Journal of Public Relations Research

ISSN: 1062-726X (Print) 1532-754X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hprr20

Leadership and Gender in Public Relations:

Perceived Effectiveness of Transformational and
Transactional Leadership Styles

Linda Aldoory & Elizabeth Toth

To cite this article: Linda Aldoory & Elizabeth Toth (2004) Leadership and Gender in Public
Relations: Perceived Effectiveness of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles,
Journal of Public Relations Research, 16:2, 157-183, DOI: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1602_2

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1602_2

Published online: 19 Nov 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2120

View related articles

Citing articles: 56 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hprr20
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH, 16(2), 157–183
Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Leadership and Gender in Public

Relations: Perceived Effectiveness of
Transformational and Transactional
Leadership Styles
Linda Aldoory
Department of Communication
University of Maryland

Elizabeth Toth
S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
Syracuse University

This study used a quantitative survey and qualitative focus groups to examine percep-
tions of leadership styles, sex differences in these perceptions, and opinions about the
gendered nature of leadership in public relations. In summary, the focus group data
supported survey results that indicated a strong preference for transformational lead-
ership style over transactional leadership. However, there was also strong evidence
for a preference for situational leadership. Findings are interpreted within the frame-
works of public relations theory and gender theory.

As the body of knowledge on leadership grows in management, business, and mar-

keting research, debate about leadership styles, skills, and effectiveness also grows
(Thompson, 2000). Traditionally, management scholars developed and investigated
authoritarian versus participative styles of leadership and found limited variations
on this binary theme. Today, leadership theories in management have expanded to
include situational leadership and distinctions between styles (McWhinney, 1997;
Thompson, 2000).
In public relations, however, there is no strong scholarly discourse on leader-
ship. Although many public relations scholars have emphasized management,

Requests for reprints should be sent to Linda Aldoory, Department of Communication, University
of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: laldoory@umd.edu
158 ALDOORY AND TOTH

strategy, and relationship building, three concepts potentially integral to leader-

ship, there has been limited research examining the specifics of leadership within
the public relations terrain. In addition, as the public relations profession has be-
come over 70% female, and feminization of the profession has become a signifi-
cant concern, the relation between leadership and gender needs to also be more
fully examined by public relations scholars. Women are slowly moving into man-
agement roles, although arguably a glass ceiling still exists for many women. Yet
the question as to whether women’s leadership styles break through the glass ceil-
ing or limit their advancement still remains.
Therefore, the purpose of this research was to examine two critical issues of lead-
ership in public relations today: (a) the leadership styles that are perceived as effec-
tive and appropriate for public relations; and (b) the gendered nature of leadership in
public relations—how leadership perceptions are different by gender and how the
concept of leadership itself is gendered in the public relations field. Findings from
this study begin the development of a theory of leadership style for public relations.

LITERATURE AND THEORY

Leadership has been studied by virtually hundreds of scholars (Murray, 1995;

Rojahn & Willemsen, 1994; Sims & Lorenzi, 1992). Pavitt, Whitchurch, McClurg,
and Petersen (1995) commented, “It is safe to say that more than 7,500 studies rel-
evant to leadership have appeared in the social science literature” (p. 243). Leader-
ship has been defined as activity aimed at bringing about change in an organization
or social system to improve people’s lives (Astin & Leland, 1991, p. 7). More re-
cently, McWhinney (1997) defined leadership as the process by which influencers
and change makers affect a population (p. 184). McWhinney described leadership
as the most important single factor in achieving resolution.
Much of the research in leadership has fueled a debate about whether to measure
leadership in terms of inherent ability, skills, or style. Some scholars have asserted
that all these aspects are integral to understanding leadership. McWhinney (1997)
explained that skills are a complex matter of heritage and training (p. 185). Effective-
ness is a question of match to a situation. Style defines the normal behaviors that fol-
low from the worldview that one maintains (McWhinney, 1997). In other words, au-
thoritarian leadership style derives from someone’s deterministic or patriarchal
worldview, and participative leadership derives from a social worldview. Leadership
style has nothing to do with an individual’s singular ability to lead, only with how the
leading is understood.
Many current leadership theories are assumptions about style. McWhinney
(1997) asserted that identification of style provides the basis of a theory of leader-
ship. This basis is what is needed in public relations. Therefore, developing leader-
ship theory in public relations should begin with assessing leadership styles and
perceptions about styles. The leadership styles most often studied and explicated
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 159

in management research are transactional, transformational, and pluralistic leader-

ship (McWhinney, 1997).

Leadership Styles
Transactional leadership, which is also called authoritative leadership, serves to ar-
ticulate and establish positions held by the leader. These leaders are least supportive
of intentional change. There is the “right” position, and other positions are excluded
(McWhinney, 1997, p. 194). Primary characteristics of this leadership style include
certainty, clear direction, personal oversight, and perceptions of “just” treatment
(Cruz, Henningsen, & Smith, 1999). Just is defined as the idea that if the leader re-
ceives a benefit such as quality work performance or productivity, he or she will give
a benefit such as pay or benefits; this denotes the transactional nature of this style of
leadership (Cruz et al., 1999; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Through
this exchange relation, these leaders provide followers with a chance to satisfy their
lower order material and psychic needs (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998). The skillful
transactional leader is likely to be effective in stable, predictable environments in
which charting activity against prior performance is the most successful strategy
(Lowe et al., 1996, p. 387). However, many current studies have found that trans-
actional leadership alone is not as effective in increasing followers’ job satisfaction
or performance—it is more effective in combination with other leadership styles
(Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998; Lowe et al., 1996; McWhinney, 1997).
Transformational leadership, also called charismatic leadership, is the most
studied style of leadership (Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1993, 1994; Gastil,
1994; Lowe et al., 1996; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Pop-
per, 1998; Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer, & Jolson, 1997; Yukl, 1994). Trans-
formational leadership is marked by the unique qualities surrounding charisma,
“the power to captivate and energize a following” (McWhinney, 1997, p. 188).
Kouzes and Posner (1995) actually defined leadership in terms of transformational
leadership: “the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations”
(p. 30). Transformational leaders are distinguished by their risk taking, goal articu-
lation, high expectations, emphasis on collective identity, self-assertion, and vision
(Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; McWhinney, 1997). The central role of the charismatic
leader is to use his or her vision to create meaning and symbols for followers, in or-
der for them to change (Fairhurst, 2001). Holladay and Coombs (1994) and
Fairhurst (2001) have indicated that transformational leaders communicate with
eloquence and expressive language and manner.
Scholars have studied transformational leadership within various contexts
(Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998; Hunt, Boal, & Dodge,
1999). For example, some have examined transformational leadership less as a
trait that can be possessed by an individual and more as a process that exists only in
social relationships (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Oftentimes,
transformational leadership is accepted and most appropriate during great up-
160 ALDOORY AND TOTH

heaval or turmoil as in during crises, during layoffs, or during corporate mergers

(McWhinney, 1997). In general, studies have found that this style of leadership is
the most effective overall and is associated with higher job performance and posi-
tive follower attitudes (Berson, 2001; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Grundstein-Amado,
1999; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994; Yukl,
1994).
Pluralistic leadership is characterized by participative decision making, the
recognition of other people, and the placing of value on others’ opinions. This style
is other centered, emphasizing the development of followers to accomplish system
goals (McWhinney, 1997). Interpersonal needs are balanced with system needs.
These democratic leaders facilitate discussion and involve followers in goal setting
and task completion (Cruz et al., 1999). The leader who holds this style maintains
equity in an environment seen as continually changing. Very little research was
found that focused on this style of leadership. Instead, scholars emphasized the di-
chotomy between the transactional and transformational styles and subsumed plu-
ralistic leadership into their definitions of transformational leadership.
Rather than focus on one leadership style, many scholars have argued for a situ-
ational theory of leadership (Casimir, 2001; Gastil, 1994; Hersey & Blanchard,
1982; Lord, Brown, Harvey, & Hall, 2001; Waller, Smith, & Warnock, 1989). Al-
though the situational theory of leadership has been criticized for lacking empiri-
cal robustness and internal consistency (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Norris &
Vecchio, 1992), it is one of the most widely known, popular theories employed in
management (Graeff, 1997). Scholars have asserted that effective leaders change
their style to fit the situation and therefore may sometimes choose an autocratic
style and sometimes a participatory style, depending on the circumstances and the
environment. Job satisfaction, willingness to work, and performance were rated
higher with combinative aspects of leadership statements (Casimir, 2001).

Sex Differences in Leadership

Since the 1970s, there have been studies measuring whether sex differences exist
in leadership styles and effective leadership (Bartol & Butterfield, 1976; Chapman
& Luthans, 1978). Research findings have been mixed; many scholars have argued
that leadership styles are marked by sex differences, whereas others have found no
differences. According to Butterfield and Grinnell (1999), “Overall, this area of in-
quiry has been hotly contested” (p. 225).
Studies that have found support for sex differences have focused on perceptions
of leadership (Butler & Geis, 1990; Casimir, 2001; Cooper, 1997; Doherty, 1997;
Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Ragins, 1991; Yammarino et al., 1997). Female and male
subordinates and superiors have rated women leaders with key aspects of trans-
formational leadership—that is, charisma and individualized consideration—more
frequently than men (Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995;
Carless, 1998; Maher, 1997). Druskat (1994) found that female subordinates rated
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 161

female leaders as displaying significantly more transformational behaviors and sig-

nificantly fewer transactional behaviors than male leaders who were rated by male
subordinates. Some studies have shown that subordinates rated women as being less
effective than men (Knott & Natalle, 1997; Korabik, Baril, & Watson, 1993). Eagly,
Makhijani, and Klonsky (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of experiments and con-
cluded that female leaders were evaluated slightly more negatively than male leaders
and that male participants had a stronger tendency to devalue female leaders. How-
ever, Luthar (1996) found that women gave higher performance ratings than men for
female leaders. One study also indicated that when male leaders displayed feminine
characteristics such as obliging, they were then rated as being less effective leaders
(Korabik et al., 1993). In their meta-analysis, Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani (1995)
found that men and women were equally effective in their leadership, but men were
more effective when their roles were defined in masculine terms and women in roles
defined as less masculine. In another study (Cooper, 1997), women devalued their
leadership accomplishments and took less credit for successful consequences.
Women also rated their influence lower than did men.
Other scholars have found no sex differences in leadership (Carless, 1998; Dob-
bins & Platz, 1986; Thompson, 2000; vanEngen, vanderLeeden, & Willemsen,
2001). Knott and Natalle (1997) examined perceptions of managerial leadership
by superiors. Results revealed no significant sex differences except for 1 out of 15
scales—women managers were rated higher on “putting people at ease” than men
were (p. 533). Komives (1991) similarly found no gender differences in trans-
formational or transactional leadership ratings for residence hall directors.
There have been two theoretical perspectives frequently used to explain the
mixed findings in gender and leadership research: socialization and structuralism.
On one hand, it has been argued that sex differences in leadership exist due to gen-
der socialization in which individuals manifest congruent, gendered stereotypical
traits and behaviors that are not readily amenable to change (Cooper, 1997;
Druskat, 1994; Maher, 1997; Portello & Long, 1994). Attributes considered instru-
mental and ascribed to men include being independent, goal oriented, objective,
assertive, competitive, and logical, whereas stereotypically expressive characteris-
tics attributed to women include emotionality, nurturance, and sensitivity to others
(Portello & Long, 1994, p. 685). Gendered stereotypical roles impact the behavior
of women and men, subordinates’ reactions to these behaviors, and the possibility
of women exerting influence (Carli & Eagly, 1999, p. 222). This is often because
women and men are constrained by expected gendered roles. Women who adhere
to feminine leadership traits are perceived as better leaders, and men who display
masculine behaviors are viewed as better leaders. If women and men display in-
congruent gender characteristics in their leadership, that is, a woman being auto-
cratic or a man being a good listener, then they are perceived as ineffective.
Gender differences in leadership have also been explained by specific organiza-
tional and industry contexts. Subordinates in certain types of organizations may
share common expectations for appropriate leadership behaviors of men and
162 ALDOORY AND TOTH

women within those contexts (Maher, 1997). Eagly et al. (1995) similarly argued
that although traditional leadership may in general be aligned with the male gender
role, “roles within certain occupational categories or certain types of organizations
may be defined in more androgynous terms” (p. 126). This may be particularly im-
portant to a study of gender and leadership in public relations where the field has
become 70% female and has taken on several feminized characteristics. For exam-
ple, relationship building, two-way symmetrical communication, and collabora-
tion, three important public relations aspects and also characteristics ascribed as
feminine (Rakow, 1989), have shown to result in increased organizational effec-
tiveness (Grunig [with Dozier et al.], 1992). Therefore, perhaps women are better
suited for leadership positions in public relations.
The main argument explaining the lack of sex differences derives from the
structuralist approach. Any gender differences that may exist are negated by struc-
tural and job variables such as job description, position in the hierarchy, and status.
For example, in their meta-analysis of studies on gender and leadership style,
Eagly, Karau, and Johnson (1992) argued that the negligible evidence they found
for sex differences could be explained by the constraints of job roles, which
supercede gender stereotypes.
Other evidence indicates that both socialization and structuralism reciprocally
influence leader behaviors (Lewis & Fagenson-Eland, 1998; Portello & Long,
1994). For example, Lewis and Fagenson-Eland found that leaders’ self-reports
were related to their gender, whereas supervisors’ reports on the leaders were re-
lated to the organizational level of leaders.
Some have argued that transformational leadership may be characterized as more
feminine because the socialized characteristics of nurturing and supporting subordi-
nates are integral to this leadership approach. Rosener (1994) found that women per-
formed a type of leadership style similar to transformational leadership, which she
termed “interactive” leadership (p. 15). Interactive leadership involves attempts to
enhance other people’s sense of self-worth, and criteria include participative man-
agement, the sharing of power and information, and the ability to energize staff. Ac-
cording to Maher (1997), “As organizations call for more transformational leader-
ship to guide their organizations through change, women may be more accepted as
leaders” (p. 211). Furthermore, transformational leadership has been positively as-
sociated with leadership effectiveness; therefore, if women typically exhibit trans-
formational leadership behaviors, “this may contribute to breaking the glass ceiling,
as women are increasingly selected to occupy executive-level positions” (Maher,
1997, p. 212).
A few studies have suggested that transformational leadership requires a gender
balance rather than a traditional stereotype of femininity or masculinity. Trans-
formational leadership is a proactive and successful style of leadership that corre-
lates strongly with both feminine and masculine gender characteristics, both inter-
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 163

personal and task awareness (Hackman, Furniss, Hills, & Paterson, 1992). This is
why, according to some scholars, there have been mixed findings in sex roles and
leadership research in which feminine styles of leadership have been pitted against
masculine styles in operationalization.

Leadership in Public Relations

In public relations, there has been very limited research on leadership. In their
landmark literature review for their excellence study, Grunig and his colleagues
(Grunig [with Dozier et al.] 1992) included leadership among 12 characteristics of
excellent organizations. Excellent organizations, Grunig (1992) argued, have lead-
ers who rely on networking and “management-by-walking-around” rather than au-
thoritarian systems. At the same time, excellent leaders provide a vision and direc-
tion for organizations, “creating order out of the chaos that empowerment of
people can create” (Grunig, 1992, p. 16). This conceptualization suggests the
transformational style of leadership. However, Grunig ([with Dozier et al.], 1992)
concluded that a situational leadership style is most effective in which leaders
combine control with empowerment.
Grunig ([with Dozier et al.], 1992) explained the implications of the leadership
literature on public relations. First, chief executive officers (CEOs) and other orga-
nizational leaders spend most of their time on external affairs and community and
political processes; therefore, understanding the CEOs in terms of their leadership
capabilities is important to public relations’ role as boundary spanners. Second, the
combination of directing and empowerment suggests that excellent leaders/CEOs
may foster a climate for a combination of the asymmetrical and symmetrical pub-
lic relations model, the model found to be most effective for communication man-
agement (Grunig [with Dozier et al.], 1992).
Farmer, Slater, and Wright (1998) argued that much of the literature on a
leader’s visioning ability describes communication from a persuasive model,
that “influencing strategies” come from the top down. However, Farmer et al.
found that pluralistic leadership, characterized by two-way symmetrical commu-
nication, would be the most appropriate model. “The leader who encourages in-
put from all levels of the organization is more likely to succeed than the leader
who seeks to impose his or her agenda through either coercion or persuasion”
(Farmer et al., 1998, p. 222).
Only one study (Aldoory, 1998) was found in which gender was the focus in ex-
ploring public relations leadership. In-depth interviews were conducted with female
leaders in the profession and in academia to explore their different leadership styles
and use of language. Participants illustrated a mix of two-way and one-way commu-
nication when hypothetically responding to staff. The participants exhibited asser-
tiveness, empathy, and use of logical rather than emotional arguments. In general,
164 ALDOORY AND TOTH

participants illustrated transformational and interactive styles of leadership but

within a situational context. There were no studies in public relations that focused on
perceptions of leadership styles and the gendered nature of these perceptions.

Research Questions (RQs)

RQs were most appropriate for this study due to the limited amount of scholarship
specifically in public relations on leadership. The following RQs helped guide the
study’s data analysis and interpretations:

RQ1: What leadership style is perceived as the best or most appropriate for
public relations?

The first step in understanding leadership in public relations was to examine

general opinions about transactional, transformational, and pluralistic characteris-
tics of leadership as they applied to public relations settings.

RQ2: How do sex differences in respondents affect perceptions of leadership

style?

Male respondents were compared to female respondents in their opinions about

effective leadership style for public relations.

RQ3: How do respondents perceive a gendered nature of leadership in public

relations?

Respondents were asked to give their opinions as to whether male or female

leaders were more effective for public relations. Male and female respondents also
were compared in terms of self-identification as leaders.

METHOD

Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were employed for this study to ex-
amine perceptions of leadership style and gendered leadership in public relations.
Using survey and focus groups “triangulates” the data, offering greater breadth in
description, depth in detail, and validity to the findings (van Zoonen, 1994). Also, the
two methods lend different strengths to answering different RQs: A survey offered a
better way to answer RQ2, whereas the focus groups offered an appropriate way to
answer RQ3. A randomly sampled national survey of public relations practitioners
was conducted first, and then six focus groups were held in three cities.
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 165

Survey
First, 4,000 printed questionnaires were distributed to a systematic random sample
of current members of Public Relations Society of America (PRSA).1 Likert scale
items were used to measure leadership traits and perceptions. The statements were
derived from previous studies in leadership. There were a total of 14 leadership
variables; this large number increased reliability as well as validity in the oper-
ationalization of leadership style. It also allowed for developing an index to better
measure preference of leadership style. The leadership variables assessing trans-
actional leadership included the following: “You cannot be emotionally involved
and also be an effective leader”; “The most important criterion for a good leader is
being in control at all times”; and, “Offering rewards is the only way someone can
be a good leader today.” Transformational leadership measures included the fol-
lowing: “Good leaders need to change self-interests into group needs”; “Today’s
leaders in PR need to challenge traditional ways of doing things”; “Effective lead-
ers know that good rapport with employees is key”; “An effective leader in public
relations enhances others’ self worth”; and “Leadership is about creating personal
connections with employees.” The following statements measured pluralistic lead-
ership: “The best leaders are those that share the decision-making power,” and “I
prefer leaders who practice participative management.” These last two are admit-
tedly vague statements and can also be incorporated into an operationalization of
transformational leadership. Other leadership statements included “Males or fe-
males can be equally capable leaders”; “Women make better leaders than men”;
and “I consider myself a leader in public relations.” Demographic variables also
were included.
A total of 864 completed questionnaires were received—a 22% response rate.
To confirm that the low response rate did not reflect a discrepancy between the
sample and the population, frequencies were run and showed that the returned
sample had similar characteristics as the PRSA membership on the whole. For ex-
ample, age, education level, job characteristics, and the proportion of men to
women were similar. Therefore, those who responded to the questionnaire and
those who did not were not significantly different from each other.
The survey data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 10.0), and frequencies
were first run for all leadership, demographic, and control variables. Pearson cor-
relations measured relationships between leadership variables and other variables
such as age, years of experience, and salary. Independent t tests as well as
ANOVAs assessed significant mean differences between men and women and be-
tween types of organizations.

1The survey and focus groups were part of a larger study of public relations practitioners funded by

the Public Relations Society of America.

166 ALDOORY AND TOTH

Although the leadership variables were analyzed independently from each

other, a leadership index also was created. A respondent’s score on this index of
preferred leadership style gave an indication of his or her relative preference
vis-à-vis other respondents. An index of preferred leadership style distinguished
those people who would be strong in preferring transformational leadership to
those strong in preferring transactional leadership and those who fall somewhere
in between. Bivariate associations were measured for all the leadership items using
Pearson’s correlations. Many significant relationships existed between items, al-
though the strengths of relationships were weak overall. For example, the more re-
spondents agreed that the best leaders share decision-making power, the more they
agreed that good leaders need to change self-interests into group needs (r = .28, p =
.00). The more respondents agreed that they prefer leaders who practice par-
ticipative management, the more they agreed that the best leaders share deci-
sion-making power (r = .31, p = .00). Multivariate analyses then were conducted.
First, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was obtained (α = .668) and was highest when
all the transformational and pluralistic variables were combined, and no trans-
actional variables were included. Also in the index was the variable about men or
women being equally capable leaders. A total of eight variables were combined to
create the index. Then, item analysis was conducted for each variable as it corre-
lated to the total index. Significantly strong correlations were found with each indi-
vidual variable and the index. The resulting Leadership Preference Index ranges in
score from 5, indicating the strongest preference for transactional leadership, to
40, indicating the strongest preference for transformational leadership. The index
was used in data analysis; however, the individual leadership variables also were
analyzed separately due to the index’s early stages of development and testing.

Focus Groups
After the survey was analyzed, six focus groups were conducted to give richness
and detail to interpretations of the survey data. One male group and one female
group were held in each of three cities: Portland, Oregon; New York; and Washing-
ton, DC. Participants for the focus groups were public relations practitioners who
had a minimum of 5 years experience. Not all of these participants were PRSA
members. As incentives, participants were offered a copy of the research findings,
dinner, and a donation to a national charity. Moderators for the groups matched the
sex of the groups they facilitated and received a detailed packet of information
prior to meeting their groups.
A guide of open-ended questions was used to facilitate the focus groups. The
questions were based on the survey findings about leadership. Moderators asked
participants about their opinions on different leadership traits, about leadership be-
ing inherent, and about gender differences in leadership. Questions also addressed
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 167

personal experiences with leadership, personal identities as leaders, and sugges-

tions for improving self-leadership.
The focus groups were audiotaped to grasp detail and exact quotes. The tapes
were transcribed and analyzed for common themes as well as unique comments
that emerged from the discussions.

RESULTS

In general, the average survey respondent was a 40-year-old, White married

woman with a bachelor’s degree who worked in public relations for a little over 13
years. The average, overall salary equaled $60,935 (please see Tables 1 and 2 for
survey demographics).
Results are organized here according to how they answered the main RQs.
Findings from the survey are explained first, and then findings from the focus
groups help clarify and give richness to the perceptions found in the survey data.

RQ1: What Leadership Style Is Perceived as the Best or

Most Appropriate for Public Relations?
Overall, survey respondents agreed with the transformational and pluralistic leader-
ship statements and disagreed with transactional leadership statements (see Table
3). For example, respondents strongly agreed that “Today’s leaders in public rela-

TABLE 1
Percentages for Gender, Ethnicity and Education

Variable % N

Gender 853
Male 28.9
Female 71.1
Ethnicity 781
White, Euro-American 89.1
Black, African American 3.3
Hispanic, Latino 1.9
Asian, Pacific Islander 0.6
Native American 1.0
Mixed and other ethnicities 4.1
Education 853
High school or less 0.0
Some college 2.7
Bachelor’s degree 64.0
Master’s degree 30.3
Doctoral degree 3.0
 TABLE 2
Means for Salary, Age, and Years of Experience by Gender

Variable M SD N

Salary
Total 60,935.15 34,112.24 779
Men 73,706.35 37,264.49 216
Women 56,058.56 31,533.61 562
Age
Total 40 11.02 812
Men 45 11.03 228
Women 38 10.40 583
Years of PR Experience
Total 13.47 9.33 828
Men 17.44 10.49 240
Women 11.85 8.30 588

TABLE 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Leadership Variables and
Leadership Preference Index

Variable M SD N

I consider myself a leader in public relations. 3.64 .98 827

Women make better leaders than men. 2.71 .88 822
Males or females can be equally capable leaders. 4.57 .62 825
You cannot be emotionally involved and also be an 2.26 .98 823
effective leader.
The most important criterion for a good leader is being 2.40 .98 826
in control at all times.
Offering rewards for good work is the only way 2.15 .84 823
someone can be a good leader today.
Good leaders need to change self-interests into group 3.91 .96 821
needs.
Today’s leaders in public relations need to challenge 4.31 .72 823
traditional ways of doing things.
Effective leaders know that good rapport with 4.36 .71 826
employees is key.
An effective leader in public relations enhances others’ 4.36 .66 822
self-worth.
Leadership is about creating personal connections with 3.98 .89 823
employees and others.
The best leaders are those who share the 4.17 .83 824
decision-making power.
I prefer leaders who practice participative management. 4.11 .75 823
Leadership Preference Indexa 33.78 3.40 793

Note. Responses were coded as 5 = strongly agree; 4 = agree; 3 = uncertain/not sure/don’t know; 2
= disagree; 1 = strongly disagree.
aIndex ranges from 5 to 40.
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 169

tions need to challenge traditional ways of doing things” (M = 4.31), that “Effective
leaders know that good rapport with employees is key” (M = 4.36), and that “An ef-
fective leader in public relations enhances others’ self-worth” (M = 4.36). On the
other hand, respondents disagreed that “You cannot be emotionally involved and
also be an effective leader” (M = 2.26), that “The most important criterion for being a
good leader is being in control at all times” (M = 2.40), and that “Offering rewards for
good work is the only way someone can be a good leader” (M = 2.15). The Preferred
Leadership Index score averaged to be very high, indicating a general preference for
the transformational leadership style for public relations (M = 33.78). No significant
differences were found across type of organization and preferred leadership style.
Looking at bivariate relationships, many of the transformational and pluralistic
leadership statements correlated significantly, although not often highly, with each
other (see Table 4). The strongest associations were found with the statement “Ef-
fective leaders know that good rapport with employees is key.” The more respon-
dents agreed with this statement, the more they agreed that an effective leader in
public relations enhances others’ self-worth, that leadership is about creating per-
sonal connections, and that the best leaders share decision-making power.
Many leadership statements significantly and more strongly correlated in ex-
pected directions with age, years of experience, and salary. For example, as age,
years of experience, and salary increased, so did respondents’ agreement that they
considered themselves leaders in public relations. As age and years of experience
increased, agreement increased that you cannot be emotionally involved to be ef-
fective. Older and more experienced respondents were more likely to disagree that
effective leaders know that good rapport with employees is key. The Preferred
Leadership Index was not found to correlate significantly with age, years of experi-
ence, level of education, or salary.
Similar to the survey findings, focus group transcripts also revealed partici-
pants’ preference for a transformational leadership style. One frequently men-
tioned criterion for effective leadership was the ability to inspire others. A few par-
ticipants described motivation as a leader’s ability to bring people along with him
or her. One participant distinguished a good leader from a manager by stating “a
manager can get people to do things, but getting somebody to do something is a lot
different than inspiring someone to do it.” One female participant defined motivat-
ing ability as “charisma that you can’t put your finger on.” One woman explained
in a very excited manner how a new leader in her company started:

He won everybody over … he was going to work with people in the group, he was go-
ing to help bring people up, and challenging some of the way things had traditionally
been done, kind of opening the way and doing more than lip service at it.

An additional motivational characteristic was shared by one male participant

who said that a good leader was someone who can facilitate leadership in others,
“someone who can recognize it,” and “lets us lead at what we’re the best at.”
 TABLE 4
Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Leadership Variables, Age, Years of Experience, and Salary

Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Myself –.06 .067 –.04 .05 –.03 .08* .11** .01 .08* .10** .06 .04 .26** .32** .27**
821 823 822 825 821 820 822 824 820 822 823 821 793 814 763
2. Women –.08* .12** .02 .12** .06 .07 .05 .01 .07 .07* .06 –.05 –.03 –.14**
818 818 820 816 816 819 819 815 817 818 817 788 809 760
3. Equal –.09* –.11** –.13** .11** .19** .19** .22** .15** .19** .20** –.00 –.03 .03
819 822 820 817 819 822 818 821 820 820 791 812 761
4. Emotional .16** .05 .14** .02 .02 –.03 –.00 .01 –.08* .11** .08* –.03
821 818 816 819 820 817 818 819 817 789 810 760
5. Control .17** –.01 .02 .07* .01 .01 –.10 –.06 –.02 .00 –.07
820 819 821 823 819 821 822 820 793 813 762
6. Rewards –.03 –.07* –.01 –.09** .03 –.12 –.01 –.03 –.03 –.01
815 817 820 817 818 818 818 789 810 759
7. Group .25** .12** .14** .12** .28** .21** .08* .10** .05
817 818 814 816 817 816 788 808 758
8. Challenge .19** .18** .14** .25** .16** .01 .02 .03
820 816 818 819 817 789 810 761
9. Rapport .39** .26** .20** .23** –.10** –.10** –.06
820 820 821 820 792 813 762
10. Self-worth .25** .23** .26** .07 .04 .03
816 817 816 789 809 759
11. Personal .16** .19** –.04 –.04 –.12**
819 818 789 811 759
12. Share .31** .04 .03 .01
818 790 811 760
13. Participation .08* .06 .07
790 811 760
14. Age .82** .42**
 796 750
15. Years of .46**
experience 764

16. Salary

Note Number of respondents is listed below the coefficients for each variable. 1. Myself= I consider myself a leader in public relations. 2. Women = Women make better leaders
than men. 3. Equal= Males or females can be equally capable leaders. 4. Emotiona l= You cannot be emotionally involved and also be an effective leader. 5. Control= The most impor-
tant criterion for a good leader is being in control at all times. 6. Rewards = Offering rewards for good work is the only way someone can be a good leader today. 7. Group = Good leaders
need to change self-interests into group needs. 8. Challenge = Today’s leaders in public relations need to challenge traditional ways of doing things. 9. Rapport = Effective leaders know
that good rapport with employees is key. 10. Self-worth = An effective leader in public relations enhances others’ self worth. 11. Personal = Leadership is about creating personal con-
nections with employees and others. 12. Share = The best leaders are those that share the decision-making power. 13. Participation = I prefer leaders who practice participative manage-
ment.
Responses were coded as: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = uncertain/not sure/don’t know, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree.
*p < .05. **p < .001
172 ALDOORY AND TOTH

Some participants discussed the specific ways that leaders could motivate fol-
lowers. For example, one participant commented, “You can only move someone so
far with salary or vacation, but you can motivate someone through mentoring and
… by giving them the opportunity to learn and grow.” Other techniques to increase
motivation included giving people respect and involving them in decision making.
Participants said that valuing and trusting followers was key to motivation. One
participant explained, “They have good people, then they get out of the way, they
don’t micro-manage.”
Leader as mentor or teacher also frequently emerged from group discussions.
As one woman put it, “Leaders forget that they have knowledge that they can share
… the best leaders have taught me things that have made me a better professional.”
Participants generally agreed that mentoring was an important role for effective
leaders.
Another frequently mentioned characteristic was that of participative decision
making. One male participant remarked, “Sharing decision-making power is cer-
tainly a lot more enjoyable in a work environment.” This same participant gave ad-
vice to leaders in public relations:

When you give [followers] an input, you don’t ridicule them even if it’s something
knuckle-headed, you say, hey, thanks for your input. That’s the kind of leadership
that makes you feel good, you’re actually part of a team.

The topic of rewards offered heated and lengthy discussion among focus group
members. When the groups were told that the majority of survey respondents did
not agree that rewards is the only way to be a good leader, most of them launched
into discussion about whether rewards meant recognition. Most focus group par-
ticipants agreed that a reward in terms of recognition was very important to good
leadership. Reward as recognition was generally defined as “just some little thing
to say thank you.” Another participant gave an example: “A reward can be coming
into your office and sitting down and saying that was a heck of a campaign.” One
participant said rewards for employees can be “a pat on the back; they don’t need
money, just recognition form their peers for doing a great job.” A male participant
included even greater types of rewards:

How good leaders do reward you is with trust, with respect, with faith in your judg-
ment, they back you, they support you, and those are the kinds of rewards that are
more valuable than money or other kinds of physical, tangible types.

Most participants wanted to make it clear that incentives, “offer[ing] you a

cookie for doing well,” or the “carrot stick approach” were not effective.
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 173

In addition to transformational and pluralistic traits, participants also included

the ability to make decisions and stay in control. One woman said that “besides
shared decision making it’s also making a decision, making a decision and saying
it and then being willing to go with whatever the result of the decision is.” This par-
ticipant called this trait “attitude.” Another participant lamented, “There’d be a lot
of great leaders if they’d just step forward and say we should do this and stick with
it.” As another participant put it, “It’s fairly easy to be a good leader when things
are going well, but when things turn sour, the really good leaders step up and make
decisions, and make sure decisions get made.”
Only a few participants specifically used the term vision or long-term view to
describe effective leadership. One participant said, “There’s a definite direction of
something. Anyone who proposes to be a leader … has to have some kind of vision
of what we’re all about.”
A couple of groups talked about good leaders needing to be open to change. As
one man said, people who continuously reinvent themselves are good leaders. One
participant remarked, “I think it is the people who are constantly probing, and find-
ing and figuring out over time, how do I get better at this.”
A couple of groups brought up a preference for situational leadership. One par-
ticipant said, “The problem is it seems to change every time, too, I mean depending
on your project, you know.” Another, male participant explained the importance of
having varied leadership:

Some leaders are great at driving the business, bringing in new clients … but they
don’t know how to bring people along with them, and obviously the other leaders
are too focused on the people side and aren’t willing to make the hard decisions
that sometimes have to be made … different skill sets, the same thing, but applied
differently.

There were some remarks that illustrated how the participants viewed leader-
ship structurally specific to the public relations profession. For example, team-
work and leadership within teams was often discussed as an important part of pub-
lic relations leadership. Similarly, leadership clashes with clients was raised as an
issue unique to public relations. Being adaptable was referred to in terms of public
relations, the need to stay up on changing business environments for clients. One
male participant commented, “I think PR is interesting because … you have to be
able to adapt to change in this job.” Another male participant critiqued the profes-
sion for focusing on technical skills, leaving young professionals unable to move
up into leadership positions: “The people just fall flat on their face and it’s like all
of a sudden you are expected to manage people. … I think … we don’t do anything
necessarily early on to start fostering [leadership].”
 TABLE 5
Independent t Tests for Leadership Variables by Respondent’s Gender

Female Male

M M
Variable (SD) (SD) t Value df Significance

1. I consider myself a leader in public relations. 3.57 3.80 3.18 823 p < .01
(1.00) (0.91)
n = 585 n = 240
2. Women make better leaders than men. 2.90 2.23 –11.58 818 p = .000
(0.87) (0.71)
n = 581 n = 581
3. Males or females can be equally capable 4.58 4.54 –.73 821 ns
leaders. (0.62) (0.64)
n = 584 n = 238
4. You cannot be emotionally involved and also be 2.23 2.33 1.34 819 ns
an effective leader. (0.97) (1.00)
n = 583 n = 238
5. The most important criterion for a good leader is 2.38 2.44 .80 822 ns
being in control at all times. (0.97) (0.98)
n = 584 n = 240
6. Offering rewards for good work is the only way 2.18 2.09 –1.44 819 ns
someone can be a good leader today. (0.84) (0.84)
n = 584 n = 237
7. Good leaders need to change self-interests into 3.89 3.95 .82 817 ns
group needs. (0.97) (0.94)
n = 580 n = 239
8. Today’s leaders in public relations need to 4.32 4.28 –.63 818 ns
challenge traditional ways of doing things. (0.69) (0.78)
n = 582 n = 239
9. Effective leaders know that good rapport with 4.41 4.23 –3.14 822 p < .01
employees is key. (0.66) (0.81)
n=585 n=239
10. An effective leader in public relations enhances 4.37 4.33 –.78 818 ns
others’ self worth. (0.65) (0.69)
n = 582 n = 238
11. Leadership is about creating personal 4.05 3.81 –3.36 819 p < .01
connections with employees and others. (0.85) (0.95)
n = 583 n = 238
12. The best leaders are those that share the 4.22 4.07 –2.13 820 p < .05
decision-making power. (0.77) (0.96)
n = 582 n = 240
13. I prefer leaders who practice participative 4.14 4.05 –1.45 819 ns
management. (0.73) (0.79)
n=582 n=239
Leadership Preference Indexa 33.98 33.27 –2.51 789 p < 05
(3.20) (3.82)
n = 558 n = 233

Note Responses were coded as 5 = strongly agree; 4 = agree; 3 = uncertain/not sure/don’t know; 2
= disagree; 1 = strongly disagree.
a Index values range from 5 to 40.

174
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 175

RQ2: How Do Sex Differences in Respondents Affect

Perceptions of Leadership Style?
Comparing survey responses of men to women resulted in a few significant differ-
ences, but overall, there were no really strong differences between male and fe-
male respondents and their preference for leadership style (please see Table 5).
There were small but significant differences in which women more than men
agreed that effective leaders know that good rapport with employees is key, that
leadership is about creating personal connections with employees, and that the best
leaders share decision-making power. The Leadership Preference Index scores did
significantly differ between men and women in which women scored higher than
men. However, the difference again was small.
Focus group responses by men and by women were remarkably similar to each
other in terms of preferences for leadership styles. All groups regardless of sex fo-
cused on transformational and democratic qualities for leadership. Most individu-
als in groups talked about recognition as reward and about motivating others. How-
ever, there were three unique characteristics offered by focus group participants
that should be mentioned because they were unique to either the women’s groups
or the men’s groups. These were the traits of helping others, of good communica-
tion and listening, and of using tangible rewards as incentives.
The women’s focus groups included as effective leadership traits helping others
and looking out for people, “whether they work under you or not.” Another
women’s group included good communication skills, good rapport, and a couple
of groups discussed the importance of listening. These factors were not mentioned
in the men’s groups.
The one factor of good leadership mentioned in the male groups but not in the fe-
male groups was the use of tangible rewards for incentives. Although the men’s
groups explained the importance of recognition, they also added that monetary re-
wards should be used for incentives. One male participant illustrated this point by
telling of an annual retreat to the Caribbean that was offered to an entire office. An-
other participant commented, “Some of my friends get gift bonuses, huge bonuses.”

RQ3: How Do Respondents Perceive a Gendered Nature of

Leadership in Public Relations?
On the survey questionnaire, the measures that were helpful in answering this RQ
included whether participants considered themselves a leader and whether partici-
pants considered men or women as more effective leaders in public relations. Al-
though small, there was a significant difference between male and female re-
sponses to considering self a leader in public relations. Men more strongly agreed
that they considered themselves leaders, (t = 3.18, p < .01).
Overall, survey respondents did not agree that women made better leaders than
men (M = 2.71) and agreed strongly that men or women can be equally capable
176 ALDOORY AND TOTH

leaders (M = 4.57). However, when respondents were compared by sex, a statisti-

cally significant difference was found in which males more strongly disagreed that
women made better leaders,(t = –11.58, p = .000).
Detailed answers to RQ3 derived from the focus groups rather than the survey
because the focus group data offered in-depth explanations for opinions about
gendered leadership. In fact, most of the focus group discussions centered on gen-
der differences in leadership.
Some participants, both male and female, argued that men and women were
equally capable of being leaders. One male participant asserted, “It’s up to the indi-
vidual and it really doesn’t have anything to do with gender.” One woman said,
“I’ve worked for men and I’ve worked for women and I’ve liked both and I’ve dis-
liked both.”
However, most participants disagreed with the gender equality argument. Some
female participants said that men and women define leadership differently and
hold different status, which creates differences in leadership styles. These partici-
pants said that men define leadership as “power,” “problem solving,” and “con-
trol.” One woman said that men view leadership as being related to position,
whereas “women see leadership as related to a set of qualities.”
Unlike the general survey finding, most participants did express a preference
for female leaders over male leaders. One male participant remarked, “We joke
about, there’s the guy who runs the place, then there’s the woman who knows
what’s going on.”
The reasons given for female preference, however, ranged. A male participant
said that men who have years of experience in public relations are set in traditional,
ineffective leadership modes, whereas younger, less experienced women are open
to change and participative management. Another man said that female leaders are
less likely to discriminate based on gender. He explained:

We’re cave man. We like that kind of cave man type thing. Experiencing our feminine
side is a tough thing. But for women it’s not. They have real empathy … but they
tend, because of the treatment they’ve gotten over the years to be more even-handed
… so I believe they tend to be better leaders.

The characteristic of empathy was often brought up as a feminine trait useful for
leadership. As one man put it, women “can feel you more … which is helpful in
terms of leading folks.”
Another man described why he enjoyed working for women as situational
leadership:

A lot of it was that the woman who became the leader … was extremely tough. And
she was hard as nails and brought that to the table. … And it was very good to work
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 177

with her because you knew exactly which end was up, where you were going and
why … in fact, she still, not to sound sexist, but sort of had the feminine traits, real
good sensitivities around people.

Even though there was a general preference for female leadership, most partici-
pants admitted that for social, structural, or environmental reasons women do not
have the same leadership opportunities as men do in the industry. One male partici-
pant commented, “When you mix the genders together, then it starts to skew, with the
guys coming out ahead.” Another man remarked, “It’s still a man’s world.” Several
participants agreed that women have not been in public relations long enough to
reach corporate leadership roles and that clients and employees still prefer an experi-
enced leader rather than an inexperienced one, regardless of charisma. Another par-
ticipant said that specific organizational cultures affect women’s ability to lead. One
female participant explained that a male leader has more chances to hire and choose
their teams, whereas women “might fall into it and just be given people.” Another
perspective found in a men’s group suggested that men leave account service for the
“business of public relations.” One male in this group compared “functional leader-
ship,” which is the work of women, to “organizational, industry leadership,” which is
the venue for men. In this milieu, then, transactional leadership styles were per-
ceived as more successful for the men’s level of organizational leadership.
A few participants explained that socialization has constrained women’s roles
as leaders. For example, according to a couple of male participants, when women
“tear someone’s face off” it’s tolerated more, but when they “just play the rank
card, it goes over much worse.” A male participant explained, “Because it’s still so
contrary to prevailing social roles of women, even successful women. So when
they do it, whether they have to or not, I think there’s a lot more ill feeling.” Simi-
larly, a female participant described that when a male leader made a decision by
himself, he was viewed as very decisive, but when a woman leader did the same
thing, “she’s viewed as, you know, what does she think she’s doing without con-
sulting us.”
The socialization argument was also given by one of the female groups for why
men are leaving or not entering the public relations profession. Some of these par-
ticipants argued that men have difficulty being lead by women. Men have been so-
cialized to be the ones giving directions and solving problems, so if a woman is in a
leadership position, men have a hard time taking direction, “to go sit in their office
and have a woman running the place.” One participant explained how this has cre-
ated an even more female-intensive field:

I think women are really excellent account service people. I think it’s one of the rea-
sons we succeed in the field, and I think that when men don’t succeed that well and
don’t make it up the ladder, they just bail out.
178 ALDOORY AND TOTH

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

In this study, we used a quantitative survey and qualitative focus groups to start
building leadership theory specific to public relations. As previous literature sug-
gested (McWhinney, 1997; Rakow, 1989), this leadership theory started from per-
ceptions of leadership style and focused on the gendered nature of leadership in
public relations—how leadership perceptions are different by sex and how the con-
cept of leadership itself is gendered in public relations. In summary, the focus
group data supported survey results that indicated a strong preference for trans-
formational leadership style over transactional leadership. Differences between
transactional and pluralistic leadership styles were null. Focus group participants
used terms to describe effective public relations leadership that were similarly
used by scholars in describing transformational leadership: charisma, vision, and
the ability to mobilize others. The findings here support previous studies that indi-
cated strong relations between transformational leadership and positive follower
attitudes (Berson, 2001; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994).
The Leadership Preference Index, created with eight transformational leader-
ship variables, revealed internal consistency and a relatively high Cronbach’s al-
pha. This index could be helpful in assessing general and comparative preferred
leadership styles, but should be further tested for its usefulness in measuring public
relations leadership. The Leadership Preference Index score for the survey sample
indicated a high preference for transformational leadership. In addition, there was
a difference between male and female respondents’ scores, with women scoring
slightly higher than men.
The focus group discussions showed support also for a situational leadership
style, one that combines aspects of transactional and transformational leadership
in dealing with unique circumstances and environments. This was evidenced in the
participants’ combined desire for control and decision-making ability as well as
empathy and collaboration. These findings support Grunig’s ([with Dozier et al.],
1992) assumptions about excellent leaders providing both control and empower-
ment. The findings also extend Aldoory’s (1998) conclusions that women in public
relations leadership positions are “situational rhetors,” selecting certain trans-
actional and transformational tactics depending on the situation (p. 97).
Many comments by focus group participants connected the unique nature of
public relations, its work environment, structure, and goals to the need for
transformational leadership. Previous researchers found that transactional lead-
ership was more effective in stable, predictable environments (Lowe et al.,
1996), whereas transformational leaders thrived in turbulent times and during
crises (McWhinney, 1997). Focus group participants described public relations
as a job in a constantly changing, turbulent environment. This, then, may help
explain their desire for transformational attributes in public relations leadership.
In terms of gender, there were significant differences between male and female
survey respondents, how they perceived themselves as leaders, and how they per-
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 179

ceived effective leadership, but these differences were not strong. Similar to Coo-
per’s (1997) findings, the survey revealed that women rated themselves lower in
terms of being a leader than men did. However, in general, the survey revealed few
sex differences in perceptions of leadership style.
Even though the survey data revealed few differences, the focus group tran-
scripts indicated strong opinions by both male and female respondents about the
gendered nature of leadership. Just as past studies have met with conflicting find-
ings, the survey and focus groups conflicted in terms of gender and leadership in
public relations. On a broad, descriptive level, few sex differences emerged. Yet,
when individuals were offered time and confidentiality to share their opinions in
focus groups, distinctions were made with regards to feminine and masculine
forms of leadership, personal experiences with female and male leaders, and ac-
counts of being leaders with male or female subordinates.
Overall, focus group participants perceived women as making better leaders
in public relations due to the socialized traits they have acquired, that is, empa-
thy and collaborative efforts, which in turn create a transformational leadership
style. This supports Maher’s (1997) argument that women may be more ac-
cepted as leaders due to the connection between transformational style and femi-
nine traits. However, focus group participants also generally agree that women
do not have opportunities for leadership in public relations due to both socializa-
tion and structuralism (Lewis & Fagenson-Eland, 1998; Portello & Long, 1994).
Therefore, even though women are still ascribed stereotypically feminine traits
and even though these traits are associated with transformational leadership,
which is seen as more effective, the participants asserted that women are not yet
public relations leaders. Men with several years of experience who illustrate
transactional leadership style still hold most of the leadership positions accord-
ing to some focus group participants.
In conclusion, with the help of a body of literature in management and with the
results from this multimethodological study measuring leadership perceptions, a
public relations leadership theory is starting to emerge. The following are some
theoretical assumptions to be further tested: (a) effective public relations leader-
ship works within a worldview of transactional leadership; (b) but it functions on
an operational level as situational; (c) at this point in time, due to the connections
between transformational leadership and feminine traits, women may be more
suited to be public relations leaders; however, (d) organizational culture, general
business and economic environments, and socialized gender stereotypes all work
to constrain leadership style and women in leadership positions.
The practical contributions of this study include the understanding of leader-
ship styles as contingent on gender and on environment. The findings give public
relations practitioners some support for choosing transformational leadership as
an appropriate fit for accomplishing public relations goals. However, practitioners
also may envision how different leadership styles work in different situations
rather than focus on one stereotypical type of leadership. Women who are moving
180 ALDOORY AND TOTH

up into management positions may need to seriously consider the complexities of

enacting a feminine, a masculine, or a mixed style of leadership, depending on cir-
cumstances.
Theoretically, this study has contributed to the public relations body of knowl-
edge in several ways. First, it included a multimethodological approach to study-
ing leadership. Second, it helped close a gap in an area of research that has not been
covered in public relations. Third, its theory building attempts and its creation of a
Leadership Preference Index are fodder for several future studies in this area.

REFERENCES

Aldoory, L. (1998). The language of leadership for female public relations professionals. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 10, 73–101.
Astin, H. S., & Leland, C. (1991). Women of influence, women of vision: A cross-generational study of
leaders and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of
vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345–373.
Bartol, K. M., & Butterfield, D. A. (1976). Sex effects in evaluating leaders. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 67, 446–454.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the visions.
Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19–31.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M.
Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp.
49–80). New York: Academic.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through trans-
formational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of
men and women. Applied Psychology—An International Review, 45, 5–34.
Berson, Y. (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context. Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 53–74.
Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications
for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48–59.
Butterfield, D. A., & Grinnell, J. P. (1999). “Re-viewing” gender, leadership, and managerial behavior.
In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 223–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization
of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.
Carless, S. A. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior,
leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles, 39, 887–902.
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender effects on social influence and emergent leadership. In G. N.
Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 203–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Casimir, G. (2001). Combinative aspects of leadership style: The ordering and temporal spacing of
leadership behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 245–279.
Chapman, J. B., & Luthans, F. (1978). The female leadership dilemma. In B. A. Stead (Ed.), Women in
management (pp. 228–237). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 181

Cooper, V. W. (1997). Homophily or the queen bee syndrome: Female evaluation of female leadership.
Small Group Research, 28, 483–499.
Cruz, M. G., Henningsen, D. D., & Smith, B. A. (1999). The impact of directive leadership on group infor-
mation sampling, decisions, and perceptions of the leader. Communication Research, 26, 349–369.
Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: How real are they? Academy of
Management Review, 11, 118–127.
Doherty, A. J. (1997). The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived transformational/transactional
leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 11,
275–285.
Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership in
the Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 99–119.
Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
108, 233–256.
Eagly, A., Karau, S. J., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Gender and leadership style among school principals:
A meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 76–102.
Eagly, A., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 117, 125–145.
Eagly, A., Makhijani, M., & Klonsky, B. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: The
influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153–180.
Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualisms in leadership research. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new
handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp.
379–439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Farmer, B. A., Slater, J. W., & Wright, K. S. (1998). The role of communication in achieving shared vi-
sion under new organizational leadership. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 219–235.
Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an
across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 67–84.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 32–58.
Gardner, W. L., & Cleavenger, D. (1998). The impression management strategies associated with
transformational leadership at the world-class level. Management Communication Quarterly, 12,
3–41.
Gastil, J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and auto-
cratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25, 384–410.
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. Leadership Quar-
terly, 8, 153–170.
Grundstein-Amado, R. (1999). Bilateral transformational leadership: An approach for fostering ethical
conduct in public service organizations. Administration and Society, 31, 247–260.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Communication, public relations, and effective organizations: An overview of the
book. In J. E. Grunig (with D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White) (Eds.),
Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Grunig, J. E. (with Dozier, D. M., Ehling, W. P., Grunig, L. A., Repper, F. C., & White, J.). (Eds.).
(1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hackman, M. Z., Furniss, A. H., Hills, M. J., & Paterson, T. J. (1992). Perceptions of gender-role char-
acteristics and transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 75, 311–319.
182 ALDOORY AND TOTH

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors. Training and Devel-
opment Journal, 36, 50–52.
Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken: An exploration
of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communica-
tion Quarterly, 8, 165–188.
Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma
on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 423–448.
Knott, K. B., & Natalle, E. J. (1997). Sex differences, organizational level, and superiors’ evaluation of
managerial leadership. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 523–540.
Komives, S. (1991). The relationship of same- and cross-gender work pairs to staff performance and su-
pervisor leadership in residence hall units. Sex Roles, 24, 355–363.
Korabik, K., Baril, G. L., & Watson, C. (1993). Managers’ conflict management style and leadership ef-
fectiveness: The moderating effects of gender. Sex Roles, 29, 405–420.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary
things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, A. E., & Fagenson-Eland, E. A. (1998). The influence of gender and organization level on per-
ceptions of leadership behaviors: A self and supervisor comparison. Sex Roles, 39, 479–502.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype genera-
tion and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 311–339.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational
and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7,
385–425.
Luthar, H. K. (1996). Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership ability: Auto-
cratic vs. democratic managers. Sex Roles, 5/6, 337–161.
Maher, K. J. (1997). Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional leadership. Sex
Roles, 37, 209–225.
McWhinney, W. (1997). Paths of change: Strategic choices for organizations and society. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murray, A. F. (1995). Why think about leadership? Woman of Power, 24, 16–17.
Norris, W. R., & Vecchio, R. P. (1992). Situational leadership theory: A replication. Group & Organiza-
tion Management, 17, 331–342.
Pavitt, C., Whitchurch, G. G., McClurg, H., & Petersen, N. (1995). Melding the objective and subjec-
tive sides of leadership: Communication and social judgments in decision-making groups. Commu-
nication Monographs, 62, 243–264.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on
transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 22,
80–109.
Portello, J. Y., & Long, B. C. (1994). Gender role orientation, ethical and interpersonal conflicts, and
conflict handling styles of female managers. Sex Roles, 31, 683–701.
Ragins, B. R. (1991). Gender effects in subordinate evaluations of leaders: Real or artifact? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 12, 259–268.
Rakow, L. F. (1989). From the feminization of public relations to the promise of feminism. In E. L. Toth
& C. G. Cline (Eds.), Beyond the velvet ghetto (pp. 287–298). San Francisco: IABC Research Foun-
dation.
Rojahn, K., & Willemsen, T. M. (1994). The evaluation of effectiveness and likability of gender role
congruent and gender role incongruent leaders. Sex Roles 30, 109–119.
Rosener, J. B. (1994). Ways women lead. In N. A. Nichols (Ed.), Reach for the top: Women and the
changing facts of work life (pp. 13–23). Boston: Harvard Business Review.
 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 183

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in
military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409.
Sims, H. P., Jr., & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new leadership paradigm. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Thompson, M. D. (2000). Gender, leadership orientation, and effectiveness: Testing the theoretical
models of Bolman & Deal and Quinn. Sex Roles, 42, 969–992.
vanEngen, M. L., vanderLeeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context and leadership styles:
A field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 581–598.
van Zoonen, L. (1994). Feminist media studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waller, D. J., Smith, S. R., & Warnock, J. T. (1989). Situational theory of leadership. American Journal
of Hospital Pharmacology, 46, 2335–2341.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analy-
sis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787–811.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational
and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 40, 205–222.
Yukl, G. A. (1994). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.