Research Paper for Group Leadership: Leader Gender and Group Participation

Back

Leader Gender and Group Participation

Nathaniel Johnson

Group Leadership

Georgia College and State University

12/11/06

2467 Words

            Interacting with authority figures is a difficult activity with which many people struggle in academic and professional settings. The situation is made even more difficult in intimate settings and when the authority figure is the leader of the group and also a member of the opposite gender. While not all group dynamics model this situation, understanding small group dynamics with members and leaders of the opposite sex has implications across psychological, educational, business and political settings, to name only a few examples. The possible effects of group leader gender on group member participation could lead to a number of undesirable circumstances from increased groupthink to reduction in brainstorming. Understanding the size and magnitude of these effects is the first step in the process of learning how to best manage them.

            Researchers have probed many effects of gender on leaders and participants but not specifically leader gender and level of participation by group members (see for example, Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995, Gender and the Effectiveness of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis). Research into leader gender focused on gender stereotypes and how they play an important role in leadership to the point of affecting leadership effectiveness (Subich, 1983; Maher, 1997; Becker, Ayman, & Korabik, 2002, Clemmensen, 2002). Methodological research into group assessment is useful in developing and justifying the rating scale proposed for this study. These articles do not lead to direct predictions for the proposed study, but they provide valuable background information on the types of effects gender has on leadership.

Gender Stereotypes and Leadership

            Research into leader gender has focused on stereotypical leadership styles: the female transformational style versus the male transactional style (Subich, 1983; Maher, 1997; Becker, Ayman, & Korabik, 2002, Clemmensen, 2002). Subich (1983) found that while counselor gender had little effect on participants’ expectations, gender of participant significantly predicted expectations for the amount of facilitative leadership provided. Maher (1997) examined how managers were rated and found that while actual managers were rated equally, stereotypical managers were viewed differently according to participant gender. Becker, et al. (2002) focused on traditional gender roles and what happens when they are not followed. They found that leader’s perceptions and group perceptions differed most when leaders were filling non-traditional roles. Clemmensen (2002) took a more qualitative approach in looking at how group leaders working in same versus single sex pairs were credited with teaching different instructional components. When males were present, they tended to be more often complimented for technical skills, while females were credited for facilitation. Attributions for leadership effectiveness were found by Hogue, Yoder & Ludwig (2002) to be affected by gender. Male leaders were followed without question while female leaders required either researcher-provided or participant-created justification for why they were chosen as the leader.

 Developing Group Assessment Instruments

Ryan, Daum, Bauman, Grisez, Mattimore, Nalodika, and McCormick (1995) investigated expressed group behaviors. Their results suggests that the measures proposed for use in this study should accurately reflect the reality of the group dynamics because they are created using a system that allows for observers to control viewing.  Other research also supports the reliability of coding behavioral acts in methods similar to the one proposed for this study (Gosling, John, Craik, Robins, 1998). Research from Hafner (2003) into the use of rubrics as peer assessment tools also supports the potential validity of the rating system proposed for this study since the rating system resembles a rubric in many ways.

Group Leader Gender and Participant Gender Interactions

Current investigations into leader gender have focused on stereotypes and perception. With a background understanding of these areas, whether they are real or only perceived, researchers might next focus more on what effects these gender differences create. It appears possible that the gender of group leaders will have an effect on participants. There does not appear to be an easily accessible body of research at this point into the effects of participant gender within groups. This information would be useful in providing a background against which to measure other effects. The present exploratory study hypothesizes that participants in groups led by members of the opposite sex will show different levels of participation than participants in groups with same sex leaders.

Method

Participants

            Participants were 23 college-age students enrolled in an upper-level group dynamics psychology course at a medium size liberal arts university in the southeastern United States. There were 15 female participants and 8 male participants. Participants were predominantly non-Hispanic white. Ages ranged from approximately 20 to 30 years with a median age around 21. Participants enrolled in the course to complete part of their major or minor requirement, and participation in the study was required as an integral part of the class curriculum. Participants did not receive any compensation for participating in this study.

Research Design

             This study used group leader gender and group member gender as the independent variables to assess differences in rates of participation resulting from interactions between group member gender and facilitator gender. The 23 participants were divided into three groups of seven to eight each. Each group had a similar ratio of males to females. One graduate student facilitator worked with each group over the course of the academic semester. There was one male facilitator and two female facilitators. They were enrolled in a similar class to the undergraduates at the time fo the study. These 12 weekly sessions were 1 hour 15 minutes each. Every week the group was presented with a different group development activity or exercise led and debriefed by the facilitator. All groups completed the same activities in the same weeks.

Instruments

Group member participation was operationalized as averages across gender of weekly scores from an online assessments based on The Platt Affective Behavior Scales (Platt, 1978) and Bales’ (1950) observational categories. Participants and facilitators reviewed a segment of video of the previous group session online every week outside of the regular sessions in order to complete the assessment. Every participant completed all the items for all the other participants, including their self. Facilitators also completed the assessments every week. The assessment from The Platt Affective Behavior Scale included the following dimensions: Trying new things; Initiative;Expression of opinion; Cooperation;Expression of emotion;and Perseverance. Dimensions from Bales’ observational categories included: Shows tension release, laughs shows satisfaction;Gives suggestion, directs, proposes, controls;Gives information, orients, repeats, clarifies, confirms;Asks for information, orientation, confirmation, clarification;Asks for opinion, requests evaluation, analysis, expression of feeling or wishes; andAsks for suggestion, requests directions. The results of the survey were downloaded directly; there was no scoring necessary. See appendix 1 for the full survey. The process of reviewing the video and completing the scale took participants approximately 1 hour each week.

Results

Overview

            This study examines gender differences in participation with a 2x2 ANOVA comparing participant gender and leader gender for each subscale of the assessment. Scores from the online assessment are averaged according to participant gender to yield an average score on each item by gender for each group for each week. These averaged scores are entered into SPSS in order to calculate descriptive statistics and a MANOVA. Related to the exploratory question of this study, significant results are found for participant gender and facilitator gender.

Inferential Analysis

            MANOVA indicates significant differences on scores for 10 items of the assessment instrument. Participant gender significantly influences assessed participation rates on the following variables: Trying New Things F(1)=5.55, p<.05; Expression of Opinion F(1)=4.11, p<.05; and Gives Suggestion F(1)=4.44, p<.05. Facilitator gender significantly influences participation rates on the following variables: Trying New Things F(1)=34.34, p<.05; Expression of Opinion F(1)=15.69, p<.05; Shows Tension Release F(1)=8.25, p<.05; Gives Suggestion F(1)=26.26, p<.05; Gives Information F(1)=5.81, p<.05; Asks for Information F(1)=14.19, p<.05; and Asks for Suggestion F(1)=7.11, p<.05. (See Table 1) An explanation of how these items differed follows in the descriptive statistics section.

Table 1

Analysis of Variance for Participation

Between Subjects

Descriptive Statistics

            Table 2 lists the means, standard deviations, and numbers of participants for assessment items with significant differences between males and female participants. The differences in means are no larger than .18 points on a 5 point scale. “Gives Suggestion” was the item with the largest difference in mean as well as the largest standard deviation. Male students rated as participating more often than female students on all significant items. “Gives suggestion” is scored reverse from the other items, meaning that a lower score indicates a higher level of participation.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Participation by Participant Gender

*item is reverse scored

            Table 3 lists means, standard deviations, and numbers of participants for assessment items with significant differences between facilitator genders. The differences in means are up to 0.5 points on a 5 point scale with standard deviations up to 0.56. “Gives Suggestion” was again the item with the largest difference in mean. Shows Tension Release had the largest standard deviation. Male led groups rated as participating at higher rates than female led groups on all significant items. The last four items are scored reverse from the other items, meaning that lower scores indicate higher levels of participation.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for Participants by Facilitator Gender

*item is reverse scored

Discussion

Summary of Results

            Participants in this study are rated as participating at different rates on some of the assessment categories according to either the gender of the participant, or the gender of the group leader. Male participants have a tendency to be ranked as participating at higher rates in the categories of Trying New Things, Expression of Opinion, and Gives Suggestion. In groups led by males, participants, both male and female, have a tendency to be ranked as participating at higher rates in the categories of Trying New Things, Expression of Opinion, Shows Tension Release, Gives Suggestion, Gives Information, Asks for Information, and Asks for Suggestion.

            These results do not support the original hypothesis that there would be an interaction between participant gender and facilitator gender. If the original hypothesis were supported, male participants would have still been ranked higher in male led groups, but female participants would have been ranked higher in female led groups. The significant differences according to facilitator gender are not unexpected given the amount of research into gender and facilitator effectiveness (see Becker, Ayman, & Korabik, 2002; Clemmensen, 2002; Maher, 1997; Subich, 1983). Participants may have been influenced by their perceptions of facilitator competence according to facilitator gender and participated more or less depending on the subsequent tone of the sessions. The greater participation rate of males across groups is not supported in the reviewed literature but is not unexpected if there is truth to the stereotype that males are more aggressive than females.

Limitations and Future Directions

            The first limitation of this study is the small size of the differences detected. While they are statistically significant, few of the differences are of a size that should be considered important. Shows Tension Release and Gives Suggestion are the most important differences. Future research could be designed to look closer at these items in particular.

            A second limitation in this study is that the participants were not selected randomly. As such, the results from this research may be skewed from normal and are not easily generalized to a population beyond undergraduate college psychology students. If this experiment were to be run again, it would be better to select from a wider population.

            Participants were required to complete the assessments each week, but there were still many weeks where not all participants completed the survey creating gaps in the data. This missing information could have influenced the results heavily in any direction, especially since it was often the same individuals that failed to complete the survey.

            In addition to not completing the assessment, there is a possibility that participants did not complete the assessment in the manner intended. Participants were asked to watch a video of the past weeks session in order to complete the assessment. Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties and busy schedules participants may have sometimes completed assessments from memory instead of from the videos. This could change the data significantly since without data, assessment then comes from stereotypes and impressions instead of actual behaviors. In the future, assessment of group members could be done by a trained rater instead of participants. This would reduce inconsistency within the data.

            Participants also indicated concern about the rating choices on the assessments. They did not feel the options provided adequately expressed the variety of interactions that occurred during the group sessions. They also expressed feelings that there were “right” and “wrong” answers. If participants answered according to what they thought was “right” instead of what happened it could have skewed the data generated. This issue could be addressed in the future by carefully rewording the responses to the questions. Alternatively using a trained rater could also alleviate this issue.

            There are some important limitations to consider with the video taping system. The taping was done with an analog recording system, then converted to a digital video file, then compressed to reduce file size before being posted online. This process resulted in some degradation of sound and video quality. In particular, depending on the speaker system used to listen to the video it was sometimes hard to understand clearly who was saying what during the video. This was especially a problem when multiple people spoke at the same time. It is possible that due to the higher vocal register and perhaps lower volume of female voices that more female verbal initiatives were lost in the subsequent assessment than male initiatives which would skew results towards the males. The use of a trained rater who would not need access to videos online would reduce this limitation. A trained rater would likely review confusing segments of a video more carefully than a participant.

            Another methodological limitation is in the sample size. Since the design of this study uses facilitator gender as one of the dependent variables, the sample size for that side of the study was essentially only three. This small sample size could have influenced the results significantly. It is likely that the differences detected across facilitator gender were actually just minor personality differences between the single group led by a male and the two groups led by females. A similar study with a greater number of groups would determine if the effect found is real or just an artifact of the small sample size.

Conclusions

            It appears that gender is an important factor to consider when designing groups. Groups composed of and led by males might have an advantage at tasks that require higher levels of participation, or a disadvantage at quieter tasks! Future iterations of this study might add additional independent variables like: single sex groups with same sex or opposite sex leaders; co-ed leadership teams with any of the types of groups; and different types and lengths of tasks. Further investigation into the reasons why these trends exist might suggest possibilities of how to tailor group composition to ensure maximum benefit from the group process for all members.

References

Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley

Becker, J., Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2002). Discrepencies in self/subordinates’ perceptions of leadership behavior. Group & Organization Management, 27(2), 226-244.

Clemmensen, B. (2002). An exploration of differences and perceptions of differences between male and female challenge course instructors. The Journal of Experiential Education, 25(1), 214-219.

Gosling, S., John, O., Craik, K., Robins, R. (1998). Do people know how they behave.  Self-reported act frequencies compared with on-line codings by observers.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1337-1349.     

Eagly, A., Karau, S., Makhijani, M. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125-145.

Hafner, J. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: an empirical  study of student peer-group rating. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1509-1528.

Hogue, M., Yoder, J., & Ludwig, J. (2002). Increasing initial leadership effectiveness:   Assisting both women and men. Sex Roles, 46(11/12), 377-384.

Maher, K. (1997). Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional      leadership. Sex Roles, 37(3-4), 209-225.

Platt, A. (1978). The development, evaluation, and application of the Platt affective behavior scales (PABS) – A self-concept observer system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.

Roland, C. (n.d.). Supplement your program evaluation- Try observer systems. Hancock, New Hampshire.

Ryan, A., Daum, D., Bauman, T., Grisez, M., Mattimore, K., Nalodika, T., & McCormick, S. (1995). Direct, indirect, and controlled observationand rating            accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 664-670.

Subich, L. (1983). Expectations for counselors as a function of counselor gender specification and subject sex. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(3), 421-424.

 Appendix 1

Online Assessment Instrument

 Type your WebCT ID (Login)

Which Week (Click to identify)

Click the drop down menu for each person in your group based only on what you see on the video.

            Trying New Things

                        Did not attempt task

                        Attempted task only under external pressure and not fulfill task

                        Delayed or exhibited reluctance in attempting/completing task

                        Willingly attempted/completed task

                        Attempted/completed task without hesitation

                        Absent- not in class     

            Initiative

Took no overt, positive, or voluntary initiative toward task

Took initiative but is rejected by group

Took infrequent initiative towards task

Frequently took initiative and influenced the entire group

Regularly sought out and accepted by group

Absent- not in class

            Expression of Opinion

Made frequent negative or task destructive comments

Made frequent irrelevant or self-oriented comments

Made few or no verbal initiatives

Made some comments which are positing and task supportive

Absent- not in class     

            Cooperation

Frequently obstructed group process and acted independently of group

Withdrew from active participation or did not participate in group process

Passively followed a leader or group

Actively supported group process and affirmed leadership of others

Gave up status position for sake of completing task

Absent- not in class     

            Expression of Emotion

Did not express any feelings or emotions

Expressed mostly self-oriented and negative emotions

Verbalized or expressed superficial feelings and emotions

Expressed spontaneously a range of affirmative feelings and emotions

Discussed and commented upon feelings in front of peers

Absent- not in class     

            Perseverance

Observed not to participate, to quit or suggest quitting

Often distracted from task

Had very erratic task attention

Had task involvement during several attempts to solve problem

Rejected idea of quitting

Absent- not in class     

            Shows tension release Laughs, shows satisfaction

Almost always

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Not observed

Absent

            Gives suggestion Directs, proposes, controls

Almost always

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Not observed

Absent

            Gives information Orients, repeats, clarifies, confirms

Almost always

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Not observed

Absent

            Asks for information, orientation, confirmation, clarification

Almost always

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Not observed

Absent

            Asks for opinion Requests evaluation, analysis, expression of feeling or wishes

Almost always

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Not observed

Absent

            Asks for suggestion Requests directions

Almost always

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely

Not observed

Absent

Back