philosophy: Exploring Gender Differences

Demographics and leadership philosophy:
exploring gender differences

Korac-Kakabadse, Andrew; Korac-Kakabadse, Nada; Myers, Andrew . The Journal of Management
Development ; Bradford Tomo 17, N.º 5, (1998): 351-388.
Enlace de documentos de ProQuest
RESUMEN

Leadership philosophy is explored through gender and other demographic characteristics in the Australian Public
Service (APS), at the federal government level. Leadership philosophy is conceptualised as the leader's attitudes,
values and behaviour. Gender differences in characteristics of leaders (executives and middle managers) are
examined in terms of strategic behaviour, management style, work-related values, adoption of information
technology, perceived organisational morale, family/work conflict and personal, work and family satisfaction. The
gender differences are investigated using questionnaire responses from a sample of 750 respondents, of which
569 were male and 145 female. The APS findings are compared with a Cranfield study conducted in the UK's
National Health Service (NHS), where gender differences are explored in terms of management and strategic
orientation.
TEXTO COMPLETO

Andrew Korac-Kakabadse: Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Nada Korac-Kakabadse: Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Andrew Myers: International Consultant, Clifton Reynes, Buckinghamshire, UK
Sex/gender debate
Many early philosophers have written about women, although in a largely derogatory or dismissive manner. For
example, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Rousseau, and Nietzche all discuss the topic of women, with regard to women's
capacity for philosophical rationality, and frequently find them inferior in this respect (Kennedy and Mendus, 1987).
Later, some like John Stuart Mill (1983) were considered to be more feminist, as they deny the existence of natural
differences between men and women, or at any rate, deny that these differences are such as to warrant differential
legal and political rights. However, it took a woman, Mary Wollstonecraft (1792, 1978) and a man, Charles Fourier
(1829) to extend the feminist ideology. Mary Wollstonecraft in 1792 published the book A Vindication of the Rights
of Women, and extended the defence of women as rational beings capable of benefiting from education and of
performing the duties of a citizen. However, Wollstonecraft's "feminism" did not extend to the claim that men and
women should be equal in terms of political participation. She defended a concept of citizenship according to
which women could properly fulfil their duties as citizens from within the home.
It was the French utopian socialist, Charles Fourier, who coined the word feminisme, to indicate support for
women's equal legal and political rights with men, first recorded in English in the 1890s. Since then, many words
PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 33

have been written on the differences between men and women, for example, whether men and women see the
world very differently and, if so, whether they are different persons (Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1982; Maccaby and
Jacklin, 1980). These issues are often expressed in terms of a distinction between sex and gender, where sex is
the biologically invariant factor and gender is comprised of various social, cultural or historical variable
components (Goktope and Schneier, 1988). Other ways in which the division between men and women has been
expressed are as nature-culture, or male-masculine and female-feminine (Bem, 1974; Gilligan, 1982; Heilbrun,
1976). Such stereotypes assume a dualistic categorisation maintained according to gender specific lines, such as
women are more intuitive, empathetic, selfless, kind (but equally weak-hearted, i.e. Florence Nightingale) while men
debate more, are judicial and rational in the making of moral choices (Solomon, 1992). Freud (1961) was the first
to raise the differentiation between sex and gender to the level of theory. Since then, theories explaining sex and
gender differences have abounded, with arguably one of the most important differences between men and women
identified as lying in their differential responsibilities in the domestic sphere, which in turn effects the public
sphere.
At one end of the debate, there are those who take the form of a denial, namely, that women have a different nature
from men, asserting that, properly educated, women can be just as rational as men. This argument has its roots in
the Wollstonecraft's thesis. At the other end of debate, are those who argue that women's nature is different from
men's, and equally go on to advocate a form of feminism which rejoices in the difference, pressing for a re-
evaluation of "women's qualities", qualities of emotion and intuition, above the "male" value of rationality (Fireman,
1990; Korac-Boisvert and Kouzmin, 1995a, 1995b). This argument draws on the French tradition of feminism to
account for sexuality, identity and difference (Moi, 1988). With this approach, difference can lead to plurality,
without a necessary loss of embodiment of the concept of women's rationality (Korac-Boisvert and Kouzmin,
1995a, 1995b). Somewhere in the spectrum equally lies the argument that essential gender differences are not
necessarily problematic, but simply differences that may be assigned unequal value, such that, women are seen as
the weaker or inferior sex. Thus sexual equality, requires a conception of "equality" which incorporates the realities
of sexual differences and not "gender-blindness", which is often enshrined in certain Equal Opportunity policies.
Similarly, the notion of "autonomy" requires reconceptualisation to take into account context and circumstance.
For example, women's under-representation in the higher organisational ranks is often attributed to low attitudinal
commitment, as some research has indicated that men and women display different levels of drive and fortitude
(Rozier and Hersh-Cochran, 1996). However, the gender model contends that socialisation shapes attitudinal
commitment, whilst in contrast, the job model suggests that workplace experiences determine attitudinal
commitment (Mason and Mudrack, 1996). Thus it appears that one of the major concerns of contemporary
feminism is to address the question of how to assess differences between men and women, bearing in mind that
differences change over time; how to understand these differences, and how to attain a political order which will
appropriately reflect such differences between men and women. Yet still, the major areas of research and debate,
to date, have focused on sex comparisons, stereotypes, gender belief systems, and gender and social structure,
with very little attention paid to issues of gender and context and gender and organisational processes.
An example of the stereotypic approach to sex/gender comparison is epitomised in sex-role socialisation theory,
often used to explain the personality traits and behaviour patterns that are attributed to women managers, largely
ignoring the formative context within which women work (Ely, 1994). In contrast, discrepancies based on such
issues as differing traditions, historical events, education, training, legislation, attitudes and behaviours,
employment conditions, rights and benefits, child-care provisions, equal opportunities policies and positive action
programmes, all influence differences between men and women. Yet, despite not fully accounting for the emerging
context and other related factors, research emanating from the sex-role perspective has produced contradictory
results. According to one stereotype, women are insecure, over-controlling and unable to engage in team play
behaviour (Madden, 1987), whilst the new stereotype suggests that women are relationship-oriented, non-

hierarchical and interested in sharing power and information (Helgesen, 1990; Rosener, 1990). Thus, what was
once labelled as women's weaknesses and cited as reasons for them being ill-suited for top jobs, are currently the
very traits male executives are expected to possess (Fireman, 1990). However, new wave feminism claims that
women are better leaders and that with superior managerial instincts, women may become the "new wave
Japanese" (Helgesesn, 1990). Helgesen (1990) for example, suggests that men and women manage in sharply
different ways, and supports the view that the female approach is superior, as mothers in particular, are better
team players than men. As a consequence, women naturally form centre-archives, namely organisations with the
leader at the centre, not on top. Others suggest that men hoard information, while women are natural
disseminators (Rosener, 1990) and that leadership traits are more common in executive women that in executive
men (Fireman, 1990).
Notwithstanding, that sex comparisons, stereotypes, beliefs about gender, and gender and social structure
theories account for a large share of the work in sex and gender research, sex and gender are still often viewed in
static terms, stripped of impact of context (Mishler, 1979). Thus investigators examining differences between
males and females often assume a stability of differences (Ely, 1994; Wharton, 1992) and, as a consequence,
gender stereotype studies often search for an eternal truth (Deaux, 1985, p. 69).
The alternative view is that sex differences ebb and flow, according to changes of context, circumstance, time and
culture (Sherif, 1982). This line of thinking assumes that the broader context in which changes occur are a more
powerful influence than specific gender differences (Deaux, 1985).
Some from the social identity perspective (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Turner, 1987) hold that "identity"
represents "the location of a person in social space" (Gaces et al., 1973, p. 477), and that social structure underlies
the meanings people attach to their membership and identity within groups in describing both the social
component (derived from sex, race, class nationality) and the personal component (derived from idiosyncratic
characteristics such as personality, physical, intellectual traits) (Ashfort and Mael, 1989; Tajfel, 1982). These
forces, in turn, shape the social interactions members have with their own and other groups (Konrad and Gutek,
1987; Martin, 1985; Yoder, 1991; Zimmer, 1988). The social component of identity involves appreciating the
processes of self-categorisation and of how attaching value to particular social categories (Pettigrew, 1986)
influences an individual's knowledge of his or her membership of social groups, together with the emotional
significance of how that knowledge constitutes social identity (Turner and Giles, 1981, p. 24).
Again, some suggest that similarities between men and women managers far outweigh their differences, as
managers are a self-selected population, and those who choose managerial careers, like fire-fighters, share a great
deal in common (Fireman, 1990, p. 116). Thus at the best, this occupational grouping embodies the stereotypes of
both genders (Fireman, 1990). The self selecting argument is based on the population concept of social identity,
whereby people prefer to interact with members of their own identity group than with members of other groups
(Abrams and Hogg, 1990; Tajfel, 1982).
Having undertaken an overview of the literature on gender differences, this paper continues by examining the topic
of gender through adapting a demographic perspective, contrasting the effect of gender against aspects of
organisational and job tenure, the effect of having experience of senior management roles and the age of
respondents in terms of their impact on leadership and organisational functioning.
The exploration of demographics is followed by an examination of the results of research conducted by the
management development research team at Cranfield School of Management exploring whether gender
significantly influences leadership performance amongst senior federal government civil servants (Australia) and

amongst top directors in National Health Service (NHS) Trust organisations in the UK. Finally, considerations for
the effective development of women managers and leaders is undertaken, in keeping with the results of the
surveys outlined.
Demographics
Organisational demography: background
Organisational demography is conceptualised as the distribution of organisational members along any

demographic trait or any set of demographic traits (Mittman, 1992; Pfeffer, 1983). The foundation of organisational
demography research is based on structuralist sociological theories that emphasise the importance of numbers
and proportions for understanding interaction processes amongst social aggregates (Blau, 1977; Simmel, 1955, p.
125). These structuralist theories are built on the assumption that the positions among which social actors are
distributed exert fundamental influence on social life, more so than cultural values and norms. Blau (1977)
propositioned that differentiation along significant dimensions of social position creates social structure, which
reflects and affects social actors' role relations and social interactions and associations. The construed social
structure is conceptualised as a multi-dimensional space composed of the various positions on which members of
the population are distributed. These positions are most often defined by demographic attributes such as age,
tenure, occupation, gender and ethnicity (Blau, 1977). Thus, the basic assumption underpinning demography
theory is that demographic characteristics influence social dynamics, which in turn influence organisational
outcomes (Pfeffer, 1983; Stinchcombe et al., 1986). Pfeffer (1983, p. 348) argued that "demography is an
important, causal variable that affects a number of intervening variables and processes and through them, a
number of organisation outcomes".
Demography theory focuses on compositional characteristics that influence interpersonal and group dynamics,
and is particularly relevant to understanding outcomes involving "top teams" (Kakabadse, 1991; Kakabadse, et al.,
1996) and their impact and influence in organisations (Pfeffer, 1983). Group demography attributes such as age,
tenure, occupation, gender and ethnicity, may be used as surrogate measures for understanding the common
experiences and background that shape human development and influence, amongst others, the language, quality
and frequency of communication (Allen and Cohen, 1969; March and Simon, 1958; Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Rogers
and Shoemaker, 1971). Group demography reflects similarity and dissimilarity amongst individuals, making it a
meaningful perspective for understanding the process affected by group dynamics, such as the level and extent of
within-group communication, as well as outcomes of group dynamics, including such phenomena as the level of
consensus within a group, innovation and turnover of personnel within the organisation. According to Jackson et
al. (1991) group demographic composition involves distinguishing determinants of interpersonal attraction and
sets the social context for relationships within an organisation. The degree of an individual's similarity or
dissimilarity to others in a work group may influence the processes that affect employee job satisfaction,
organisational commitment, level of communication as important predictors of turnover (Michel and Hambrick,
1992; Mobley et al., 1970).
Strategy, groups and demography
Building on the pioneering theoretical work of Pfeffer (1983) and on earlier sociological theories of group
interaction (Blau, 1977; Simmel, 1955) and demography (McNeil and Thompson, 1971; Ryder, 1964), organisational
demography has been linked empirically to many important organisational outcomes: inter-group cohesion,
conflict and turnover (McCain et al., 1983; O'Reilly et al., 1989; Pfeffer and Davis-Blake, 1992); culture (Carroll and
Harrison, 1994); the distribution of power in organisation (Shenhav and Haberfield, 1992); innovation and

adaptability (O'Reilly and Flatt, 1989; Reed, 1978) and organisational performance (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven,
1990; Michel and Hambrick, 1992; Murray 1989; Smith et al., 1994; Walderman and Avolio, 1986). Research
regarding the consequences of organisational demography span widely from Kanter's (1977) study of how the
proportion of men and women in corporations affects group process and individual outcomes, to Michel and
Hambrick's (1992) study of how the diversity of top management teams affect organisational performance and
Ely's (1994) study of how the proportion of women at senior levels in law firms influences women's professional
relationships.
Drucker (1974) posited in large, complex organisations, material responsibilities are unlikely to be the exclusive
domain of just one individual. Thus there is a need for studying the relationships amongst members of "top teams"
(Kakabadse, 1991) in relation to organisation outcomes or strategic choice. As the strategic decision-making
process is by its very nature ambiguous, complex and unstructured, the perceptions and interpretation of a top
management team's members critically affect strategic decisions (Dutton and Duncan, 1987). A top team's
decision to initiate changes in strategy are based on member's perceptions of opportunities and constraints
(Tushman and Romanelli, 1985). As top team members engage in the strategic decision-making process, each top
team member's perceptions and interpretations will reflect his or her own "cognitive base" (Dearborn and Simon,
1958; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Kahalas and Groves, 1979). The emerging empirical evidence shows that
leaders and top management teams have a considerable impact on organisational outcomes (Finklestein and
Hambrick, 1990; Kakabadse, 1991, 1993; Kakabadse et al. 1996; Romanelli and Tushman, 1986). While Finklestein
and Hambrick's (1990) study found that in high-discretion industries, such as computer industry, managers seem
to "matter greatly", Kakabadse's (1991, 1993) extensive study of "top teams" found that leadership has the
strongest impact on attaining and promoting organisational effectiveness.
According to Cyert and March's (1963) concept of the "dominant coalition", Hambrick and Mason's (1984) "upper-
echelons" theory and Kakabadse's (1991) discretionary leadership theory of "top team" behaviour, upper-level
management has an important impact on organisational outcomes because of the discretionary decisions they are
empowered to make on behalf of the organisation. Since those managers make discretionary decisions consistent
with their cognitive base, which is in part a function of their personal values and experiences, their past
experiences and values can be linked to organisational outcomes (Kakabadse, 1991). Based on this discretionary
leadership logic, scholars have linked top teams to organisational innovation (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; O'Reilly
and Flatt, 1989), strategy (Finklestein and Hambrick, 1990; Michel and Hambrick, 1992), strategic change (Grimm
and Smith, 1991; Wiersema and Bantel, 1992) and performance (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Hambrick and
D'Aveni, 1992; Kakabadse, 1991, 1993; Kakabadse et al., 1996; Michel and Hambrick, 1992; Murray, 1989; O'Reilly
and Flatt, 1989; Smith et al., 1994; Walderman and Avolio, 1986).
Three main conceptual perspectives emerge from "top team" research, which focus on the top team's demography,
process and performance. Top team demography refers to the aggregated external characteristics of the top team
(heterogeneity, tenure, size). Process concerns the team's actions and behaviours, namely communication and
psychological dimensions, such as social integration. Performance adopts broader based concepts beyond
traditional profit-maximisation measures, emphasising qualitative organisational goals, such as clear vision, unity
of strategic direction and quality of a dialogue.
Top teams: homogeneity and heterogeneity
Barnard (1938) was amongst the first theorists to argue that interpersonal and social consciences can affect the
performance of a management team. He argued that there is a need for a tight-knit "executive organisation", who
fit, where, "questions of 'fitness' involve such matters as education, experience, age, gender, personal distinction,

prestige, race, nationality" (Barnard, 1938, p. 224). Barnard's view that cohesion aids communication and
collaboration has been strongly reinforced by later research (Roberts and O'Reilly, 1979; Wagner et al., 1984).
Although excessive cohesion may create a harmful insularity from external forces (Janis, 1972; Korac-Boisvert and
Kouzmin, 1994), empirical data strongly indicates that cohesion facilitates the need for effective communication in
situations of high interdependence. Solidarity, sponsorship and mutual choice are likely to occur among similar
individuals (Pfeffer, 1983), leading to congruence of beliefs and perceptions of the organisation and how it
operates (Wagner et al., 1984) in terms of high cohesion (Dutton and Duncan, 1987), continuity (Reed, 1978) and
decision making (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985). Such congruence can be particularly functional when high
interdependence characterises an organisation's diversification posture, demanding integration amongst top team
members. Michel and Hambrick (1992) found a positive association between team homogeneity and performance
for vertically integrated organisations. Michel and Hambrick (1992) argue that in vertically integrated and related-
constrained organisations, there is a need for ample internal communication through negotiation, compromise and
collaboration. This communication process is greatly aided if top team members have a well-developed rapport
and a common outlook and language (Michel and Hambrick, 1992). Conversely, cohesion is not as important in
situations of low interdependence, as in these organisations, top team members exist as discrete technical
resources rather than as coordinative entities (Michel and Hambrick, 1992).
Homogeneous groups can also be expected to exhibit conformity and lack of openness to information. Social
psychological research on decision making in groups has shown that member's perceptions of similarity with
others, particularly on values, beliefs and attitudes, increases group identification and cohesion (Lott and Lott,
1965; Zander, 1977). Cohesiveness in turn is associated with high conformity (Janis, 1972; Zander, 1977), high
commitment to prior courses of actions (Janis, 1972) lack of openness to infuriation and interference with a
group's ability to use information fully (Whitney and Smith, 1983). Janis (1972) argued that a crisis situation tends
to produce demands for loyalty and conformity within the group that cause the group to make faulty analyses and
to miss obvious problems and other alternatives, which is worsened if the group is already homogeneous in
preference and outlook and has been chosen specifically to minimise the potential for conflict. In contrast,
demographic heterogeneity represents diversity in a teams' cognitive base. According to Hambrick and Mason's
(1984) model, a heterogeneous team will gather information from a variety of sources and hold diverse
interpretations and views. Dutton and Duncan (1987) posited that differentiation in an organisation's belief
structure, defined as high complexity with low consensus, enhances the search for information, the perception that
change is feasible, and the momentum for change. Others have suggested that high member diversity and variety
enhance the ability of organisations to adapt (Katz, 1982; Weick, 1969). Group heterogeneity has been shown to be
associated with levels of creativity and innovation (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Katz, 1982; Murray, 1989; Wanous
and Youtz, 1986). The presumed benefits of a diverse group is that its members' different points of view lead to
variety, novelty and comprehensiveness in the strategy for recommended solutions. The members of such a team
will be able and willing to change other's viewpoints (Hoffman and Maier, 1961). Research findings suggest that a
need to reconcile diverse solutions and viewpoints stimulates effective group discussion and internal high-quality
decisions (Hoffman, 1959). Demographic composition or demographic trait homogeneity suggests, in some cases,
receptivity to change and a willingness to take risks, while demographic heterogeneity indicates diversity of
information sources and perspectives and creativity and inventiveness in decision-making (Dutton and Duncan,
1987; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Wiersema and Bantel, 1992).
Tushman and Romanelli (1985) found that the internal co-ordination requirement associated with an
organisation's strategy increases structural elaboration, which creates inertia that promotes the maintenance of
the status quo, even if such clear dysfunctional consequences, as performance downturns, are evident. Such
inertia will decrease the probability of the team perceiving the need for fundamental change (Normann, 1977).
Thus, a top team must be proactive in its role of voicing views, if strategic change is to be initiated. The

characteristics of a top team expected to be proactive in determining strategic change, include receptivity to
change, willingness to take risks, diversity of information sources and perspectives, and creativity and
inventiveness in decision making (Wiersema and Bantel, 1992). Receptivity to change suggests an openness to
pursue different business approaches, essential to strategic change. Willingness to take risks is important,
because changing organisational strategy involves taking chances through setting aside established ways of
conducting business, in favour of making commitments of strategic direction for which the payoffs are not
guaranteed.
Novelty and strategic change on the other hand, result from a creative and innovative decision making style.
Diversity in information sources and perspectives suggests differentiation in an organisation's belief structure,
which in turn leads to a perception of the feasibility of change and momentum toward change (Dutton and Duncan,
1987).
Length of time in organisation (organisational tenure)
Allen and Cohen (1969) found that a shared language reflects similarities of how individuals interpret, understand
and respond to information, which results in part from a similar background and experience gained from tenure
within an organisation. Katz (1982) points out that managers, with growing organisational experience, tend to rely
increasingly on their past experiences and routine information sources rather than on new information. Similarly,
Hayes-Roth (1977) argues that when an individual is provided with increased exposure to a given stimuli, a
situation of "over-learning" results, which leads to a clearly defined schema, and as a result only information
consistent with the schema will be attended to (Scrull and Wyer, 1980).
Hambrick and Mason (1984) show that managers with long tenure tend to have a restricted knowledge base that
will impede their response to environmental changes. Finklestein and Hambrick (1990) found that longer tenured
top team members tend to consider strategic initiatives in line with industry trends. They suggest that such a
pattern reflects a manager's risk aversion, commitment to prior actions, and restriction of information processes.
Similarly, Miller's (1991) study of long-tenured CEOs shows a link between the strategies being pursued and their
being inappropriate to current environmental conditions. Executive succession has been supported by a variety of
theories to play a role in overcoming organisational inertia by bringing about strategic change (Tushmann and
Romanelli, 1985). A top team with long organisational tenure is associated with high social cohesion (Michel and
Hambrick, 1992), leading to a reluctance to change the status quo (Janis, 1972).
Research suggests that homogeneity on organisational tenure can lead to a common vocabulary (Rhodes, 1991),
similar interpretation of events (Allen and Cohen, 1969; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967), and can enhance
communication amongst group members (March and Simon, 1958; Zenger and Lawrence, 1989). With frequent
and accurate communication among top team members, the similarity of their beliefs and similarity of their
perceptions of the organisation, increases. Such group communication patterns become stable and routinized
over time (Katz, 1982; Roberts and O'Reilly, 1979), resulting in high levels of group cohesion and integration
(O'Reilly et al., 1989). By contrast, heterogeneity of organisational tenure suggests that top team members will
differ in their sets of experiences within an organisation and will bring forward varied cognitive perspectives
(Bantel and Jackson, 1989). However, communication difficulties will be high (McCain et al., 1983) and any
ensuing conflict and power struggles will be based on dissimilar attitudes, values and beliefs (Pfeffer, 1983).
Individuals with dissimilar attitudes, values and beliefs may experience feelings of isolation, lack of organisational
attachment and are more likely to leave (Roberts and O'Reilly, 1979).
Number of senior appointments (senior management tenure)

Hambrick and Mason (1984) contend that a manager's personal experiences and values can be inferred from
observable demographic characteristics, such as years of experience, and that studying those observable
characteristics overcomes the difficult problems of giving access to executives to measure psychological or group
dynamic variables, such as variety and number of senior management appointments, which may be the more
direct underlying process characteristics linking the top team member's attitudes to organisational outcomes.
Building on the Hambrick and Mason (1984) study, scholars have empirically linked the top management team's
demography to organisational performance (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Kakabadse 1993; Kakabadse, et
al., 1996; Michel and Hambrick, 1992; Murray, 1989; O'Reilly and Flatt, 1989; Smith et al., 1994; Walderman and
Avolio, 1986).
Length of time in current position (top team tenure)
The average tenure in an organisation of a top management team's members can be expected to indicate
cohesion. Long tenure reflects a self-selection process by which only those who embrace certain norms and
perspective are willing or allowed to stay in an organisation (Pfeffer, 1983). Moreover, duration in a firm confers
socialisation, shared experiences and a common vocabulary (Katz, 1982). Managers with long tenure are more
likely to have undergone common organisational experiences and thus are more likely to have developed similar
schemata (Norman, 1976) or dominant logic (Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). Schemata are cognitive structures used
to organise knowledge of past experiences and are particularly called upon when people make sense of new
stimuli. Similarity of schemata among team members, developed via long tenure, can be expected to enhance
cohesion, as managers adopt common platforms based on their beliefs and attributes arising from past
experiences. Long team tenure is an indicator of experience of an organisation and familiarity with a colloquiality
of language which is likely to influence top team processes that may in turn affect the level of team turnover. A
shared language reflects similarities in how individuals interpret, understand and respond to information and
results, in part, from similar background and experiences gained from tenure within the team and organisation
(Allen and Cohen, 1969).
Entry and length of stay in a group is an important determinant of a person's effectiveness of communication
within the group (Allen and Cohen, 1969). Katz (1982) found that a group that had been together a long time tends
to develop standardised ways of communication and homogeneity of perspective. Long age group tenure results
in decreasing levels of verbal communication because group members feel they can anticipate other member's
viewpoints (Katz, 1982). In addition, longevity can lead to increasing isolation from outside sources of information
(Pelz and Andrews, 1966), as members become less receptive towards communications that threaten their
patterns of behaviour (Staw, 1977). Heterogeneity of team tenure indicates that the various members of a top
management team have been promoted at different times, suggesting that new and different perspectives on the
strategic vision for the organisation have been added. Team tenure homogeneity, by contrast, suggests shared
socialisation and group experience that reinforce the cohort phenomena.
Michel and Hambrick (1992) use the concept of social integration to explain links between average team tenure
and diversification strategy and performance. They propose that the length of team tenure is a proxy for the level
of team cohesion and that cohesion, in turn, affects performance. Similarly, Murray (1989) used social integration
and communication patterns to predict the form of the relationship between team heterogeneity and organisation
performance. He argues that team heterogeneity may lower performance in stable environments because the team
would be less cohesive and require more formal communication. Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990), Keck (1991)
and Hambrick and D'Aveni (1992) have all attributed the finding of links between team demography and
organisational performance to unmeasured social psychological concepts. The assumptions in demographic

studies have been that team demography influences team processes, such as social integration and
communication and these processes in turn affect organisational outcomes.
Organisational size
Increases in organisation size add complexity with its attendant increases in structural variation and formalised
systems for planning, control and resource allocation (Quinn and Cameron, 1983). Some scholars (Frederickson
and Iaquinto, 1989; Hofer and Schendel, 1978; Lindsay and Rue, 1980) have posited that size of organisation is
linked with the organisation's strategic planning process, whilst others (Robinson, 1982; Robinson and Pearce,
1984) have treated small size organisations as a separate category in their theoretical and empirical work. The
dominant view in the literature is that as the size of the organisation increases, a larger number of constituencies
within the organisation need to be satisfied. Tushmann and Romanelli (1985) posit that increases in organisational
size can create progressively stronger resistance to fundamental change, as such large-sized organisations show
less likelihood to major changes in corporate strategy. Furthermore, large-size organisations are likely to have
larger top teams, which are likely to influence demographic heterogeneity, since large groups hold greater potential
for dissimilarity. In a small group, the addition of one person can increase team heterogeneity substantially (Bantel
and Jackson, 1989). As the number of members in a top management team increase, structural elaboration is
expected to change (Meyer, 1993), including differentiation on perspective (Dearborn and Simon, 1958),
specialisation of skills and diversity of opinion (Bales and Borgatta, 1955). Such breadth of prospective should
stimulate proactive strategic actions, as large-size organisations are more likely to exhibit the need for planning
openness that ensures that the needs of varied constituencies are being recognised. Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven
(1990) found that large teams facilitate growth for new ventures. However, as team size increases, group cohesion
and communication intensity become strained (Shaw, 1976). Thus at the low-to-moderate levels of largeness, a
positive association with corporate strategic change is expected. However, the association will decrease as the
team grows in size (Wiersema and Bantel, 1992).
Demographics and gender
A study of 545 managers, of which 58 per cent were women, investigated gender differences in terms of
characteristics of managers in terms of leadership roles, use of power and preferred supervisor style, career
commitments and work/family conflict in the predominantly female profession of physiotherapy. The study
revealed that females preferred to use a transformational supervisory style more than men, but that males used
more masculine leadership traits (Rozier and Hersh-Cochran, 1996). Similarly, the International Women's Forum
survey of men and women leaders explored the respondents' leadership style, their organisations, work-family
issues and personal characteristics and found that women are more likely than men to use transformational
leadership, motivating others by transforming their self-interest into the goals of the organisations and that
women are much more likely than men to use power based on charisma, work record, and contacts (personal
power) as opposed to power based on organisational positions, title and the ability to reward and punish, i.e.
structural power (Rosener, 1990).
Research into top team behaviour suggests that individuals are more likely to be transformational when they are
dissatisfied with their work environment (Kakabadse, 1991, 1993). This may help explain why a number of studies
(Rosener, 1990; Rozier and Hersh-Cochran, 1996) found that women use predominantly transformational styles of
leadership, that being a reflection of their dissatisfaction with the workplace. For example, women in leadership
roles dissatisfied with the predominantly non-proportional representation of women in leadership ranks, may
trigger women's desire to transform organisations in a way that would provide women with greater work related
satisfaction. Research further suggests that women in firms with few senior women were less likely to experience

gender as a positive basis for identification with other women, are less likely to perceive senior women as role
models in terms of legitimate authority, are more likely to perceive competition in relationship with women peers,
are less likely to find support in those relationships (Ely, 1994), and as such are less likely to be satisfied with the
workplace. Similarly, a study of gender proportions and the experience of managerial and professional women
suggests that gender proportion has significant influence on job satisfaction (Burke and McKeen, 1996).
The Cranfield study
Recognising that the topics of sex and gender are inherently multi-disciplinary, this study explores the nature of
the leadership philosophies adopted by men and women in senior roles in the Australian Public Service (APS) and
in National Health Service (NHS) Trust organisations (UK) and their impact on their respective organisations.
Gender is treated as one of five demographic variables, the other four being organisational size, organisational
tenure, job tenure and number of senior management appointments held, in the determination of the leadership
philosophies adopted by senior managers and in assessing the impact of men and women in the organisation.
Gender differences are investigated using questionnaire responses from a sample of 750 respondents, SESs
(senior executive service) and SOs (senior officers) from the APS, of which 569 were male and 145 female, and
also from a sample of 515 chief executives, medical, clinical and HR and financial directors of NHS Trusts, of
which 406 were male and 108 female respondents.
Cluster analysis was adopted utilising the above mentioned demographic variables of gender, organisational
tenure, job related tenure, organisational size and number of senior management appointments held. Cluster
analysis results identified gender as a non-significant variable in differentiating the emerging clusters of leadership
attitudes and behaviours. Factor analysis procedures were then utilised within each cluster to identify particular
leadership attributes and behaviours. Only those items that held factor scores of 0.4 or higher and factors that
produced reliability scores of 0.75 and above (Cronbach's alpha) were utilised in the analysis. For further
information concerning statistical details see Korac-Kakabadse (1997) and Korac-Kakabadse and Korac-
Kakabadse (1998a, b).
Results
Two distinct clusters of demographic factors emerged as significantly and powerfully shaping the more deeply
held philosophies and behaviours of top management. These are termed, the power of accountability and the
power of time (the concepts of power of accountability and power of time are adapted from Korac-Kakabadse,
1998a).
Power of accountability
In the Cranfield NHS Trusts survey (UK), those jobs with a high level of executive accountability, as opposed to
jobs of other substantial responsibilities but dissimilar accountability, differentiate two fundamentally different
philosophies, attitudes and behaviour amongst senior health service managers (Table I). (Table I outlines the
emerging profile of the cluster analysis conducted.)
CEO's, finance and human resource directors, medical directors (i.e. clinicians holding senior executive positions)
and a small number of CEOs who are medically qualified, fall into one category known as the "executive". Clinical
directors (doctors holding management roles but who are not members of the top team of the Trust), chairmen
and non-executive directors fall into a second grouping, termed the "stakeholders". The executive group are
responsible and accountable for both the operational and strategic development of the Trust.

In contrast, there exists an imbalance of responsibilities and accountabilities amongst the roles of the stakeholder
group. Chairmen and non-executive directors are responsible for the strategic progress of their Trust, but may not
be accountable for the initiation, and certainly not accountable for the implementation, of certain strategic
programmes. Equally, they are neither responsible nor accountable for tactical and operational activities
concerned with Trust-wide performance. Clinical directors are responsible and accountable for operational
activities within their specific sphere of clinical and managerial influence. Equally, they may input opinion and put
pressure on the top executive team on strategic matters but, as a body, are not accountable for their endeavours in
promoting the long-term development of their Trust.
Leadership attributes: the executive
Positive Negative
Team oriented Trust strategy
Job satisfied Trust mission
Communicative Leadership
Disciplined Internal systems
Committed
Dependable
Clinicians viewed positively
Those falling into the executive category are identified as team oriented, and sincerely wishing to enhance
positively their relationships with their colleagues. Such a positive attitude is carried over to the job, in that those
in the executive group indicate they are satisfied with their role, enjoying the challenge of contributing to the short-
and long-term development of the Trust. They feel themselves to be positively stretched and similarly attempt to
stretch and develop their colleagues and subordinates. These senior managers see themselves as effective
communicators, attempting to make known clearly the objectives of the Trust to all in the organisation. They
attempt to establish positive relationships with other managers in the Trust and, as such, gain benefit for their
endeavours by being regularly informed about how new developments and initiatives are progressing. These senior
managers are well disciplined, and attempt to introduce an equally structured and disciplined way of managing the
Trust. Their level of commitment to the Trust, its objectives, the enhancement of patient care and the development
of its staff and management, is high. The directors who fall into the executive grouping equally display a positive
attitude towards clinicians. They consider that clinicians relate well to each other, as well as to the directors on the
Trust Management Team.
In terms of internal systems, the directors consider the budgeting processes and other internal practices in the
Trust as adversely affecting the quality of service provided, hence undermining, in particular, patient care.
However, the greatest degree of attention the directors consider as needing to be given is to the development of
the leadership and the strategy of the Trust. Further work in terms of clarifying the Trust's mission is seen to be
needed to be undertaken. Equally, the objectives and strategy of the Trust are seen as unclear and require further

focusing and clarification. One reason for the lack of clarity is that the senior managers feel that the Trust top
team do not provide sufficiently clear direction, partly because the quality of decision making at senior levels
within the Trust is viewed as also requiring attention. The view held is the improvements in the areas of mission
and strategy will only take place, if investment in the development of the leadership of the trust occurs, which
involves senior management needing to become better listeners, thereby minimising the accusation that they are
too distant from what happens on a daily basis. Further, it is seen that attention needs to be given to enhancing
understanding as to what areas require improvement in terms of patient care. The view that emerges is that
through improving the performance of individual top managers and equally the Trust team, progress in the areas of
mission, strategy and service provision (in particular patient care) will equally occur.
Leadership attributes: the stakeholders
Positive Negative
Job satisfied Pressured
Disciplined Negative internal culture
Details oriented Leadership poor
Committed Trust strategy
Team oriented Independent
Dependable Systems are hindrance
Independent Top team poor
The stakeholder group, indicate that they value their independence and further find the systems and controls in the
organisation a hindrance. They feel that too many constraints are placed on them. They also feel themselves as
pressured at work, an experience which not only undermines their performance at work, but which they say equally
impacts negatively on their home life. A number commented that the pressures of the job are at times too much to
handle. It should be noted that these comments are more driven by the clinical directors, than chairmen or non-
executive directors.
However, as far as the job is concerned, high levels of job satisfaction are reported. Chairmen, clinical directors
and non-executive directors report that they enjoy the challenge of their role in the Trust and are motivated by their
work. As such, they consider themselves as disciplined at follow-through, ensuring that projects and activities are
effectively completed. They are, however, concerned that other members of the Trust executive team do not
display similar discipline in their management of the Trust.
In addition to being disciplined, clinical and non-executive directors insist on being regularly briefed concerning
new developments. They state they expect to be kept informed of progress on agreed initiatives and consider that
they are regularly updated as to how new developments and initiatives are progressing. With such attention to
briefing and discipline, it is not surprising that the stakeholders indicate that they respect people who stick to
rules. They also encourage that the traditions of the Trust be respected.

Overall, clinical directors, chairmen and non-executive directors highlight their commitment to the Trust. They
indicate that they feel themselves to be part of the Trust and accept the responsibility for projecting a positive
image on behalf of their organisation. They consider the staff and management of their Trust to be of high quality
and are dedicated to its success. Staff development is taken seriously, as the means to improve performance and
promote a more positive attitude by the staff to their employing organisation.
The views of the stakeholder's concerning health care management issues is that teamwork, in particular, is a
positive experience. Clinicians are seen to work well with the directors of the Trust management team.
In contrast to the executive group, however, the stakeholders are more critical of the strategic management of the
Trust. Similar to the executive group, they consider that the way the Trust is managed means that attention is
diverted away from patient care. The reasons given for the perceived diminished levels of quality of service are
that too much time is spent on management related issues and that the current budgeting practices do not
support enhancing standards of service. In addition, they consider that the standards laid down by the
government, are not being fully met.
Further, clinical directors, chairmen and non-executive directors view that the long-term objectives of the Trust are
not clear and that executive management are losing sight of their objectives. The reason given for the poor
strategic development of the Trust, is that of political in-fighting in the Trust. As a result, decisions are seen to be
made behind closed doors, are inconsistently applied and are also seen to change from one day to the next. For
these reasons, the culture of Trusts and their leadership are viewed as problematic.
The current leadership is additionally seen as "out of touch". Top management are viewed as too distant from what
happens on a daily basis. Both the Trust top team and the board (comprising chairman and non-executive
directors) are seen to have little impact on the daily running of the Trust. Isolation, as well as dysfunctional internal
politics, are considered by the stakeholders as the reasons that the needs of patients are not well understood by
those in senior management positions. Another reason is that senior management are considered as inattentive to
the needs of lower level staff and management. Overall, the senior management of Trusts are viewed by the
stakeholders as not performing sufficiently effectively and in need of development. However, as individuals,
executive directors are viewed as highly motivated, trustworthy people with every intention of promoting the best
interests of the Trust. For this latter reason, the stakeholders declare their support for senior management.
Demographic impact of accountability
The attitudes towards governance, namely the requirement to lead or steer the organisation, are identified as being
substantially influenced by the degree of exposure to accountability by the senior managers (see Figure 1, adapted
from Korac-Kakabadse and Korac-Kakabadse, 1998a). The Cranfield NHS Trust survey identifies that those in roles
of executive authority (the executive group), irrespective of their professional background or gender, hold strongly
similar views concerning the organisation, its strengths, weaknesses and future requirements.
Those clearly interested parties, with responsibilities for the development of the Trust, but in roles of little or no
strategic executive authority, (the stakeholders), display a more negative view of their Trust. Their role in the
hierarchy, be it chairman, non-executive director or clinical director or differences of functional and professional
expertise, or even gender, makes little difference to the strengths of their views.
Being held accountable for driving the organisation forward requires that senior management adopt a detailed but
integrated view of how effectively the enterprise is proceeding. The significance of any singular event or action is

placed in perspective, when compared against where the organisation was, where it is now and where it is
intended to be. Through being the person accountable, the individual senior manager is require to ask, "how does,
what is happening now, really influence where we are trying to get to and as a result, should I do anything
different?" The person is required to adopt a detailed, step by step, longer term perspective in order to assess the
quality of their actions and decisions at any one point.
However, through being a stakeholder, and thereby not being held directly accountable for strategic, or even,
operational initiatives, but feeling responsible for the development of the organisation, the individual senior
manager is likely to adopt a shorter term perspective. Any single event may appear more damaging or more
glamorous; any one act or decision may appear more incompetently or brilliantly managed than it, in reality, is,
both because the individual is not exposed on a daily basis, to both transactionally and transformationally, leading
the organisation. Because interested onlookers are not required to, through daily managerial transactions, push
towards transformational outcomes, they can adopt a more "critical" view of events as they arise, seeing them
better or worse than in reality they, are. The Cranfield NHS survey highlights the stakeholder group as adopting a
more negative view than their executive colleagues. For other organisations, external stakeholders, such as
shareholders or the press, may also adopt a distorted, and on many occasions, a far more favourable or
unfavourable view of the CEO, or the executive team, due to the reflected glory or shame of a single activity or
event. However, that single activity or event may be flattering, or damaging, but definitely deceptive as to the
reality of life within the organisation.
The principle is that through being held to account, effective governance is more likely, as senior managers are
likely to adopt a far more balanced perspective as to the true nature of the challenges and constraints they face.
Interested onlookers can afford to be more reactive, as they are not required to stand by their comments.
Power of time
The results of the APS survey emphasises that time can be powerful in shaping the philosophies, attitudes and
behaviours of leaders. The time related dimensions are time in job, time in organisation (job and organisation
related tenure), experience of senior management positions and age. Similar to the NHS Trust survey, gender did
not emerge as influencing the leadership perspective of senior civil servants (see Korac-Kakabadse, 1997 and
Korac-Kakabadse and Korac-Kakabadse, 1998b).
APS survey
The two senior tiers of the Australian Commonwealth (federal) government, SESs (senior executive service), and
SOs (senior officers) form the APS sample (Table II). (Table II outlines the emerging profile of the cluster analysis
conducted.)
Leadership attributes: radicals
Positives Negatives
Open style Hypercritical
Enjoy challenge Dislike controls
Committed Dislike interference

Encourage dialogue Need to be in charge
Service driven Dissatisfied
Outward focused Negative view of company
Follow-through oriented Naive
Radicals have a background of employment in more medium sized organisations, have spent a shorter time in the
organisation and in their current job, are the youngest of the three leader groups, have the greatest percentage of
women in this group, and have held, on average, fewest senior management appointments (Table II).
Radicals project a swashbuckling image, being independently minded, disliking controls, but enjoying challenge
and that of motivating people. Radicals focus on customers and the community, are market driven and do
whatever they consider it takes to be more competitive. Although they are focused they also adopt an overview of
their organisation and its external impact. They are quick to spot internal tensions and constraints and attempt to
eradicate such problems in order to improve performance. Similar energy and flexibility is applied to people. In
order to help staff and managers become flexible and focused towards customers and clients, radicals adopt an
open style and encourage feedback throughout the organisation.
The radicals' people orientation is balanced by their discipline, consistency and independence. They are disciplined
in terms of effectively promoting follow-through and demanding attendance at meetings. They insist on being
regularly briefed and attempt to promote consistency in their direct reports and work.
However, despite their respect for discipline, they are equally strong minded people who display a need to be in
charge. Their desire to have their own way, more motivated by wishing to excel in their market place, or
community, can push them to being hypercritical of the organisation and their colleagues. Systems and internal
controls are viewed as a hindrance or just ineffective. They feel resources are wasted and that the morale and
motivation of staff and managers is poor. Middle and lower level managers are viewed as not being given a chance
to manage, as they are inhibited by the more traditional styles and philosophies of their bosses. With so many
internal work, morale and structural problems being identified, their organisation is seen as ineffectual at
managing change.
When irritated or dissatisfied, radicals can become over demanding. Their need to attain high performance and
their lack of patience can make them cynical, and punitive. Their criticisms and comments can inhibit others from
not wishing to offer suggestions as to how to improve the present circumstances. The irony with radicals is that
their drive and enthusiasm can be undermined by their daunting presence, for when faced with problems and
challenges, their worst side is raised.
Leadership attributes: bureaucrats
Positive Negative
Committed Structured
Respect communication Intolerant

Impartial Critical of company
Rules oriented Negative impact
Disciplined Need to be boss
Details driven Dislike being controlled
Service conscious Driven by protocol
Bureaucrats are identified as employed by principally large organisations, have been in the organisation for some
time, but only have been in the job for over two years. Within this grouping fall an almost equal percentage of
women as with the radicals group. Bureaucrats have held more senior management appointments than the other
leader profiles (Table II).
Bureaucrats emerge as natural communicators. They enjoy being with people and project a feeling that people are
important to them. Their people management skills are equally well applied to customers, members of the
community and other external stakeholders with whom they communicate effectively and clearly display their
commitment to their organisation and the client.
Overall, bureaucrats display their enjoyment of working as senior general managers.
Similar to radicals, bureaucrats display a capacity for discipline. They are attentive to detail and can be rigid in
following established work procedures. They insist on being regularly briefed and dislike surprises. They are
especially disciplined at attending meetings. Their orientation to detail and routine is partly driven by their need to
be in control, but also by their deeper need for structure and systematic ways of working.
Their discipline orientation is projected on to others by insisting that their direct reports are equally attentive to
detail and follow established channels in terms of work procedures. Further their orientation to being disciplined
has likely arisen from their specialist background, which they indicate they still find fulfilling.
Despite their organisational orientation, bureaucrats dislike being controlled. They exhibit strong control needs in
desiring to be "the boss". Their capability to interact sensitively with other people is used in more manipulative
ways especially in support of their push for command. They are also likely to use protocol to their advantage,
especially in resisting attempts to intervene, in what they see, as their affairs.
Similar to radicals, bureaucrats display frustration with the organisation. Their criticism is of the organisation, but
not their job. They consider that poor leadership and inadequacy of systems make the organisation inefficient and
disjointed.
Communications, in terms of briefings are viewed as poor and the situation is exacerbated by poor discipline of
attendance at meetings. Further, they consider that meetings are changed with little or no notice given. Becauseof
the perceived complexity of the organisation, little attempt is made by them to appreciate how the totality
functions, which in turn leads to the lackof tolerance on their part for the problems and challenges others face.
Addto that a significant communication frustration of feeling of not being regularly and effectively briefed,
bureaucrats display their negativity, but covertly.

Even when changes are introduced, little trust is exhibited by them in the organisation's ability to manage the
change process. However, it should also be noted that bureaucrats never "stay around" long enough in the job to
see through changes they or others have initiated.
Overall, the organisation is viewed as having a poor history of change and is misguided by the changes it pursues.
Leadership attributes: team players
Positive Negative
Performance/people oriented Can appear conservative
Communicative Poor history of change
Committed Open to criticism
Encourage checking out
Team driven
Mature/tolerant
Encourage dialogue
Encourage discipline
Realistic about colleagues/ organisation
Eclectic approach
Team players have worked for a considerable period in the organisation and have spent up to ten years (on
average) in their present job. They are older than the other two leader profiles, have held few senior management
appointments and have the least percentage representation of women in this group (Table II).
Team players are strongly people oriented leaders. Their orientation is to grow a performance oriented culture,
whereby staff and managers feel they are making a contribution and equally have the opportunity to develop their
skills and themselves as people. Team players adopt an open style of management whereby, inviting feedback and
openness of communication are seen as natural ways of operating in the company. People are encouraged to
speak their minds and check out their understanding of issues and debates in the enterprise. The matchword is
encouragement. People are encouraged to discuss their work problems. They are equally encouraged to pay
attention to details and be disciplined in the way they go about their work. Further, staff and middle level managers
are supported to express their views on issues and, if they feel it necessary, try to persuade senior management to
alter their views.
An equally supportive attitude is adopted towards the organisation. The internal systems and controls are viewed
positively, although certain concerns are acknowledged to exist in the organisation. Meetings are seen as being

changed too often and initiatives and projects are considered as not being followed through sufficiently, so that
momentum is lost. Similar to radicals and bureaucrats, team players recognise that the organisation has faced
problems with change, but they are not as critical of the errors, failures and inadequacies of the past and present.
What team players display is maturity, tolerance, discipline and a broad skill base. They recognise that managing a
large organisation is in itself problematic. The problems and issues that arise are never ending. On this basis, a
prime capability is to hold a positive attitude towards managing diversity. They recognise that encouraging people
and being disciplined go hand in hand. Team players would make statements such as, "a disciplined organisation
is fundamental to success", but equally feel it important to be attentive to having staff and management adopt a
shared sense of responsibility. Team players insist on being regularly briefed, require that commitment and
discipline become performance values in the organisation and yet display a sensitivity to individual and team
needs. However, their more structured approach can make them appear more conservative in their actions and
decisions. Team players are likely to take longer to act, as they will genuinely attempt to confer with others, in
order to gain the necessary support and ownership for the policies and tactics to be pursued.
Overall, team players are concerned with improving internal performance and meeting customer needs. Their
strength comes from the fact that they know the organisation and have remained in their senior job for a
substantial period of time. They have had to live with their mistakes. Team players have evolved a maturity of
knowing what it means to manage people and systems in their organisation over the longer term. Seeing
challenges and initiatives through to fruition and working to gain the respect of colleagues and subordinates,
crucially differentiates team players from radicals and bureaucrats. Interestingly, all three leader profiles indicate
their satisfaction in being involved in specialist activities. Team players however seem to have better integrated
their specialist work with their general management duties and express that they enjoy both aspects of their
workload.
Age and development: the additional factors
Distinction is drawn between younger and older senior managers, those older senior managers who have
experienced job related development and those who have not (Table III), and those who occupy different levels in
the organisation when compared against gender (Table IV). Development may consist of having been given the
opportunity of a challenging role, and having been exposed to feedback that induced a positive outcome, or having
attended relevant and perceived well-run training programmes.
As already stated, the younger senior managers (26-35) irrespective of gender, namely the radicals, emerge as
results driven and positively minded, but critical of their organisation and, as people, impatient. Their attitude
towards the organisation, its staff and management and their own role is partly driven by the fact that they are new
to the organisation and have not fully integrated, but also because they are younger, as typified by displays of
impatience if actions and activities are not proceeding to plan and time schedule. Experiencing similar
developmental opportunities, as many of their older colleagues, has done little to change their perspective. If
anything, provided with more tools, their criticisms and impatience increased.
Those older senior managers (46-55), namely bureaucrats, whether male or female, and who see themselves as
having had little or no exposure to development, or have not determined their own development, consider
themselves as disadvantaged and hence emerge as more cynical and intolerant. The impact of such managers is
that they demotivate others in the organisation, just as negatively as the younger age group, who are perceived by
others as inhibiting dialogue and promoting anxiety.

The older age group, who have been held to account for their successes and errors and who have turned numerous
experiences into developmental opportunities, irrespective of gender, namely the team players, embrace a broad
and positive attitude to performance and are seen as supportive of colleagues, bosses and subordinates. However,
their positive orientation leaves them vulnerable to the more negative interactions that can take place in
dysfunctional senior management groups.
Taking into account differences of gender, differentiation by organisational level and assessing the impact of
gender and level on key elements of strategic behaviour and management style, minimal significant impact is
identified for the APS. Of the five strategic behaviours identified in Table IV, the only significant difference to
emerge is that women managers perceive greater splits of vision amongst the numbers of the top team, than do
men. In all other areas such as quality of interfacing amongst the members of the top team, quality of interfacing
by top managers across the organisation, clarity of view as held by top managers of the strategic direction to
pursue on behalf of the organisation and quality of dialogue amongst the members of the top team, no significant
difference emerges by gender or level held in organisation.
Equally, four key styles of management were examined in terms of whether men and women and managers
occupying different organisational levels would apply themselves differently or not. No significant difference is
identified by gender or by level in the organisation as to whether a more sensitive people oriented, power oriented,
rules and regulations oriented or valuing performance and professionalism styles are adopted (Table IV).
Managers, irrespective of gender or the level of seniority they occupy in the organisation, are just as likely to adopt
whichever style accords with their personal preference, or their view of what are appropriate ways of interacting in
their context.
Further, age is identified, by the Cranfield NHS Trusts' survey, as influential in shaping the attitudes and behaviours
of top managers in NHS Trusts.
Table V highlights that older senior managers emerge as more disciplined, exhibiting more situationally effective
leadership behaviours, more able to take a balanced view on issues before reaching a decision and are more likely
to evolve positive relationships with colleagues, subordinates and people from other departments internally and
agencies externally, than their younger colleagues.
NHS Trusts: comparison by age and other demographics
In particular, relationships within the top team are likely to be positive the older the top team members (both male
and female). Effectiveness of strategic decision making and implementation of policy is likely to be enhanced by
the presence of older senior managers in the top team. By taking a balanced view of the issues at hand by entering
into full and open debate with colleagues, the likelihood is that a greater sense of cabinet responsibility will grow
amongst the top team members, which will immeasurably assist in consistently pursuing the application of
strategies that have already been decided in the top team. On this basis, the opportunity costs that may arise from
poor strategic decision taking and inconsistency of application of strategy, are minimised by the presence of older
senior managers.
The survey respondents also emphasise that patient care is better provided for by medical practitioners and
managers who are older, more experienced and have spent longer in a particular hospital. Experience of the
practice of medicine coupled with a deep understanding of the culture, values and attitudes within the health care
establishment, provides for improved quality of care. In fact, time spent in the hospital as a practising physician
and time spent in the medical profession are identified as having a positive significant impact on strategic

decision making at Trust level.
Although with experience, decision making improves, the same does not apply to job satisfaction and
communication skills. The pressures of the job, the frustration of dealing with communication and interfacing
issues within the hospital, the boredom factor of experiencing and applying similar routines on a daily basis,
become more pronounced the longer the senior person stays in the job and in the hospital. However, what the
individual team learns to do is to come to terms with these negative emotions by taking a balanced view of their
life, more maturely allocating time to work, non-work and personal pursuits.
Demographics other than gender emerge as more significant influences on the attitudes, values and behaviours of
medical and managerial leaders, and on the performance of the organisation. Table V highlights only two key
differences between males and females in senior positions. Men are identified as more disciplined in their day to
day activities and in terms of follow through, and women are seen as more able to manage sensitive relationships
within the top team. Otherwise similar results emerge for NHS Trusts as for the APS, whereby organisational
tenure, time in the medical profession and length of time employed in the hospital are the significant influences on
managerial and leadership performance.
Demographic impact of time
The Cranfield studies highlight length of organisational and job tenure, age of individual and the opportunity for
personal development, as crucial influences in the shaping of the philosophy, attitudes and behaviours of
organisational leaders (Figure 2, adapted from Korac-Kakabadse and Korac-Kakabadse, 1998a).
Limited job and organisational tenure especially, when experienced by younger managers promotes a "get it done"
perspective, emphasising a short term and task driven orientation. The short term nature of the manager's time
horizon is likely to engender a too critical a view towards themselves and others to achievement and effectiveness.
If events do not proceed as planned and if too many mistakes are seen to be made, the manager is likely to both
experience and express frustration, even more so the younger their age. Naturally, their views of the organisation,
colleagues superiors and subordinates will be coloured by the volume of errors or "blockage" they encounter. The
greater the number of mistakes made, the more critical and damming the shorter term oriented manager can be.
Although the manager may achieve the targets set, the ease with which they find fault can inhibit people from
offering their views as to how to improve present ways of working. Hence, although the organisation may gain
operationally, opportunity costs are likely to arise in terms of improving quality of service and delivery over the
longer term, as people are not naturally encouraged to participate in the continuous improvement of the
organisation.
In contrast, extended tenure, of both job and organisation, coupled with being older and also having been exposed
to development, have a considerably different but equally profound impact. The Cranfield results highlight that a
longer term perspective is adopted by the senior manager, in that the person has to learn to live with their
decisions and accordingly re-balance their relationships with others. People adopt a longer term time frame once
they emotionally recognise their effect on others. A more sensitive consciousness of how a person impacts on
others is adopted, especially if the individual is aware of their own development needs and is motivated to address
those needs. The results emphasise that the demographic impact of "long time", is that leaders are more likely to
adopt a "work it through" perspective, which helps consolidate the infrastructure of the organisation, by developing
people so that they drive projects and policies to successful fruition. "Long term time frames" generate situations
of opportunity gain, even though operational costs may be experienced in the short term through patiently building
up the morale and capabilities of staff and management. Extended organisational and, in particular, job related

tenure at senior management levels, is likely to inculcate in its senior managers a deeply held marketing
philosophy.
Consideration for the development of women
The results of the study outlined in this paper strongly suggest that the behaviour and attitudes of people in the
organisation are influenced by factors other than gender. Organisationally driven demographics are identified as
powerful determinants of the leadership perspective, adapted by individuals. Bearing these findings in mind what
appropriate pathways should women pursue to enhance their development? Other than the more obvious
circumstances of deliberate sexual harassment, is the issue of one of focusing on women's development, or a
much broader question? The evidence from the Cranfield studies suggests that gender is but one of the many
demographic forces that impact on individuals and the organisation, thereby emphasising diversity capability,
whereby both staff and management develop the maturity to confront challenges and concerns as they arise. The
premiss adopted is that not all circumstances can be pre-accounted for and that the lot of women in the workplace
is probably best served within a diversity framework, whereby they are treated on an equal footing with all their
other colleagues (adapted from Korac-Kakabadse and Korac-Kakabadse, 1998a).
Promoting diversity capability
Diversity thinking assumes that numerous anomalies exist in the workplace, which may be due to gender, colour,
ethnicity, age, disablement etc., but need to be addressed, with full account taken of the context in which they have
arisen. Such an obvious statement, however, holds considerable implications. The most obvious is be flexible to
create programmes for improvement that meet the needs of different circumstances. For example, solely
promoting a programme of development for women, throughout the organisation, may be recognised as important
at headquarters, but the same issue may only hold marginal importance in one or more of the operating
businesses/divisions. Hence, a corporate-wide programme for the enhancement of women, may be restricted by
certain sections of the organisation due to their intransigence, and in other parts of the organisation simply
because it is not pushed hard enough due to its perceived relative unimportance. Enforcement of a programme
promoting the development of women, may well alienate those would-be supporters, who are driven by what they
see as other more pressing issues, such as trying to overcome a revenue shortfall, keeping the business alive, and
keeping people in jobs.
The alternative would be to adopt a diversity management perspective to discrimination and in so doing, senior
management need to consider and debate three issues: equality, legitimacy and learning.
The most popular approach to addressing discrimination positively has been the fairness/equality track, often
captured in affirmative action initiatives. Pursing this line of thinking requires companies to push through the
organisation, programmes intended to evaluate discrimination, improve cultural understanding, train people to
respect cultural, racial, or gender differences and, by implication, treat all the same. Such programmes are often
codified, require a top-down push and also continuous monitoring to ensure for consistency of application.
Affirmative action programmes can provide for considerable benefit to organisations in that, if top management
are sincere and provide their support, inequalities can be rooted out.
However, the fairness for all approach has its limitations. Based on the premiss that "we are all equal", taken to
extreme, the same assumption could be one of "we are all the same", when patently that is not the case. Especially
with international organisations, different regions of the world have different traditions with which people identify
to varying degrees. Pushing though one policy could ironically lead management to being culturally and ethnically

blind. Where genuine disputes arise, for example over working hours, work loads or work definition, debate could
be misconstrued as particular people being difficult, politically incorrect or promoting in the organisation undesired
attitudes in the blind belief that "we are all the same". The danger is the retaliation that any person could attract,
who questions the fundamental assumptions of a fairness for all policy, and which would result in even more
discrimination. "Fairness for all" programmes tend to be useful for more structured organisations, such as military
establishments, which easily lend themselves to codified practices. Those organisations that are more
customer/community responsive, suffer considerably under the strain of equality programmes, due to the fact that
they strive to be flexible, but have to address a policy which may not allow for diversity. The single discriminatory
programmes, for example gender training, fall into the danger of becoming oblivious to other developments and at
the extreme, punitive towards those who wish to debate or disagree with the presumptions behind the policy.
The alternative approach is that of legitimacy, namely to legitimise local differences, and thereby display
sensitivity to contexts, by giving people a chance to improve their standing in their local communities. The attempt
is to depart from a position of blind conformity to one of contextual responsiveness. For example, many Japanese
companies, in their endeavour to be socially acceptable, go out of their way to appoint and promote senior
management in their operating businesses who are the locals of that country. Companies that have products that
are marketed on a gender or ethnic ticket, may well appoint individuals of that background to champion the
product and give it "credibility", irrespective of whether they are, or are not, the most professionally suitable
applicants for the job. In effect, a policy of segmentation is matched by a human resources policy of
appropriateness to context. Such a policy has considerable advantages.
Opportunities of both a professional and managerial kind arise for women and others of different backgrounds, be
those backgrounds ethnic or social, by being driven by contextual considerations. Equally, the sensitivity shown to
the segmentation process is appreciated by the customers or recipients. The recipients see the organisation as
sensitive to local communities and sympathetic and listening oriented towards local issues. However, the
legitimacy policy, namely of, let us legitimise local concerns, too, has its problems. The outstandingly difficult
issue of address is one of integrating the various pockets of development that have taken place in the
organisation. From a policy of fairness and equality, the pendulum has now swung to the other extreme of
whatever is right for you, then do it! If the primary reason for local legitimation is one of branding, and the company
sincerely attempts to live its brand, and implement what it proclaims, then the policy may well be appropriate.
However, should centralisation of costs or more corporate branding be required, the challenge that still remains is
that of integrating different localised institutions, or even, just understanding the capabilities required to manage
across multiple boundaries. The legitimacy approach can considerably weaken the centre and also leave the
organisation open to a form of indirect blackmail - if the local team do not get their own way, they walk! - So who
else can do the job? The legitimising of localities requires an excessive attention to communication and
relationship building, in order to stem the potential for a damaging corporate memory loss by having the best of
the local people leave.
The third approach is the learning option, whereby diversity is and shown to be respected, through people
promoting their views, defining activities, offering feedback on strategy, undertaking initiatives, but most of all,
being held accountable for their actions in terms of how their contribution fits into the overall organisation. The
learning approach perspective makes the most of diversity. Through well applied learning programmes, which
examine the broad nature of social, organisation, gender, ethnic and business diversity, how to address known
concerns, how to respect people and their traditions and most importantly the degree to which each individual
needs to improve their own levels of maturity in order to address diversity circumstances effectively, help the staff
and management of the organisation become more responsive to new ideas, but also evolve a philosophy of
consistently pursuing affirmative employment practices. In order to encourage contributions from all and the

continuous maturing of the organisation's employees, top management need truly to live up to the expectations of
their staff in terms of applying the "best practice" behaviours that have been identified. Further, nurturing an
internal culture of openness and of feeling valued, is important in encouraging contribution and promoting identity
with policies emerging from the top.
Whichever of the three approaches the organisation adopts, at least pursuing the elimination of discrimination in
the workplace through improving the capability of the management to handle diversity, does allow for a debate as
to which appropriate strategy to pursue.
In addition to the various developmental strategies outlined, additional attention may need to be given to how
attitudes are shaping and changing in the organisation, particularly in the area of discrimination. On this basis, it
may be necessary to audit the cultural assumptions, prevalent in the organisation in order to gauge the success of
programmes and policies instituted to combat discrimination. An audit provides information on the degree to
which patterns of behaviour have become institutionalised into the fabric of the organisation. Additional benefits
of audits is that they can pinpoint self selection in recruitment practices, whereby senior management make key
appointments of people who replicate their values and behaviours in the organisation.
Inevitably, a diversity audit needs to include an appraisal of organisational leadership. Studies have shown that
organisation processes and structures are simply little more than extensions of the self construct of the leaders of
the organisation. Their influence pervades the enterprise setting a tone which, if it requires changing, is changed
more effectively, top-down.
On this basis, a diversity audit can provide the information necessary to debate change. Diversity audits can
promote greater self awareness that, in turn, permits a redefinition of behaviours and accepted assumptions in the
organisation. Senior management may find the audit threatening, as inevitably they will come under the spotlight.
What is worth bearing in mind, is that an audit really examines whether the capacities of all individuals are being
fully tapped or held back by inherent practices in the organisation. Through the use of diversity audits,
organisations can considerably increase their awareness of the cultural limitations inhibiting and discriminating
against their potential effectiveness. Such is the case with NCR (previously National Cash Register) now a
subsidiary of AT&T, which is conducting a diversity audit, under the able stewardship of Darryl Strickler and Tom
Riddell. NCR's intention is to take a broad brush view, examining social issues, gender and ethnicity, as well as
business issues. NCR have recognised that if the discomfort of being challenged can be accommodated, the
impact of an audit can be resounding and positive.
Conclusion
The two studies of NHS Trust leaders and federal government leaders highlight that gender is a non-significant
demographic factor in determining leadership perspectives and performance. Organisational demographic factors
such as job and organisational tenure and the age of individuals are identified as considerably influential in
shaping the philosophy, attitudes and behaviour of leaders in organisations. If surprised by these results, the
question remains as to why? Why has gender been identified as not playing a more significant role, when a myriad
other studies indicate gender as a significant differentiator of how men and women operate in the workplace (Ely,
1994; Gilligan 1982; Heilbrun, 1976)?
One consideration is to draw a distinction between "getting there" and "got there". Getting there refers to the
passage men and women have to negotiate in their progress up and across the organisation. Concepts of glass
and concrete ceilings (Carmody, 1992; Hede and Ralston; 1994; Korac-Boisvert and Kouzmin, 1995a, 1995b)

highlight the challenges and blockages which women experience in pursuing promotion and being professionally
and upwardly mobile. Strong evidence exists that women face considerable hurdles in attaining positions of
responsibility in the workplace (Greenlaw and Kohl, 1996; Lawn-Day and Ballard, 1996). Conducting gender based
studies to emphasise the different experiences of men and women in their striving for success is valuable in
emphasising the intended and unintended prejudice that exists within the workplace.
However, similar assumptions should not be made when exploring differences concerning "got there". "Got there"
emphasises performance, whilst "getting there" highlights rites of passage. Got there highlights considerations of
context, capabilities and attitudes and perspective. What it takes to do a good job in any one role may vary from
one organisation to the next according to the history and traditions of the organisation, as well as a combination of
market and economic forces facing the enterprise. By nature "got there" encompasses broader consideration,
whereas "getting there" highlights the particular experiences of the population under examination. "Getting there"
emphasises polarity: what are the experiences of women as opposed to men, coloured people as opposed to
whites, young as opposed to old? "Got there" demands a capability analysis: what is needed to enhance the
capabilities of any individual better the face and address the challenges he/she faces? In examining whatever it
takes to be capable, considerations of context need to be taken into account, as being skilled and role-wise
competent, may not sufficiently explain the reality of performance. Considerations such as maturity, resilience and
accurately reading context are as important as skills, competencies and deeply ingrained personal characteristics
in recognising the reality of performance in ever changing dynamic circumstances. Hence, in explorations of
prejudice and favour in the passageways of life, gender and ethnicity can be viewed as sex and race, as the nature
of polarity requires simple benchmarks. In examinations of performance, multiple criteria are required to
differentiate between what is seen as good and bad, effective and ineffective ways of working. Entering into
debate and dialogue concerning "got there" cannot afford to simply have women judged against men, non-whites
against whites or vice-versa, but more that gender, ethnicity and other more emotive topics are simply one of a
range of demographic factors, determining the nature and shape of circumstances. The inevitable question will
always remain, "What does it take to do a good job here?", highlighting how an ever evolving clutch of demographic
forces shape context.
The temptation to resist is applying the fundamental simplicity of analysis practised by the "getting there" studies
to the "got there" studies, the latter requiring diversity of criteria to examine consideration of performance as it
occurs, which can range from and include intellectual accomplishment, vocationally based skills, personal
characteristics, including personality considerations and gender and contextual concerns, as deeply held attitudes
and the experiences resulting from socialisation. A world of differences exist between what it means to "get there"
as opposed to how to perform once I have got there. Deceptive, however, is the fact that both explorations may
share the same population under scrutiny.
References
1. Abrams, D. and Hogg, M.A. (1990, Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, Harvester
Wheatsheaf, New York, NY.
2. Allen, T. and Cohen, S. (1969, "Information flow in research and development laboratories", Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 12-19.
3. Ashfort, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989, "Social identity theory and the organisation", Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.

4. Bales, R. and Borgatta, E. (1955, "Size of group as a factor in interaction profile", in Hare, A., Borgatta, E. and
Bales, R. (Eds), Small Groups: Studies in Social Interaction, Knopf, New York, NY, pp. 495-512.
5. Bantel, K. and Jackson, S. (1989, "Top management and innovations in banking: does the composition of the top
team make a difference?", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 107-24.
6. Barnard, C.I. (1938, The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
7. Bem, S.L. (1974, "The measurement of psychological androgyny", Journal of Consultative Clinical Psychology,
Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 155-62.
8. Blau, P.M. (1977, Inequality and Heterogeneity, Free Press, New York, NY.
9. Burke, R.J. and McKeen, C.A. (1996, "Do women at the top make a difference: gender proportions and the
experiences of managerial and professional women", Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 1093-104.
10. Carmody, H. (1992, "No job for a woman", ABC Four Corners, 12 November.
11. Carroll, G.R. and Harrison, R.J. (1994, "Organisational demography", Working Paper, Haas School of Business,
University of California, Berkeley, CA
12. Chodorow, N. (1978, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
13. Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963, A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
14. Dearborn, D.C. and Simon, H.A. (1958, "Selective perception: a note on the department identification of
executives", Sociometry, Vol. 21 No. 2, p. 144.
15. Deaux, K. (1985, "Sex and gender", Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 49-81.
16. Drucker, P. (1974, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
17. Dutton, J. and Duncan, R. (1987, "The creation of momentum for change through the process of strategic issue
diagnosis", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 279-95.
18. Eisenhardt, K. and Schoonhoven, C. (1990, "Organisational growth: linking foundation team, strategy and
growth among US semi-conductors ventures 1978-1988", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 504-
29.
19. Ely, R.J. (1994, "The effects of organisational demographics and social identity on relationships among
professional women", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 203-38.
20. Finklestein, S. and Hambrick, D. (1990, "Top management team tenure and organisational outcomes: the
moderating role of managerial discretion", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 484-503.
21. Fireman, J. (1990, "Do women manage differently", Fortune, 17 December, pp. 115-18.

22. Fourier, C. (1829, Le Noveau Monde Industrial, (The New Industrial World), TLC, Lyon.
23. Frederickson, J. and Iaquinto, A. (1989, "Inertia and creeping rationality in strategic decision processes",
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 445-66.
24. Freud, S. (1961, "Some physical consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes", in Strachey, J.
(Ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 19, Hogarth Press,
London.
25. Gaces, V., Thomas, D.L. and Weigert, A.J. (1973, "Social identities in Anglo and Latin adolescents", Social
Forces, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 477-84.
26. Gilligan, C. (1982, In a Different Voice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
27. Goktope, J.R. and Schneier, C.E. (1988, "Sex and gender effects in evaluating emergent leadership in small
groups", Sex Roles, Vol. 19 Nos. 1-2, pp. 29-36.
28. Greenlaw, P. and Kohl, J.P. (1996, "Providing ADA discrimination: the court's view", Labour Law Journal, Vol. 47
No. 6, pp. 376-83.
29. Grimm, C. and Smith, K. (1991, "Management and organisational change: a note on the railroad industry",
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 557-62.
30. Hambrick, D.C. and D'Aveni, R.A. (1992, "Top team detonation as part of the downward spiral of large corporate
bankruptcies", Management Science, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1445-6.
31. Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984, "Upper echelons: the organisation as a reflection of its top managers",
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-207.
32. Hayes-Roth, B. (1977, "Evolution of cognitive structure and processes", Psychological Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp.
260-78.
33. Hede A. and Ralston D. (1994, "Managerial career progression and aspiration; evidence of a glass ceiling?",
International Journal of Employment Strategies, Vol. 1 No. 2, October, pp. 253-82.
34. Heilbrun, A.B. Jr (1976, "Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role identities as independent
dimensions", Journal of Consultative Clinical Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 183-90.
35. Helgesen, S. (1990, The Female Advantage: Women's Ways of Leadership, Doubleday, New York, NY.
36. Hofer, C. and Schendel, D. (1978, Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts, West, St Paul, MN.
37. Hoffman, R. (1959, "Homogeneity of member personality and its effect on group problem-solving", Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 27-32.
38. Hoffman, R. and Maier, N. (1961, "Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous

and heterogeneous groups", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 401-17.
39. Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A. and Peyronnin, K. (1991, "Some differences make
a difference: individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotion and turnover",
Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 675-89.
40. Janis, I.L. (1972, Victims of Groupthink, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.
41. Kahalas, H. and Groves, D. (1979, "An exploration of graduate business students values", Journal of Industrial
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 18-24.
42. Kakabadse, A. (1991, The Wealth Creators: Top People, Top Teams and Executive Best Practice, Kogan Page,
London.
43. Kakabadse, A. P. (1993, "Success levers for Europe: the Cranfield executive competencies survey", Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 75-96.
44. Kakabadse, A.P, Okazaki-Ward, L. and Myers, A. (1996, Japanese Business Leaders, International Thomson..
45. Kanter, R.K. (1977, Men and Woman of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
46. Katz, R. (1982, "The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance", Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 81-104.
47. Keck, S. (1991, "Top executive team structure: does it matter anyway?", paper presented at The Academy of
Management Meeting, Miami, August.
48. Kennedy, E. and Mendus, S. (Eds) (1987, Women in Western Political Philosophy, Wheatsheaf Books, Brighton.
49. Konrad, A. and Gutek. B.A. (1987, "Theory and research on group composition; applications to the status of
women and ethnic minorities", in Oskamp, S. and Spaceman, S. (Eds), Interpersonal Process, Sage, Newbury Park,
pp. 85-121.
50. Korac-Boisvert, N. and Kouzmin, A. (1994, "The dark side of info-age social networks in public organisation and
creeping crisis", Administrative Theory and Praxis, Vol. 16 No. 1, April, pp. 57-82.
51. Korac-Boisvert, N. and Kouzmin, A. (1995a, "Biting the bullet: from glass and concrete ceilings' and
metaphorical sex changes to psychological audits and re-negotiating organisational scripts", paper presented at
the Royal Institute of Public Administration, Australian Conference, Brisbane, 30 November-2 December.
52. Korac-Boisvert, N. and Kouzmin, A. (1995b, "Managing transnational talent: cultural unity within diversity",
paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management's Annual Conference on
Approaching the Third Millennium, James Cook University, Townsville, 3-6 December.
53. Korac-Kakabadse N. (1997, Leadership Philosophies and Organisational Adaption of a New Information
Technology, PhD Thesis submitted to University of Sydney, NEPEAN.

54. Korac-Kakabadse, A.P. and Korac-Kakabadse, N.C. (1998a, Essence of Leadership, International Thomson, (to
be published Summer 1998).
55. Korac-Kakabadse, A.P. and Korac-Kakabadse, N.C. (1998b, Leadership in Government: Study of the Australian
Public Service, Avebury Press, to be published.
56. Lawn-Day, G. and Ballard, (1996, "Speaking out: perceptions of managers in the public service", Review of
Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 41-58.
57. Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. (1967, "Leadership and organisational performance: a study of large corporations",
American Sociological Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 117-30.
58. Lindsay, W.M. and Rue, L.W. (1980, "Impact of the business environment on the long-range planning process: a
contingency view", Proceedings of the Academy of Management, Vol. l23, pp. 385-404.
59. Lott, A.J. and Lott, B.E. (1965, "Group cohesiveness and interpersonal attraction: a review of relationships with
antecedent and consequent variables", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 259-309.
60. Maccaby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.N. (1980, "Sex differences in aggression: a rejoinder and reprise", Child
Development, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 964-80.
61. Madden, J.R. (1987, Women Versus Women: The Uncivil Business War, AMASOM, New York, NY.
62. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958, Organisations, John Wiley, New York, NY.
63. Martin, P.Y. (1985, "Group sex composition in work organisations: a structural-normative model", in Bacharach,
S.B. and Mitchell, S.M. (Eds), Research in the Sociology of Organisations, Vol. 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 311-
49.
64. Mason, S.E., and Mudrack, P.E., (1996, "Gender and ethical orientation: a test of gender and occupational
socialisation theories", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 6, June, pp. 599-604.
65. McCain, B., O'Reilly III, C.A. and Pfeffer, J. (1983, "The effects of departmental demography on turnover",
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 626-41.
66. McNeil, L. and Thompson, J.D. (1971, "The regeneration of social organisations", American Sociological Review,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 624-37.
67. Meyer, H.D. (1993, "The cultural gap in long-term international work groups: a German-American case study",
European Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 93-101.
68. Michel, J. and Hambrick, D. (1992, "Diversification posture and top team characteristics", Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 9-37.
69. Mill, J.S. (1983, The Subjection of Women, Methuen, London.
70. Miller, D. (1991, "Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organisation and environment",

Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 34-52.
71. Mishler, E.G. (1979, "Meaning in context: is there any other kind?", Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 49 No. 1,
pp. 1-19.
72. Mittman, B.S. (1992, "Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of organisation demography and
demographic change", in Tolbert, P.S. and Bacharach, S.B. (Eds), Research in the Sociology of Organisation, Vol.
10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3-53.
73. Mobley, W.H., Griffeth, R.W., Hand, H.H. and Meglino, B. (1970, "Review and conceptual analysis for the
employee turnover process", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 493-522.
74. Moi, T. (1988, French Feminist Thoughts: A Reader, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
75. Murray, A. (1989, "Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance", Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 125-41.
76. Norman, D.A. (1976, Memory and Attention, Wiley, New York, NY.
77. Normann, R. (1977, Managing for Growth, Wiley, New York, NY.
78. O'Reilly III, C.A. and Flatt, S. (1989, "Executive team demography, organisational innovation and firm
performance", Working Paper, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
79. O'Reilly III, C.A., Caldwell, D.F. and Burnett, W.P. (1989, "Work group demography, social integration and
turnover", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
80. Pelz, D. and Andrews, F. (1966, Scientists in Organisations, Wiley, New York, NY.
81. Pettigrew, T.E. (1986, "The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered", in Hewstone, M. and Brown, R. (Eds),
Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters, Basil Blackwell, New York, NY, pp. 169-95.
82. Pfeffer, J. (1983, "Organisational demography", in Cumming's, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in
Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 299-357.
83. Pfeffer, J. and Davis-Blake, A. (1992, "Salary dispersion, location in the salary distribution and turnover among
college administrators", Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 753-63.
84. Prahalad, C.K. and Bettis, R.A. (1986, "The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance",
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 485-501.
85. Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K. (1983, "Organisational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: some
preliminary evidence", Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-50.
86. Reed, R.L. (1978, "Organisational change in the American foreign service 1925-1965: the utility of cohort
analysis", American Sociological Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 404-21.

87. Rhodes, R. (1991, "Theory and methods in British public administration: the view from political science",
Political Studies, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 533-54.
88. Roberts, K.H. and O'Reilly III, C.A. (1979, "Some correlates of communication roles in organisations", Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
89. Robinson, R.B. (1982, "The importance of 'outsiders' in small firm strategic planning", Academy of Management
90. Robinson, R.B. and Pearce, J. (1984, "Research thrusts in small firm strategic planning", Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 128-37.
91. Rogers, E. and Shoemaker, F. (1971, Communication of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.
92. Romanelli, E. and Tushman, M. (1986, "Executive leadership and organisational outcomes: an evolutionary
perspective", in Hambrick, D. (Ed.), The Executive Effect: Concept and Methods for Studying Top Managers, JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 129-40.
93. Rosener, J.B. (1990, "Ways women lead", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 6, November-December, pp.
119-25.
94. Rozier, C.H. and Hersh-Cochran, M.S. (1996, "Gender differences in managerial characteristics in a female-
dominated health profession", Health Care Supervision, Vol. 14 No. 4, June, pp. 57-70.
95. Ryder, N.B. (1964, "Notes on the concept of a population", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp.
842-61.
96. Scrull, T.K. and Wyer, R.S. (1980, "Category accessibility and social perception: some implications for the study
of person memory and interpersonal judgement", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp.
841-56.
97. Shaw, M.E. (1976, Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behaviour, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
98. Shenhav, Y. and Haberfield, Y. (1992, "Organisational demography and inequality", Social Forces, Vol. 71 No. 1,
pp. 123-43.
99. Sherif, C.W. (1982, "Needed concepts in the study of gender identity", Psychological Women Quarterly, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 375-98.
100. Simmel, G. (1955, Conflict and the Web of Group-Affiliations, Free Press, New York, NY.
101. Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Sims Jr, D.P., O'Bannon, D.P. and Scully, J.A. (1994, "Top management
team demography and process: the role of social integration and communication", Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 412-38.
102. Solomon, A. (1992, "Gender, representation and power in San ethnography and rock art", Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 291-329.

103. Staw, B.M. (1977, "Motivation in organisations: toward synthesis and redirection", in Staw, B. M. and Salancik,
G.R. (Eds), New Directions in Organisational Behaviour, St Claire Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 55-95.
104. Stinchcombe, A.L., McDill, M.S. and Walker, D.R. (1986, "Demography of organisations", American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 221-9.
105. Tajfel, H. (1982, Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
106. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986, "The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour", in Worchel, S. and Austin,
W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.
107. Turner, J.C. (1987, Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorisation Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
108. Turner, J.C. and Giles, H. (1981, Intergroup Behaviour, Basil Blackwell, New York, NY.
109. Tushman, M.L. and Romanelli, E. (1985, "Organisational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence
and reorientation", in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 7, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 171-222.
110. Wagner, W., Pfeffer, J. and O'Reilly III, C.A. (1984, "Organisational demography and turnover in top
management groups", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 74-92.
111. Walderman, D.A. and Avolio, B.J. (1986, "A meta-analysis of age difference in job performance", Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 33-8.
112. Wanous, J. and Youtz (1986, "Solution diversity and the quality of group decisions", Academy of Management
113. Weick, K. (1969, The Social Psychology of Organising, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
114. Wharton, A.S. (1992, "The social constriction of gender and race in organisation: a social identity and group
mobilisation perspective", in Tolbert, P.S. and Bacharach, S.B. (Eds), Research in the Sociology of Organisation,
Vol. 10, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 55-84.
115. Whitney, J. and Smith, R. (1983, "Effects of group cohesiveness on attitude polarisation and the acquisition of
knowledge in a strategic planning context", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 167-76.
116. Wiersema, M. and Bantel, K. (1992, "Top management team demography and corporate strategic change",
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 91-121.
117. Wollstonecraft, M. (1792, 1978, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
118. Yoder, J.C. (1991, "Rethinking tokenism: looking beyond numbers", Gender and Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 178-
92.
119. Zander, A. (1977, Groups at Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

120. Zenger, T.R. and Lawrence, B.S. (1989, "Organisational demography: the differential effects of age and tenure
distributions on technical communication", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 32, pp. 353-76.
121. Zimmer, L. (1988, "Tokenism and women in the workplace: the limits of gender-neutral theory", Social
Problems, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 64-77.
Illustration
Caption: Table I; Demographic distribution of two leader groups (NHS); Figure 1; Power of accountability; Table II;
APS leader survey profile; Table III; Leadership behaviour and job-related development: Australian Public Service
survey; Table IV; Leadership behaviour gender differences: Australian Public Service survey; Table V; NHS Trusts:
comparison by age and other demographics; Figure 2; Power of time
DETALLES
Materia: Demographics; Gender; Leadership; Success; Management development; Studies
Clasificación: 2500: Organizational behavior; 9130: Experimental/theoretical
Título: Demographics and leadership philosophy: exploring gender differences
Autor: Korac-Kakabadse, Andrew; Korac-Kakabadse, Nada; Myers, Andrew
Título de publicación: The Journal of Management Development; Bradford
Tomo: 17
Número: 5
Páginas: 351-388
Número de páginas: 0
Año de publicación: 1998
Fecha de publicación: 1998
Editorial: Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Lugar de publicación: Bradford
País de publicación: United Kingdom, Bradford
Materia de publicación: Business And Economics--Management
ISSN: 02621711
e-ISSN: 17587492

Tipo de fuente: Scholarly Journals
Idioma de la publicación: English
Tipo de documento: Feature
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621719810220225
ID del documento de 216301596

ProQuest:
URL del documento: http://ezproxy.puc.cl/docview/216301596?accountid=16788
Copyright: Copyright MCB UP Limited (MCB) 1998
Última actualización: 2019-09-06
Base de datos: ProQuest Central
ENLACES
Verifica el texto completo
Copyright de la base de datos  2020 ProQuest LLC. Reservados todos los derechos.
Términos y condiciones Contactar con ProQuest

Demographics and Leadership Philosophy: Exploring Gender Differences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Demographics and Leadership Philosophy: Exploring Gender Differences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Demographics and Leadership Philosophy: Exploring Gender Differences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Demographics and leadership philosophy:

exploring gender differences

Enlace de documentos de ProQuest

Nada Korac-Kakabadse: Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

Andrew Myers: International Consultant, Clifton Reynes, Buckinghamshire, UK

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 33

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 33

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 33

Organisational demography: background

Organisational demography is conceptualised as the distribution of organisational members along any

Strategy, groups and demography

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 33

Top teams: homogeneity and heterogeneity

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 5 of 33

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 6 of 33

Length of time in organisation (organisational tenure)

Number of senior appointments (senior management tenure)

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 7 of 33

Length of time in current position (top team tenure)

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 8 of 33

Demographics and gender

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 9 of 33

The Cranfield study

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 10 of 33

Leadership attributes: the executive

Team oriented Trust strategy

Job satisfied Trust mission

Disciplined Internal systems

Clinicians viewed positively

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 11 of 33

Leadership attributes: the stakeholders

Job satisfied Pressured

Disciplined Negative internal culture

Details oriented Leadership poor

Committed Trust strategy

Team oriented Independent

Dependable Systems are hindrance

Independent Top team poor

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 12 of 33

Demographic impact of accountability

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 13 of 33

Leadership attributes: radicals

Open style Hypercritical

Enjoy challenge Dislike controls

Committed Dislike interference

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 14 of 33

Service driven Dissatisfied

Outward focused Negative view of company

Follow-through oriented Naive

Leadership attributes: bureaucrats

Respect communication Intolerant

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 15 of 33

Rules oriented Negative impact

Disciplined Need to be boss

Details driven Dislike being controlled

Service conscious Driven by protocol

Overall, bureaucrats display their enjoyment of working as senior general managers.

PDF GENERADO POR SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 16 of 33

Leadership attributes: team players