Cynthia Adams
Global President of Products, Certification, & Community

Lani Van Dusen, Ph.D.
External Director

Understanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACTKEY FINDINGSCONTEXT SETTING – WHAT THE LITERATURE SAYS

5
5

Gender Differences in Leadership Style5

Gender Differences in Leadership Skills and Effectiveness

7

Limitations of Past Research

8

METHODOLOGY – STUDIES USING THE LCP DATABASE
The Leadership Circle Profile 

10
10Creative and Reactive Orientation Context 

10Description of the Assessment

10

Reliability and Validity

12

Leadership Effectiveness and Qualitative Feedback

13

Characteristics of the LCP Database 

13Analyses17

Quantitative Analyses

17

Qualitative Analyses

18

FINDINGSDifferences in Female and Male Leadership Profiles

19
19Creative Competencies

21

Reactive Tendencies

23

Differences in Leadership Effectiveness

27

Differences Among Highly Effective Leaders

28

Leadership Effectiveness Development Trajectories 

34

Pervasive Differences

2

4

41

Influence of Management Level

41

Influence of Age

43

Influence of Culture 

43© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Differences in How Leaders Rate Themselves

46

CONCLUSION – PUTTING THE FINDINGS IN CONTEXT

49

Why are there Gender Differences in Leadership?

51

Hypothesis 1: Females have innate and/or socialized skills
that provide an advantage in leadership as it develops. 

51

Hypothesis 2: Female leaders are more demanding of theirperformance and so work harder at development.

52

Hypothesis 3: Males are promoted to leadership positions evenif less skilled and thus are at a comparative disadvantage.

53

Developing Leaders toward Higher Effectiveness within an Organization 54
Coaching and Developing the Average Male Leader:
The Forceful Knower 

55

Coaching and Developing the Average Female Leader:
The Exhausted Hero55

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

59

APPENDIX – DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LCP SUB-DIMENSIONS60

REFERENCES

62

3© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

ABSTRACTAs more females assume leadership roles in organizations, it becomes increasingly important tounderstand orientations to leadership, the skills they bring, the challenges they face, and the impact
they have as compared with leaders who identify as male so that gender norms, expectation, andbias do not restrict opportunity. Unfortunately, current research is often contradictory and/or the
methodology is too simplistic to capture the complexity of gender differences, leaving room for
multiple interpretations of the findings. Many studies have drawbacks or limitations that restrict
the insights that can be gleaned. Studies often employ non-standardized measures, conductedwith small or narrowly focused samples. There is an over-reliance on self-assessments without any
correlation to how leaders actually perform. Further, most studies focus on only one aspect ofleadership and very few assess both style and effectiveness.
What is needed is a comprehensive study that measures multiple aspects of leadership and canshed light on which of the previous findings most accurately describes the differences between
the leadership of females and males. Enter the Leadership Circle Profile (LCP), a scientificallydeveloped and validated instrument that has been administered to tens of thousands of leaders
around the world. By mining the LCP database, we were able to analyze all of the variables that
previous studies indicate play a role in gender leadership and draw conclusions that resolve pastinconsistencies, answer many of the questions that have not previously been well-addressed andextend the current research in new and meaningful ways.
For this research study, the categorization of male and female leaders was based on selfidentification. The authors acknowledge that not all leaders identify with these two gendercategories; however, within our database most leaders did select these two identifiers.
Our findings reveal that there are meaningful differences in how female and male leaders show
up in the workplace. Further, these differences favor female leaders, who have developed a more
Creative orientation allowing them to positively influence relationships and goal achievement,
rather than simply reacting to external expectations, rules, or conditions. We also found interactions
between leader characteristics and gender differences, and when we compared and contrasted
leaders’ self-perceptions with their actual performance as viewed through the eyes of co-workers,
we found gender-related variations in the levels of self-awareness and the demands that leaders
place on their leadership.
This paper concludes with a summary of our findings and how they explain inconsistencies in past
research. We also present three leading explanations for why gender differences in leadership
exist and the evidence from our findings that lend support or counter each hypothesis. We close
the paper with recommendations for how organizations can use our findings to create the bestdevelopment pathways forward for both female and male leaders.

4© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

KEY FINDINGS•

Female leaders more often lead from a Creative orientation and less often from a Reactiveorientation compared with male leaders.

•Female leaders express more developed competencies in Relating, Authenticity, and Systems
Awareness than male leaders. Female leaders show up noticeably different from male leaders
in terms of building caring connections, mentoring and developing others, and showing
concern for the community.

•

Female leaders are perceived to be more effective than male leaders. The difference in
effectiveness is less about different types of skills possessed by female and male leaders andmore about the elevated development level for female leaders, creating a feminine leadership
advantage.

•

Gender differences related to several Creative leadership competencies and Reactive
tendencies change as leadership effectiveness changes.

•

Female leaders show up more Creatively than male leaders at every management level, age
level, and across cultures.

•

Female leaders underestimate their skills and influence to a greater extent than male leaders.

CONTEXT SETTING – WHAT THE LITERATURE SAYS
Female and male gender differences in leadership have been studied for years, beginning in the
1950s and with a significant upsurge in the new millennium. Throughout the two decades since,
there has been a steady stream of position papers, anecdotal evidence, and formal research studies.
This summary is not meant to be an exhaustive review of the literature but rather to lay out thecritical findings with a focus on the most recent research. For a more complete understandingof the studies that have been conducted and the resulting outcomes, we direct the reader to thecomprehensive reviews found in the following articles: Vecchio, 2003; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt,
2007; and Jonsen, Maznevski, & Schneider, 2010.

Gender Differences in Leadership Style
Much of the literature on differences in leadership between female and male leaders has focusedon the different ways in which they lead, their orientations to leadership, and the specific traits
each gender relies on to lead – what may loosely be defined as style. Across studies, there havebeen some consistent stylistic differences, but also wide variations in the traits that various studies
purport distinguish feminine and masculine leadership. The table below (and continuing on to thenext page) provides a sampling of the categorizations of leadership style attributed to female andmale leaders with accompanying traits. (More detailed descriptions of the varying leadership styles
and traits can be found in Wharton, 2005, Levy, 2010; and Eklund, Barry, & Grunberg, 2017.)

5© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Feminine Leadership Styles
Communal

Agentic

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Caring / compassionate
Sensitive & understanding
Empathetic
Flexible
Concern for the welfare of others
Nurturing
GentleAssertive
Competitive
Independent
Risk takerTask-oriented
Controlling
Aggressive

Participative

Directive / Authoritative

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Cooperative
Democratic
Open & fairInteraction-focusedInterpersonal connections
Efficient problem solver
Copes with uncertainty

Goal / task-oriented
Independently active
Top-down decision-making
Initiative / ambitious
Aggressive / forcefulSelf-sufficient
Self-confident / self-esteem

Transformational

Transactional

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Interpersonally sensitive
Role model
Gain followers through trust & inspiration
Mentor and empower others
Enthusiastic / passionate
Focused on group success

Establish give and take relationships
Appeals to subordinates’ self-interests
Reward and punish orientation
Focused on personal success
Promotes compliance
Conventional

Social Expressive

Instrumental

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

6

Masculine Leadership Styles

Personal attention to subordinates
Focus on creating good work
environment
Collaborative
Provides emotional support /encouraging
Feedback-oriented
Affiliation-focused
Energetic and enthusiastic
High need for approval
Passive / avoidant
Conventional© Leadership Circle | All Rights Reserved

Focused on giving direction
Command and control
Goal / task-oriented
Focused on productivity and efficiency
Innovative / Creative problem-solver
Strategic
Composed
Oppositional / aggressive
Perfectionistic

Understanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Some articles and studies use the categorical descriptors interchangeably, and as the tableindicates, there is a good deal of similarity in descriptors across frameworks (reading down thecolumns in the table). At the same time, some traits are dependent upon which framework you areusing. For example, effective problem solving is associated with Participative leadership (ascribedto female leaders) and to Instrumental leadership (ascribed to male leaders). Being conventional(a defensive characteristic) is associated with Social Expressive leadership (ascribed to female
leaders) and to Transactional leadership (ascribed to male leaders). These differences may help
explain contradictory results in research studies (further described below). However, acrossthese frameworks, there is a consistent feminine leadership style that might best be described as“relationship-oriented” and a masculine leadership style that can be described as “task-oriented.”
Numerous studies provide evidence that these two opposing styles exist and differentiate between
the genders (e.g., Trinidad & Normore, 2005; Appelbaum, Audet, & Miller, 2003; Eagly & Carli, 2007;
Merchant, 2012, Chaluvadi, 2015; Radu, Deaconu, & Frăsineanu, 2017; Business News Daily, 2020).
These studies predominately provide evidence from two sources: 1) self-report by leaders on whatstyle they use; or 2) study participants ascribing leadership qualities to male and female leaders ingeneral. Very few studies have looked in a more objective way at whether female and male leaders
show up differently in the organization, nor do they ask participants to rate specific female andmale leaders with whom they work. In fact, the methodology used may be greatly influencing
results. For example, a study conducted by Cliff (2005) found that observed leadership practicesof female and male business owners did not differ even though they reported their orientations inmore gender-stereotypical ways.
Other studies have also failed to find differences in the leadership style of female and male leaders(e.g., Riggio, 2010; Kent, 2010; Anderson & Hansson, 2011). These studies reveal that female leaders
exhibit many of the same traits as male leaders and vice versa. Further, in a large meta-analysis of
45 studies looking at Transformational and Transactional leadership, Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt,& van Engen (2003) found only small and not practically meaningful differences in the styles offemale and male leaders.

Gender Differences in Leadership Skills and Effectiveness
Several researchers have focused on assessing gender differences in terms of managements skills
and the overall effectiveness of female and male leaders. A good review of these studies can befound in an article by Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr (2014).
In a landmark meta-analytic review of multiple studies, Eagly, Karau, & Makhijan (1995) found small
but statistically significant differences in effectiveness between female and male leaders, withfemale leaders performing higher than their male counterparts in most studies. However, they also
found that the overlap in performance between genders is considerable and that there were almost
as many highly effective male leaders as there were female leaders.
More recent research has produced inconsistent results. Several studies show female leaders
outperforming male leaders; other studies show differences depending on the skills area, with somefavoring female leaders and some favoring male leaders; and yet other studies show no genderdifferences in overall leadership effectiveness.
Studies that have reported a “feminine leadership advantage” are often based on the positive
correlation between Transformational leadership (the style often attributed to female leaders) and7© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leadersleadership effectiveness (e.g., Yukl, 2002; Burke & Collins, 2001; Rosette & Tost, 2010). These studies
tend to rely on self-reported styles and self-reported performance. In contrast, other studies haveshown that self-ratings of style and objective measures of performance are not correlated (e.g.,Smith, Rosenstein, & Nikolov, 2018).
Studies that rely on participants rating female and male leaders in general (no reference topersonally known leaders) have yielded mixed results. For example, Horowitz, Igielnik, & Parker(2018) found that there was “little difference between men and women on a range of specificcompetencies that may be required for effective leadership.” However, for the few exceptions where
they found variations, the differences favored female leaders – like their finding that female leaders’abilities in compassion, empathy, and working out compromises were rated higher than maleleaders’ capabilities in these areas.
Other studies have used measures that assess leadership performance from a 360° perspective thatlook at multiple management skills and overall effectiveness from those working with the leaders.
These studies often find that female leaders excel in a large preponderance of leadership skills. For
example, in a study conducted by the Hagberg Consulting Group (cited in Kinicki & Williams, 2009),
female leaders were ranked higher than their male counterparts on 42 out of 52 skills. Ibarra andObodaru (2009) found that female leaders performed better than male leaders in all areas except
vision. Zenger & Folkman (2019) found that female leaders were more effective than male leaderson 84% of the competencies they measured, although there were some areas that male leaders
performed better, namely strategic perspective and technical / professional expertise. In addition,
they found that female leaders were viewed as better overall leaders than male leaders.
Finally, some 3600 studies have found that both female and male leaders are effective but that themost effective skills of female leaders are different from the most effective skills of male leaders.
For example, a Talent Innovations Assessment (as reported in Leadership, 2012) found that female
leaders score higher on competencies related to planning, respect and empathy for others, andpersonal responsibility, whereas male leaders score higher on strategic vision, commercial focus,
and personal impact.

Limitations of Past ResearchSome of the contradictory evidence from past research may be an artifact of the differing
methodologies and limited databases used. Vecchio (2002) was one of the first strong proponents
arguing for the need of more robust research. He suggests that this research be based on
measures that incorporate both leadership behaviors and leadership effectiveness and that do notpresuppose stereotypic reasoning – for example, measures that are dependent on others choosing
word descriptors that may have stereotypic connotations and result in outcomes consistent
with the stereotype and not necessarily performance. He also argues that unreliable results canbe obtained when evaluators are asked to rate imaginary people or leaders in general, and that
research should be based on asking evaluators to rate a specific leader with whom they work toyield valid results.
Vecchio along with others also question the use of self-data to draw conclusion about genderdifferences, suggesting that self-report may be quite different than actual practice of leadership.
For example, a study conducted by Paustian-Underdah, Walker, & Woehr (2014) found that “whenother-ratings only are examined, women are rated as significantly more effective than men. In
contrast, when self-ratings only are examined, men rate themselves as significantly more effective

8© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leadersthan women rate themselves.” Further, in a large study, Hamori-Ota (2007) used regression
analyses to triangulate self-reports from 5,000 leaders with the ratings of bosses, peers, and direct
reports and found that both female and male leaders were not very accurate in perceiving theirown leadership skill. In this study, she also found that age was a contributing factor to leadershipeffectiveness, which is rarely looked at in other studies.
Although there are some notable exceptions (e.g., Globe Study, 2004), most studies have looked
at leadership performance within one culture or one country only. However, several theorists (e.g.,
Snaebjornsson, Edvardsson, Zydziunaite, & Vaiman, 2015; Madsen & Scribner, 2017) suggest that
research needs to include multiple cultures and work settings to disentangle gender differencesfrom other stereotypes or influences.
Further, in our brief canvas of the literature we could find only one study that incorporated both
qualitative (e.g., word descriptions) and quantitative measures (e.g., rating scales). Yet studies that
rely on only one method have often found results that are contradictory to studies relying on theother method. A mixed methods design could help answer questions that neither type of researchin isolation can provide (Stentz, Clark, & Matkin, 2012).
Finally, the conclusions drawn from many studies may be questionable due to the limited sample
size or the analyses employed. Several studies in the literature are based on the author’s personal
experiences or anecdotal evidence from a single organization or group of leaders and thus theconclusions drawn may not be representative of leadership gender differences in the population.
Interpretive insights drawn from studies that have used larger samples are sometimes constrainedby the limited data analytic techniques they employ – for example, simple frequency counts within
their data, which may lead to conclusions that are not statistically significant. Even when studies
use more robust data analytic techniques, researchers often report only statistical significanceor the probability that the difference occurred by chance alone. Although this latter method is a
step in the right direction, the results can be greatly influenced by the size of the sample. That is, a“real” difference may be small and inconsequential in terms of leadership impact. Indeed, a metaanalysis of research on gender differences conducted by Hyde (2005) found that although moststudies showed statistically significant differences between female and male leaders, the practicalmeaningfulness of these differences was very small or non-existent.

To better understand the true differences in leadership between female and male leaders, researchis needed that utilizes a standardized (non-stereotypical) leadership instrument that:•incorporates both quantitative and qualitative assessments•

measures leadership traits / skills / competencies as well as leadership effectiveness•relies on evaluations from individuals working closely with the leader

Further, to address many of the past limitations of research and to provide depth of insight, theresearch should be conducted with a large sample of leaders from various backgrounds, cultures,
and age groups, among other variables. The data analytics employed should test for practicalmeaningfulness as well as statistical significance.

9© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

METHODOLOGY – STUDIES USING THE LCP DATABASE
We conducted a series of studies over a three-year period from 2017-2019 looking into various
aspects of gender differences in leadership. Based on secondary analyses of data collected fromleaders around the world using the industry-leading comprehensive assessment of leadership,
known as the Leadership Circle ProfileTM, we were able to explore many variables and hypotheses ingreater detail than what has been accomplished in most previous research.
These studies are based on using a mixed-methods design in which both quantitative andqualitative data were collected from over a million evaluators who directly worked with the leaders
they were rating (e.g., bosses, peers, and direct reports) in a variety of situations and industries.
In addition, we collected self-perceptions of leadership traits and effectiveness from the leaders
themselves. The validity of the instrument, diversity of the sample, and robustness of the analyses
we employed are all described below.

The Leadership Circle Profile
Creative and Reactive Orientation Context
The Leadership Circle Profile assessment is based upon a
Universal Model of Leadership. The assessment measuresboth behavior and meaning making assumptions at various
stages of development and is built on an integrative modelof leadership, or the Universal Model of Leadership. Bob
Kegan’s Stages of Development framework forms the
backbone of the model. Along the horizontal line exists
two distinct core operating systems, namely, Creative andReactive orientations utilized in leadership. When comparing
Adult Development frameworks to this model, Creative leadershipentails “post conventional” development and Reactive leadershipreflects “conventional or socialized” development (see Appendix –Descriptions of the LCP Sub-Dimensions). There are popular language distinctions punctuating thedifferences: “play to win vs play not to lose,” “purpose-driven vs problem-focused,” “ above the lineor below the line, “servant leadership vs self-focused.” “Creative and Reactive” distinctions utilize“more effective and less effective” leadership.

Description of the Assessment
The LCP is a comprehensive 360o assessment that includes quantitative rating scales aggregatedinto eight important leadership dimensions that assess both Creative and Reactive orientations
to leadership. Creative and Reactive constructs are further specified as leadership competencies
and Reactive tendencies, pointing to characteristic ways of thinking, and internalizing that drive
meaning making and behavior patterns.
Creative leadership competencies contribute to leadership effectiveness. They measure key
leadership behaviors and internal assumptions that lead to high fulfillment, high achievement
leadership and greater capacity for complexity. Five Creative leadership competency dimensions

10© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leadersreflect greater development in Creative orientation where one’s self-worth is configured from withinrather from external sources. This ability to lead more fully from purpose, unleashes energy in thesystem, authentic capacity, and produces greater levels of sustainable leadership performance,skills, knowledge, and behavior competencies.
•

The Relating Dimension score reflects leaders’ capabilities to relate to others in a way thatbrings out the best in people, groups, and organizations.

•

The Self-Awareness Dimension score reflects leaders’ orientation to ongoing professional
and personal development, and the degree to which self-awareness can bring balance.

•

The Authenticity Dimension score reflects leaders’ capabilities to relate to others in anauthentic, courageous, and high integrity manner.

•

The Systems Awareness Dimension score reflects the degree to which leaders’ awareness isfocused on whole system improvement and on community welfare.

•

The Achieving Dimension score reflects the extent to which leaders provide visionary
purpose, create strategic focus, and set high performance standards.

Reactive orientation begins in formative years, developing deeper pathways as one matures
both in adulthood and leadership, assisting us in making choices for how to safely navigate self
into circumstance. Reactive tendencies are selected behaviors based upon early assumptions
and underlying beliefs about how to maintain relevance and security, with reliance on external
circumstances and others’ validation of self-worth.
Since Reactive tendencies are built from an anxiety-containing, security-seeking orientation,
they correlate with self-limiting leadership behaviors and reflect inner beliefs and assumptions
that restrict leadership effectiveness, authentic expression and the experience of leadership that
invigorates self and others. The three Reactive tendency dimensions can result in performance
strategies that contain associated costs and limit leadership performance, skills, knowledge, andbehavior. Higher scores in these dimensions interfere with leadership effectiveness.
•

The Controlling Dimension score reflects the extent to which leaders’ sense of worth isderived through task accomplishments and personal achievements.

•

The Protecting Dimension score reflects leaders’ beliefs that they can protect themselves
and establish a sense of worth through withdrawing, remaining distant, hidden, aloof, cynical,
superior, and/or rational.

•

The Complying Dimension score reflects the extent to which leaders’ self-worth and security
is attained through complying with the expectations of others rather than taking action onwhat they intend and want.

Each dimension is further broken down into sub-dimensions that provide detailed understanding of
the specific skills and behaviors associated with each dimension. (A description of each of the subdimensions is provided in the Appendix.)
LCP results are captured in a circle graphic that shows the profile for a particular leader andprovides a comprehensive look into the leader’s developed abilities, as depicted in the illustration.
The eight core dimensions are shown in the inner circle of the graphic and the sub-dimensions

11© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

are displayed in the outer circle. The performancelevel within each dimension is computed bycomparing leader performance to a global
norm group of leaders.
Results are also aggregated into
two summary measures reflecting
leadership orientation andcorrespond to the hemispheresof the graphic. The ReactiveCreative Scale measures theextent to which individuals
lead from a Creative, as
opposed to a Reactive,
orientation. Creative (tophalf of the circle) is about
bringing into being what theleader desires most. Reactive(bottom half of the circle) is
about reacting to what theleader doesn’t want, as opposedto creating what they do. Thissummary measure also indicates thedegree to which a leader’s identity
and motivation come from within versus
being determined by external expectations,rules, or conditions.
Relationship-Task Balance measures the degree ofbalance a leader shows between the achievement competencies (right side of the circle) andrelationship competencies (left side of the circle). This summary measure indicates whether or
not a leader favors tasks over people or vice versa, or is balanced in their approach, utilizing both
simultaneously to create results.

Reliability and Validity
The LCP is based on an integration of theoretical models of management and human development,
providing a synthesis of core constructs and higher-order constructs that attempt to approximate
the complexity of leadership. The resulting multi-faceted framework of constructs has been
examined using confirmatory factor analysis, which tests the fit of data with the predicted structureof the constructs. The results of these analyses show that the LCP is a reliable and valid assessmentof leadership development. The reader is referred to the study conducted at Bowling Green State
University (Dalal, Lin, Smith, & Zickar, 2008) for further information on the psychometric propertiesof this instrument.
In addition, because we are using this measure to study gender differences, it is important toestablish that the assessment is free of bias with respect to gender (identified as male and female).
A recent study (Van Dusen, 2020) has shown that the LCP shows no systemic bias for gender12© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leadersor ethnicity. Based on the LCP model, we would predict that as a leader develops more Creativeskills, their effectiveness should improve (positive correlation), and as a leader eliminates / reduces
Reactive tendencies, their effectiveness should improve (negative correlation). The concurrent
validity of these predictions is strong and consistent for all groups. For example, the correlation
between Creative competencies and leadership effectiveness is high for female leaders (r =.94)
and similarly high for male leaders (r =.93). [Note that r is the correlation coefficient and provides
a measure of the strength of the correlation. The coefficient varies between 0.0 and 1.0, with 0
indicating no relationship and 1.0 indicating a perfect relationship.] This finding suggests thatregardless of the gender of the leader, their development performance as measured by the LCP
accounts for a significant portion of the variance in their overall effectiveness. Said another way, the
LCP can be used to evaluate leaders’ performance without bias toward male or female leaders.

Business Performance Index

Leadership Effectiveness and Qualitative
Feedback
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5

R= .61
Rsq= .372

4.0
3.5
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Leadership EffectivenessIn addition to the measures of leadershipdevelopment, the LCP also includes a scaleof overall leadership effectiveness, known as
the Leadership Effectiveness Index (LEI), andopen-ended questions that solicit feedback
on leadership strengths and challenges in
evaluators’ own words. These additional
measures provide further insight into how theleader is showing up within the organization.
In particular, the LEI is highly correlated tobusiness performance indices, including
return on investment (ROI), employee job
satisfaction, employee engagement, andproductivity, among others. As the graph(from a study conducted by Anderson, 2009)
reveals, the higher the LEI score, the greater
the leadership impact on the organization.

Characteristics of the LCP Database
The LCP database includes profiles for over 130,000 leaders, and this continues to grow each year.
Not all leaders in the database choose to identify their gender. As of 2019, 33,038 leaders identified
themselves as female and 49,368 identified themselves as male.
Approximately half of the leaders in the database come from North America (the U.S. and Canada).
The other leaders come from 196 countries around the world, with large representations fromcountries in Asia, Australia & Oceana, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Europe. The distribution ofleaders who identified themselves as female and male varies some by region, as illustrated in thenext graph.
Within the LCP database of North American leaders, females make up 43% of all leaders who
provided a gender identification. This figure is very similar to the frequency of female managers(40%) reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). The distribution of female and13© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leadersmale leaders in the LCP database from other regions of the world tend to include fewer females,
particularly for Asia and the Middle East, North Africa, and Greater Arabia. The lower frequency
of female leaders in the LCP database for these regions, is again consistent with other findings
showing that female leaders constitute less than 30% of leadership positions globally (Institute for
Women’s Leadership, 2020).

LCP Gender Distribution by Region of the World
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Asia

Australia &Oceania

CentralAmerican &Caribbean

EasternEuropeMiddle East,
North Africa,& Greater
ArabiaFemale Leaders

North
AmericaSouth
America

Sub-SaharanAfricaWesternEurope

Ma le Leaders

There is a lot of similarity in the ages of female and male leaders in the LCP database. The gender
distribution at each age level is provided in the next graph. The greatest percentage of both
female and male leaders fell in the 36-50 age range. Interestingly, female leaders were less likely toreport their age than male leaders, but the frequency is small enough to not influence the overall
distribution.

LCP Gender Distriution by Age Range
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

Female Leaders

14© Leadership Circle | All Rights Reserved

51-55

56-60

Ma le Leaders

61-65

66-70

UnknownUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The next graph illustrates the education levels of leaders in the LCP database. Again, there are a lotof similarities between female and male leaders. However, female leaders are slightly more likely tohave earned an advanced degree.

LCP Gender Distribution by Highest Level of
Education Attained
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

High School / Associate Degree Undergraduate
Secondary Level
DegreeFemale Leaders

Masters Degree Doctorate Degree

Unknown

Ma le Leaders

The distribution of female and male leaders at various management levels in the LCP database isprovided in the next graph. There were some small but notable differences. First, female leaders
were less likely to report their management level. It is unknown why this might be the case andwhether that may have influenced the distribution in the other categories. However, the fact thatmale leaders tend to hold higher management levels with a greater frequency than female leadersin the LCP distribution is consistent with what is observed in the literature. For example, when
considering just the CEOs in the LCP database, female leaders comprise 29% of these top leaders,which is exactly the percentage found in a global study of CEOs by Catalyst, as reported by
Lynkova (2020).

LCP Gender Distribution by Management Level
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

C-S uite

Officer(President / VP)

Executive
Dire ctor

Female Leaders

15© Leadership Circle | All Rights Reserved

Dire ctor
Ma le Leaders

Ma nager

Other / Unknown

Understanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The LCP database collected ethnicity for US leaders up until 2017. Most leaders (70%) did
not report their ethnicity and is in part why these demographics are no longer collected. The
gender distribution for leaders who did report their ethnicity is presented in the next graph. The
distribution of leaders who report their ethnicity is consistent with what is traditionally found acrossthe US. Although small in number, most minority groups had at least 800 leaders, which reflects asufficient sample size for conducting an analysis of the interactive effects of ethnicity and genderon leadership.

82%
16%

LCP Gender Distribution by Ethnicity (US data only)

80%
14%
78%
12%
10%

8%
8%
6%

6%

4%

4%

2%

2%

0%

0%

Asian / PacificIslanderBlack / African
AmericanHispanic / Latin
AmericanFemale Leaders

Other

Wh ite

Ma le Leaders

In addition, female and male leaders in the LCP database come from 63 different industries. The
most prevalent of these include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Consulting
Education
EnergyFinance
Government
Healthcare
Manufacturing
Nonprofit / Charity
Technology / Scientific

To be considered a prevalent industry, at least 5% of female and male leaders had to work in thatindustry. There were a lot of gender similarities, although female leaders were more likely to be
employed in “helping” industries (e.g., Consulting, Education, and Healthcare) and male leaders are
more prevalent in “hard core” industries (e.g., Energy, Manufacturing, and Technology/Scientific).

16© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Both male and female leaders in the LCP database had a variety of professions, with more than 40
reported. The most prevalent professions include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Accounting professional
Medical professional (Doctor/Dentist/Healthcare leader)
Education professional
Engineering professional
Finance professional
Human Resources professional
IT professional
Marketing professional
OD professional
Sales professional
Training professional
Leadership executives
Business Consulting professional

There is a high percentage of females and males in all of the professions listed above. However,
the three most prevalent professions of female leaders are Human Resources professional, Medical
professional (Doctor/Dentist/Healthcare leader), and Marketing professional, whereas the threemost prevalent professions of male leaders are Engineer, Finance professional, and IT professional.

Analyses
All analyses were conducted using “leader” as the unit of analysis. Evaluator ratings and feedback
were aggregated for each leader before comparing performance between groups. Most analyses
were conducted based on the 2019 database. Some analyses were conducted with earlier datasetsfrom 2017 and 2018, partly depending on when the study was conducted and partly dependent on
available data. For example, ethnicity was no longer collected after 2017 and so all data associatedwith those analyses come from the 2017 database.

Quantitative Analyses
The LCP presents findings in terms of percentile performance by comparing raw score data
to a global norm group of leaders. While this presentation is effective in showing comparative
differences with the global norm (and is used in this report when presenting profiles), it cannot be
used in statistical analyses. Therefore, to conduct descriptive and inferential statistics that allow
us to draw conclusions and present data in a format that preserves the magnitude of differences
between female and male leaders, we used the standardized score from which the percentiles weregenerated. Standard scores, and in this case T-scores, represent the distance of a raw score fromthe global norm group mean in standard deviation units and allows for direct comparisons acrossdimensions of leadership.
We conducted tests of statistical significance to determine if the observed differences in
performance between female and male leaders occur simply by chance or are representative ofgender differences across the entire population. Significance is measured in terms of probability(represented as p-values). The lower the level of significance, the more likely the same results
would be found again with other leaders. Most researchers accept any finding with a probability

17© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leadersof 5% (p<.05) or less to indicate a real difference and not one that simply occurs by chance. Manyof the findings in this report have probabilities at much lower percentages (e.g., p<.001), indicatingthat similar findings would most likely result if the same research were to be repeated in any
organization.
When using large samples, as in this study, even exceedingly small differences are likely to bestatistically significant, because the sample is much closer in representing the entire population
than with smaller samples. Whether or not these differences would result in a noticeable variationin the ways leaders show up is harder to determine from this statistic. Therefore, to test whether
the differences between females and male leaders is not only “real” but “meaningful,” we employed
an Effect Size statistic (noted as E.S.), sometimes referred to as Cohen’s D, which compares mean
performance in relationship to the variance within each group. E.S. provides a measure of practicalsignificance – and values tend to range from 0 to .75 (although higher values are possible). Cohensuggests that any result of .20 or above is notable, as it indicates that the majority of one group’s
scores are different from the other group.
The Effect Size statistic can be positive or negative reflecting the direction of the difference. For
our purposes, a positive result is one in which females perform notably higher than males and anegative result is one in which males perform notably higher than females. Most researchers accept
the following key interpretation points based on the E.S. statistic:•

E.S. ranging from .20 to .34 reflect a small and slightly noticeable difference (like thedifference one might note in the height between a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old on average)•

E.S. ranging from .35 to .49 reflect a moderate and more noticeable difference (like thedifference one might note in observing the heights of a 15-year-old and 18-year-old on
average)•

E.S. ranging from .50 to .74 reflect a strong difference that is very noticeable (like thedifference one might note in observing the heights of a 12-year-old and an 18-year-old on
average)•

E.S. of .75 or above reflect huge differences that would not escape anyone’s notice (like thedifference one might note in observing the heights of a 6-year-old and an 18-year-old on
average)

None of the findings in this report result in a huge effect size, and thus the differences reported
between female and male leaders may not be immediately perceptible to the outside observer.
However, the reader should look for moderate and strong (large) effect sizes as they indicate
fundamentally different ways of leading and ones that result in different experiences with those
closest to the leader.

Qualitative Analyses
We conducted a Matrix Analysis to identify the most prevalent core themes found in evaluators’
written responses to two open-ended questions included in the LCP:

18•

What is this person’s greatest leadership asset, skill, or talent?

•

What is this person’s greatest leadership challenge or area for development?

© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Matrix analysis is a multi-step, time-intensive process that begins with manual encoding of theverbatim feedback (often consisting of multiple pages of comments) for each leader into rows of athematic table. Because of the intensive encoding stage, we did not include the verbatim feedback
for all 82,406 leaders in the gender-identified LCP database, but rather sampled from the database.
We selected 150 female leaders and 150 male leaders using a stratified random sampling procedurein which female and male leaders were randomly pulled from three levels of leadership effectiveness
until we had selected 50 female and 50 male leaders at each level.
As feedback is added into the matrix, terms and single phrases are merged into higher-level themes
or winnowed out. At the same time, indicator codes are added within columns of the matrix thatreflect the group to which that leader belongs. For our analyses, we grouped leaders in multiple
ways: first by gender and then by their level of effectiveness.
Because a particular leader may have more evaluators than another leader, and thus morecomments that contribute to a theme, a code is also added into the matrix that identifies whether
this theme occurred only once across evaluators or multiple times. Thus, for each theme, thenumber of leaders for whom that theme was endorsed as well as the strength of endorsement(based on its prevalence in their feedback) is recorded.
Finally, we calculate a quasi-statistic known as the percentage of endorsement for each core theme
and within each column of the matrix. The endorsement is based on a tabulation of the codes
within each matrix cell that reflect both the number of leaders for which that theme was expressed
and the strength of endorsement. This tabulation is then divided by the total number of leaders thatmake up the group (column) within the matrix providing a percentage of endorsement. The higher
the percentage of endorsement, the more prevalent and noticeable the strengths and challenges
that contribute to overall leadership effectiveness from the perspective of evaluators.
For this research, we report only core themes with a percentage of endorsement of 10% or higher(for either female or male leaders). The reader will want to pay particular attention to any themewith an endorsement score higher than 50%, as it indicates a prevalent leadership trait.

FINDINGS
Differences in Female and Male Leadership Profiles
The next graphic illustrates the aggregate profiles of female and male leaders, based on averaging
the performance across all profiles in the LCP database. What is quickly evident, by looking at theshading in the graphics, is that female leaders have developed more Creative skills (upper half ofthe graphic) compared with male leaders. Further, male leaders are more challenged, orienting
more strongly in Reactive tendencies than female leaders (see extended shading in the lower half ofthe graphic).

19© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Profile of the Aggregate Female Leader

Profile of the Aggregate Male Leader

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1090 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Identity10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1090 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Identity

10

10

20

20

30

30

40

40

50

50

60

60

70

70

80

80

90

90

10

10

20

20

30

30

40

40

50

50

60

60

70

70

80

80

90

90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

These differences are further clarified when looking at the Reactive-Creative summary measurefor the two groups. The typical female leader scores at the 60th percentile, while the typicalmale leader scores at the 43rd percentile compared with all leaders. This difference is statisticallysignificant (p<.001) and with a moderate effect size (E.S. = .37). This finding suggests that female
leaders put more energy into Creative behaviors while male leaders put about the same amountof energy in both Creative and Reactive behaviors. Female leaders more frequently lead from a“playing to win” orientation focusing on their natural curiosities about, and commitment to, thefuture they are creating and moving toward. Male leaders may also lead from this orientation on
occasion, but they are just as likely to lead from a “trying not to lose” orientation and may spend asmuch time moving away from what they don’t want as moving toward what they do.
Interestingly, when looking at the performance between the left and right hemispheres of thegraphic for both groups, we see similar distributions from one side to the other - that is the left
and right are nearly mirror images of each other (although female leaders’ scores are higher onboth sides than male leader scores). This symmetry is further evidenced when computing theRelationship-Task Balance summary measure. Both female and male leaders score near the 50th
percentile (51% and 49%, respectively). Although this small difference was statistically significant(p<.001), it is not meaningful in the way that leaders show up (E.S. = .04). This result suggests thatboth female and male leaders pour as much energy into relationships as they do tasks. This finding
is consistent with some research that shows no differences between genders based on leadershipstyle and is contrary to other studies that suggest female leaders are more relationship-oriented
and male leaders more task-oriented. Our data may help to explain the contradictory results in past
research. If we were to focus exclusively on significance testing, we might be inclined to see thedifference in orientations as important; however, based on the effect size analysis we can conclude
that the differences are not meaningful.
The two findings taken together suggest that there are gender differences in orientation, but thisis less about relationship versus achievement styles and more about being predominantly Creative
or Reactive. This conclusion is further supported when we look a little closer at the underlying
competencies and behavioral tendencies associated with each orientation.

20© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Creative Competencies
When we compared the performance of female and male leaders on each Creative dimension of
the LCP (inner circle in the profile), we found that the typical female leader has developed moreskills than the typical male leader on every dimension, as the next graph illustrates. This finding is
consistent with other research which has suggested that there is a “feminine leadership advantage.”
The advantage is found in the greater capacity to occupy expression in the Creative orientation.

Standaridzed Score

Differences in Creative Leadershipfor Female and Male Leaders
50.6

50.1

50.7

50.1
49.4

48.9
48.0
47.2

Relating

47.9
47.0

Self-Awareness

Authenticity

Female Leaders

Systems
Awareness

Achieving

Ma le Leaders

Perhaps not surprisingly given previous research and conventional wisdom, we found that thelargest advantage for females was in Relating (p<.001, E.S.=.37). Female leaders have a significantly
higher capability to connect to others than male leaders.
Although slightly less robust, the differences in Authenticity (p<.001, E.S.=.30) and Systems
Awareness (p<.001, E.S.=.35) are also meaningful. This finding suggests that not only are female
leaders more effective at building relationships than their male counterparts, but these relationships
are also typically more authentic and encompass the greater good beyond the leader’s immediate
sphere of influence.
The gaps in Self-Awareness and Achieving also favored female leaders and were statisticallysignificant (meaning that it is unlikely that it simply occurs by chance); however, the differences inthese areas are less likely to influence the way female and male leaders show up in the organization.
That is, the effect sizes are below the .20 threshold (.16 and .17, respectively).
The lack of feminine leadership advantage in Achieving is consistent with other studies thathave shown that male leaders perform as well, if not better, in terms of strategy and vision – keycompetencies within the Achieving dimension. The lack of differences suggests that male andfemale leaders develop similar competencies in Achieving.

21© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

To better understand what is occurring in the Self-Awareness dimension and why there may be alack of meaningful feminine leadership advantage, we conducted further comparative analyses ofeach of the sub-dimensions (outer circle scores in the profile graphic). The next table provides asummary of the results for all 18 Creative leadership competencies or sub-dimensions including the
averaged standardized score for female and male leaders and the significance (both statistical andpractical) of the differences between scores.
FemaleLeader Mean

Male Leader
Mean

Statistical
SignificanceEffect Size

Caring Connection

52.6

47.2

p<.001.55

Fosters Team Play

50.2

47.5

p<.001.27

Collaborator

50.2

47.6

p<.001.26

Mentoring & Developing

50.8

47.0

p<.001.39

Interpersonal Intelligence

50.2

44.9

p<.001.24

Selfless Leader

52.0

49.4

p<.001.27

Balance

48.4

48.2

N.S.*

.02

Composure

48.9

48.9

N.S.*

.00

Personal Learner

51.7

48.9

p<.001.28

Integrity

51.3

48.3

p<.001.31

Courageous Authenticity

50.7

48.6

p<.001.21

Community Concern

51.0

46.7

p<.001.43

Sustainable Productivity

50.1

47.6

p<.001.26

Systems Thinker

49.2

47.6

p<.001.17

Strategic Focus

49.4

48.8

p<.001.06

Purposeful & Visionary

50.7

48.6

p<.001.22

Achieves Results

51.6

48.4

p<.001.32

Decisiveness

50.8

48.6

p<.001.23

Dimension
Relating

Self-Awareness

Authenticity

Systems AwarenessAchieving* N.S. = Not significant

22© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The heat map in the last column of the table provides a visual index to the magnitude of thedifference. Yellow shaded results reflect small and slightly noticeable differences; orange shaded
results indicate differences that are more noticeable, at least to a leader’s immediate co-workers;
and red shaded results indicate differences in skills that would be noticeable even to those withwhom the leader interacts less frequently.
Consistent with the overall dimension findings, we can see that the most noticeable differencesin the competencies of female and male leaders involve female leaders’ greater capacity andcapability in forming warm, caring, and growth-enhancing relationships, both in service of theleader’s own team and the greater community outside of the organization.
Equally interesting are the specific competency areas where there are no meaningful differences
between female and male leaders. One of these areas is Strategic Focus (which is a large
contributor to the overall lack of meaningful differences in Achieving) and suggests that there
are no discernable differences in the abilities of female and male leaders to be visionary, thinkstrategically, translate strategic thinking into rigorous and thoroughly developed business strategies,
and ensure that the organization will thrive in the short- and long-term.
The lack of meaningful differences in Self-Awareness is predominately the result of no differencesin the competency levels of male and female leaders in maintaining a healthy work-life balance andremaining calm and centered in the midst of conflict and high-tension situations.
The general finding that females develop and exhibit greater competency in most but not all areasof leadership is consistent with other 3600 research discussed previously in the literature review ofthis paper. In the areas where they do not exhibit greater competency, female leaders tend to show
up equally well compared with male leaders.

Reactive Tendencies
When comparing the differences between female and male leaders on Reactive beliefs andbehaviors, there were larger and more consistent gaps, as illustrated in the next graph. The reader
is reminded that there is an inverse relationship between leading from a Reactive orientation andleadership effectiveness - the lower the prevalence of Reactive tendencies, the more sustainable
and effective a leader’s business performance. Thus, a higher score in the graph indicates behaviors
driven by beliefs that limit a sustained “play on purpose” orientation, resulting in developmental
challenges for leaders.

23© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male LeadersStandardized Scores

Average Differences in Reactive Leadershipfor Female and Male Leaders

53.3

53.3

52.4

50.1

49.7

49.1

Controlling

Protecting
Female Leaders

Complying
Ma le Leaders

Across all three dimensions, the average male leader is significantly more Reactive than the
average female leader. Even with respect to Complying (the dimension with the highest averagelevel of Reactive frequency for female leaders), male leaders exhibit a higher prevalence of
these tendencies than female leaders on average. The largest gap occurs for Protecting, which
is on average the most frequently employed approach for male leaders and the least frequently
employed style for female leaders. Higher scores on Protecting suggest that male leaders are
particularly challenged in this area. They are much more likely than their female counterparts to
exhibit actions presenting as superiority, cynical jousting, hyper-rationalism and/or emotional
distance. These tendencies are significantly inversely correlated to leadership effectiveness and may
be the reason that male leaders are typically viewed as less effective than female leaders.
We next analyzed the frequency of dominant Reactive orientations for male and female leaders,
based on which Reactive tendency was used most often by each leader in the LCP database.
The next table presents the percentages that we found of those that had small to large resultsin each dimension. The result for female leaders may not be surprising, given previous researchthat suggests that female leaders can be focused on approval and likeability, especially whenchallenged. However, the result for male leaders is not what might be predicted based on the
average performance mentioned above.

Most Dominant Reactive Style

Controlling

Protecting

Complying

Female Leaders

31%

23%

46%

Male Leaders

24%

31%

45%

It is possible that some leaders included in the above table have lower Reactive tendencies
than the majority of leaders in our global database, thereby creating an artificial understandingof a predominant Reactive tendency. When we limit the analyses to only those leaders who
demonstrated a high level of Reactivity overall (where their Reactive average score exceeds the24© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

66th percentile), the results look quite different, as provided in the next table.

Predominate Style of Leaders Who
Lead from a Reactive Orientation

Controlling

Protecting

Complying

Female Leaders

38%

37%

23%

Male Leaders

24%

49%

27%

The results from the second analysis suggest that highly Reactive male leaders are more likely
to lean into Protecting types of behavior. And while there are considerably fewer highly Reactive
female leaders, those who do lead predominately from a Reactive orientation may lean moreheavily into Controlling or Protecting as opposed to Complying styles.
The differences in these two analyses may help explain contradictory findings in past research on
differences in leadership style, where some studies showed female leaders being more complying
than male leaders and other studies showing the exact opposite or no difference at all. As wefound, the differences are greatly influenced by the overall Reactive orientation of the leaders
and the evolution of development toward occupying a post conventional, Creative leadershiporientation.
It is important to point out that fewer female leaders than male leaders take on Protecting styles
regardless of whether they are not very Reactive overall or highly Reactive. Interestingly, thebottom of the circle , where the Protecting Dimension resides in the model, is also where thehighest negative correlations exist for leadership effectiveness. This finding tends to suggest thatleading from a Protecting orientation may be one of the key distinguishers between female andmale leaders and may be a direct contributor to why male leaders have fewer exhibited leadershipcompetencies, particularly in terms of Relating, which is required for full leadership performance
to manifest. Support for this supposition
comes from correlating the Relating andProtecting performance of male leaders.
There is an offsetting or canceling
effect of these two dimensions basedon the performance of all male leadersin the LCP database, as illustrated in
the graphic. The more Protecting aleader is, the lower their expression ofRelating skills (r=-.78). Indeed, Protecting
tendencies account for 60% of thevariance in male leaders’ Relating scores.
[Note that the same inverse relationshipexists for female leaders (r=-.77);
however, there are considerably fewer
female leaders for whom Protecting is asignificant issue.]25© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Further, when we look at the sub-dimensions of Protecting (included in the next table), we findmoderately large differences between female and male leaders’ use of Arrogance and Distance asa tendency of leadership. This finding, taken in conjunction with the previous finding, suggests thatthe average male leader’s predisposition is in Protecting.
Protecting is a dimension that takes on slightly different aspects when sub-dimensions expand
beyond its edges. The table below also indicates moderately large differences compared to womenleaders in two sub-dimensions of Controlling and two sub-dimensions of Complying. These form
two different slants of Protecting. Protecting-Controlling, including sub-dimensions of Ambition and
Autocratic, tends toward slightly more aggressive superiority. Protecting-Complying, including the
sub-dimension of Passive, tends to retain safety in emotional, mental, and physical withdrawal andself-sufficiency. Both Protecting leadership patterns impede leadership effectiveness and the ability
to scale that leadership.
Note that women are not without these tendencies, they do display them, but to a much lesser
degree than the male leader profile demonstrates.

FemaleLeader Mean

Male Leader
Mean

Statistical
SignificanceEffect Size

Perfect

53.0

52.3

p<.001.06

Driven52.5

51.6

p<.001.09

Ambition

49.6

53.4

p<.001-.39

Autocratic

49.7

52.4

p<.001-.27

Arrogance

49.2

53.8

p<.001-.47

Critical

51.2

54.1

p<.001-.28

Distance

48.8

52.6

p<.001-.39

Passive

51.0

54.4

p<.001-.35

Belonging

49.6

52.5

p<.001-.29

Pleasing

51.4

51.3

p<.007.01

Conservative

57.1

57.5

p<.001-.05

Dimension
Controlling

Protecting

Complying* Note that negative effect sizes indicate that male leaders are more Reactive thanfemale leaders and positive effect sizes are where female leaders are more Reactive
than male leaders.

26© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Another interesting finding coming from the analyses of Reactive sub-dimensions concerns theControlling dimension. Although male leaders are more controlling than female leaders overall,
the way in which the difference shows up further distinguishes between female and male leaders.
Female leaders are more likely to exhibit controlling behaviors through being perfectionists orworking in overdrive. Male leaders, on the other hand, are more likely to try and maintain control bymore aggressive behaviors – being overly ambitious and/or domineering.
Many of the behaviors associated with the Controlling and Protecting tendencies overlap withwhat has sometimes been referred to in the literature as the “Masculine Leadership Style,” whereleaders take a command-and-control approach to leading and demonstrate more aggression,competitiveness, and self-sufficiency than female leaders. Our findings support this stylistic
difference, but also extend it to include elements of reactivity that are more often perceived offemales, e.g., passivity, and a need to belong, which were also are more prevalent in male leadersthan female leaders. Thus, our data reveal that masculine Reactive leadership styles tend to
exhibit Protecting tendencies with the potential for two different kinds of Protecting: ProtectingComplying, that includes Passive and Belonging; or Protecting-Controlling that includes Autocraticand Ambition. Both protecting patterns are observed more frequently for male than female leaders,
but differences are slightly more pronounced for the Protecting-Controlling pattern.

Differences in Leadership
EffectivenessWe know from earlier research on the
LCP that Creative leadership is positively
correlated with leadership effectiveness andReactive leadership is negatively (or inversely)
correlated with leadership effectiveness.
So, it should not be surprising to find thatmale leaders, who as we have already seen
are less Creative and more Reactive thanfemale leaders, are also perceived to be lesseffective than female leaders. The differencein leadership effectiveness is illustrated in the bar charts included in the graphic. The typical female
leader scores higher on effectiveness than 52% of all leaders, whereas the typical male leader scores
higher than only 43% of all leaders. This difference is small but meaningful (p<.001, E.S.=.25), andsupports the general conclusion that there is a feminine leadership advantage.
The differences in effectiveness between female and male leaders is further clarified by looking
at the frequency of both genders at various categorical levels of effectiveness. The percentages
delineated in the next table were derived by determining each leader’s LEI score relative to the
population mean. That is, “below average” leaders score at least a full standard deviation below
the mean and “above average” leaders score at least a full standard deviation above the mean – allother leaders score similar to the mean. As the table indicates, there is greater prevalence of female
leaders compared with male leaders who are rated as highly effective, while at the same time there
is a higher prevalence of male leaders who are rated as not very effective. This finding is contrary
to some research that suggests there are as many highly effective male leaders as there are female
leaders.

27© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

EffectivenessFemale Leaders

Male Leaders

Below Average

27%

34%

Average36%

37%

Above Average

37%

29%

Differences Among Highly Effective Leaders
To better understand how gender differences in skills and styles contribute to gender differences inleadership effectiveness, we analyzed the performance of highly effective leaders, those scoring at
the 67th percentile or above on the LEI. The trends among the highly effective leaders were similarand slightly more pronounced than the averaged findings already reported, as illustrated in thefollowing two graphs.

Differences in Creative Leadership of Highly Effective
Male and Female LeadersStandardized Score

60.7
60.2
59.6

59.6
59.2

58.3
57.8

57.8

Relating

Self-Awareness

58.1

Authenticity

Female Leaders

57.8

Systems
Awareness

Achieving

Ma le Leaders

In terms of Creative leadership (the graph above), the previously observed small gaps thatexisted in Self-Awareness and Achieving have all but disappeared and suggest that there are notmeaningful differences between highly effective female and male leaders on these dimensions. At
the same time, the gap for Relating has widened, suggesting that highly effective female leaders
have added skills to their already superior capabilities in building and maintaining relationships thus
improving their performance compared to their male counterparts.
For highly effective female leaders, Relating has become a pronounced strength. Whereas forhighly effective male leaders, Achieving is the pronounced strength. It may be these differences thatsometimes lead to the perception that females are more relationship-oriented and males are moretask-oriented.

28© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The differences in the Reactive orientations of highly effective leaders (noted in the graphbelow), reveal that male leaders are still more Reactive than female leaders in all dimensionsof reactivity, consistent with the previously reported findings. Also, the largest gap still occurs
within the Protecting dimension. Further, across all dimensions there were significant reductions
in reactivity for the highly effective leaders compared with the average leaders, and this was true
for both females and males. However, the most pronounced reduction occurred for the Complying
dimension. As both male and female leaders grow in effectiveness, they are better able to step
fully into their authentic leadership overcoming the tendency to remain passive or focused onothers’ expectations. This supposition is further tested in the next section of this report that looks
specifically at the developmental trajectories for female and male leaders.

Differences in Reactive Leadership of Highly Effective
Female and Male LeadersStandardized Score

48.7
47
45.2

Controlling

45.2

43.1

42.9

Protecting

Complying

Female Leaders

Ma le Leaders

When we analyzed the verbatim feedback given to the most effective leaders in our sample, there
was a lot of similarity in the way evaluators described the male and female leaders they worked
with but also some interesting differences.
The following illustration provides a capture of the key words (phrases) that are used mostfrequently to describe highly effective female leaders. It is quickly noticeable the volume ofstrengths compared to challenges. Strengths usually outnumber challenges in feedback, with a ratioof 2:1 on average, but for the highly effective female leaders this ratio is quite a bit larger. This is due
in part to highly effective leaders having addressed their Reactive tendencies and subsequently
experiencing fewer observable challenges. Indeed, for both highly effective male and female leaders
the most prevalent feedback given in response to the question asking about leadership challenges
was “This leader has no weakness that I can detect.”29© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The relative prevalence or magnitude of the strengths and challenges is indicated by the size ofthe descriptor used in the illustrated word cloud. As can be seen, highly effective female leaders
are viewed as people persons, with evaluators reporting that they have good interpersonal skills,
are relationship builders, connect well to people, are caring and compassionate, build trust, respect
others, and earn others’ respect. Highly effective female leaders are also viewed as visionaries who
see the big picture, effectively communicate the vision, and engage and motivate others around thevision and direction – leading by example. They are passionate, committed, and dedicated to others
and to the work.
Also included among the prevalent strengths of highly effective female leaders is their ability todevelop others and ensure their growth by providing mentoring / coaching and sharing from theirown experiences. Evaluators report that the most effective female leaders encourage others tocontinuously improve and set the example for what this looks like, leading by example. They areauthentic and can be counted on to “walk the talk.”
The biggest challenge for highly effective female leaders is being overloaded or overcommitted.
Evaluators report that they can be spread too thin, have too much on their plate, and not always
have the time required to respond to direct reports’ or others’ needs. The second most prevalent
challenge (and this is considerably less frequent than the first) is the tendency for highly effective
female leaders to be overdemanding of themselves and others. Evaluators report that these leaders
can be perfectionists who push too fast for others to keep up or set unrealistic expectations forwhat others can accomplish given their skill sets.
Interestingly, the two most prevalent challenges, being in overdrive and being a perfectionist, arehallmarks of the Controlling style and most likely contribute to highly effective female leaders’elevated scores in this area of reactivity as compared with the other areas.
The following is an excerpt from the feedback given to one of the most effective female leaders.
[Note the name was changed to protect anonymity.]30© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Sabine is very committed to our values as an organization and leads
based on those beliefs; she instills a high level of trust, thus has strong
relationships throughout the organization and has built a very supportive,
motivated, and focused team. She leads by example, is very dedicatedto her role as a leader, and holds herself and her team to high standardsof values and accountability. She supports her team by challenging themto learn and take a different perspective; she allows her leaders to makemistakes and learn from them.
Because she is so capable, Sabine has a lot going on and sometimes herplate is too full. She needs to make sure that she maintains a good balancein her life and then sets that example for her team.

The descriptions used to delineate the strengths of highly effective male leaders is quite similar
to that of the female leaders, as noted in the next illustration. This suggests that there are somecharacteristics that are important to be effective regardless of gender. However, there was lessconsistency among the highly effective male leaders, as evidenced by the less strongly endorsed
strengths compared with highly effective female leaders. [Note the smaller font for most of thedescriptors for highly effective males indicates less percentage of endorsement.] This finding
corresponds to the rating data which suggests that it is less about different types of skills and more
about greater development of the skills that differentiates female and male leaders.

Although the ratio of strengths to challenges is large in the feedback given to highly effective
male leaders, it is a little lower than that observed for highly effective female leaders (3.9 vs. 3.4,
respectively). The large prevalence of strengths compared with weaknesses for both genders is
no doubt why these leaders are rated as highly effective. The lower ratio for the highly effective
male leaders is due to the presence of several more challenges than were observed for the highly

31© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

effective female leaders. This finding echoes the earlier finding that highly effective female leaders
are less Reactive than their highly effective male counterparts.
The following is an excerpt from the feedback given to one of the most effective male leaders.
[Again, the name was changed to protect anonymity.]

Jeremy’s greatest attributes as a leader are his innate ability to visualize
solutions and quickly execute the necessary steps to arrive at thatsolution. He is not afraid of being wrong and makes bold moves that givehis operation a competitive edge. He is personable and approachable
and earns the support of his teams by winning their trust with honest
communication and setting clear expectations.
Jeremy is very ambitious and somewhat aggressive. He needs to continue
to remember that this way of operating is not always well received byothers. He needs to take a moment to evaluate his delivery. In today’s
marketplace, patience is something that will only serve him in achieving
greater relationships, greater understanding, and ultimately greater results.

These findings suggest that highly effective leaders, regardless of gender:•

Continue to carry some Reactive tendencies, still to evolve. (There is always room forcontinued development.)•

Have an impact on others — working with a highly effective leader is empowering andappreciated.

Working with a highly effective male leader could have more Reactive impact challenges to deal
with, navigate, accept, or address.
When directly comparing the biggest gaps in strengths and challenges between highly effective
female and male leaders, we see similar results to the overall trend that shows that female leaders
have a greater prevalence of Creative skills (e.g., being a people person, leading by example) andconsiderably fewer Reactive challenges than male leaders. However, as the next graphic illustrates,
there are some exceptions to this overall trend.

32© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Highly effective male leaders demonstrate a few stereotypically masculine traits with a greater
frequency than was reported for highly effective female leaders. Namely, a significant proportionof evaluators report that the most effective male leaders are skilled at project management anddriving projects to completion. These leaders are also viewed as strategic thinkers who take astrategic view of the business. They are good at business planning, have strong insights on systemdesign, and create objectives that make it possible to achieve business strategy. They are also
described as effective problem solvers, quickly grasping the root of the problem, and coming up
with innovative solutions.
Although being overloaded is the most prevalent challenge for both highly effective groupsof leaders, it is much more frequent for female leaders. There is some evidence in the writtencomments that suggest that the overcommitment is being driven by an excessive focus on meetingpeople’s needs and subsequently the tendency to avoid saying “no” to others. This finding suggeststhat overcommitment may be a fundamental blind spot that confronts highly people-focusedleaders and because there are more highly people-focused female leaders than male leaders thechallenge is also greater for female leaders. It also suggests that the Reactive tendencies found in
the sub-dimensions of Controlling; Driven and Perfect, are still operating underneath, not yet fully
evolved. Both of these Reactive tendencies have a smaller negative correlation scores to leadershipeffectiveness and the cost in these behaviors can be missed initially.
Further, the analysis of gaps clearly shows that highly effective male leaders have some (although
fairly low prevalence) challenges that are not a problem at all for highly effective female leaders(0% endorsement). These challenges are all based on difficulties in interacting with others ina way that cancels out or negates efforts to build and scale through relationships. This finding
corroborates the previous conclusion that one advantage highly effective female leaders have overtheir counterparts comes from a significantly lower level and number of Reactive behaviors that
limit Creative potential in highly effective male leaders. It also explains why highly effective female
leaders are more frequently endorsed as having strong people skills compared with highly effective
male leaders; they do so with less limiters.

33© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Leadership Effectiveness Development Trajectories
To investigate if there were gender differences in the developmental trajectories for increasing
effectiveness, we compared the performance of all female and male leaders in the LCP database
who scored at the 1st (least effective), 50th (moderately effective), and 99th (most effective)
percentiles on the LEI. The aggregated profiles of female and male leaders at each of these levels ofeffectiveness are presented in the next graphic.

34© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

For both female and male leaders, the developmental progression is from highly Reactive tohighly Creative, as can be seen by looking at the changes in the shadings of the circles going
down the columns. Both female and male leaders, when viewed from this lens, begin with having
developed very few Creative leadership competencies and consistently lead from a Reactiveorientation. Although neither the least effective female nor male leaders have well-developed
Creative competencies, and there are no meaningful differences at the dimension level, there areslight but meaningful variations in some of the sub-dimensions, suggesting that the genders begin
with slightly different skill sets. Female leaders begin with slightly better skills in building Caring
Connections (p<.001, E.S. = .27) and male leaders are more effective in maintaining Composure(p<.001, E.S. = -.38). It may be that the least effective leaders have a possibility of acting fromstereotypical gender patterns of performance that have been shaped through many lenses. For
example, stereotypically, connecting is an early part of play and worth for females, while learning
not to openly cry and emotional compartmentalize is part of play and worth for males. As leaders
become more effective, they are able to build upon and expand the way in which they interact withothers.
There are also slight variations on some of the Reactive sub-dimensions for the least effective
leaders. Female leaders are more likely than male leaders to react from a Driven (p<.001, E.S. =.31),
or Pleasing (p<.001, E.S. = .34) tendency. On the other hand, male leaders are more likely thanfemale leaders to react from a Passive tendency (p<.001, E.S. = -.23).
By the time leaders have become moderately effective, both female and male leaders havedeveloped significantly more Creative competencies and significantly reduced their Reactive
tendencies. However, the magnitude of change is different for different dimensions and subdimensions for female and male leaders. These changes lead to a distinctive shift in advantages
between the genders. The shifts can more easily be understood by noting where there aremeaningful differences between the genders at each level of effectiveness. The next table illustrates
these shifts. Each “F” included in the table indicates a leadership dimension or sub-dimension
in which there was a meaningful difference that favored female leaders – either because they
have more developed competencies or less Reactive tendencies. Each “M” indicates a leadership
dimension or sub-dimension in which there was a meaningful difference that favored male leaders.
(Meaningfulness was determined by a p-value less than .01 and an Effect Size greater than .20.)
Shifts in Advantage for Female and Male Leaders as Leadership
Effectiveness Increases
LCP Dimensions

Least
Effective

Relating
Caring Connection

F

Moderately
Effective

Most
Effective

F

F

F

F

F

F

Fosters Team Play
Collaborator
Mentoring & Developing
Interpersonal Intelligence
Self-AwarenessSelfless Leader

35© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedFUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Shifts in Advantage for Female and Male Leaders as Leadership
Effectiveness Increases
LCP Dimensions

Least
Effective

Moderately
Effective

BalanceComposure

Most
Effective
M

M

M

Personal LearnerF

F

Authenticity

FF

Integrity

F

F

Courageous Authenticity

F

Systems-AwarenessCommunity Concern

FF

Sustainable Productivity
Systems Thinker
Achieving
Strategic Focus

M

Purposeful & Visionary

F

Achieves Results

F

DecisivenessControllingF

Perfect
DrivenM
M

F

M

Ambition

F

F

Autocratic

F

F

Protecting

F

F

Arrogance

F

F

CriticalF

DistanceF

F

Complying

F

F

F

F

F

F

PassiveF

Belonging
Pleasing
ConservativeM

M
M

As the table illustrates, there are very few differences between the least effective female and maleleaders and no one gender has a distinct advantage. There are more differences as effectivenessincreases. Further, the number of differences that favor female leaders grows at a disproportionalrate, and we begin to see an overall feminine leadership advantage by the time leaders haveachieved a moderate level of effectiveness.

36© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

By the time leaders are highly effective, there is a clear and consistent feminine leadership
advantage. At this point, most effective female leaders have closed the gaps in the Creativecompetencies where they lagged behind and have all but eliminated the Reactive tendencies thatwere once issues at lower levels of effectiveness. The most effective male leaders have also madeconsiderable progress, but not to the extent of their female counterparts. Consequently, there areseveral differences in developmental performance that, with all but one exception, favor female
leaders. These include notable differences in Relating and Authenticity as well as across all Reactive
dimensions.
The findings related to shifts in advantage may help explain some of the contradictions in theliterature where studies focusing on the same traits find widely varying results in terms of genderdifferences. It is possible that the different studies have used samples that vary in the leadershipeffectiveness of their female and male leaders. As we have seen, the differences in gender
performance on several traits change as leadership effectiveness changes. The correlation shown
above for Creative competencies and leadership effectiveness is meaningful to note: As individuals
move toward the 50th percentile mark, female leaders gain more skill in Creative orientation at afaster pace than their male counterparts and continue toward a female advantage in leadership thatis differentiating.
The same types of developmental trends are observed when we analyze the feedback given tofemale and male leaders at each level of leadership effectiveness. As the next graph shows, theratio of strengths to challenges in the feedback increases as leadership effectiveness increases. At
the least effective level, leaders exhibit more challenges than strengths (resulting in a ratio less than
1). This trend reverses at the moderate level of effectiveness, and by the time leaders are viewed
as highly effective, strengths significantly outnumber challenges. Further, we see a significantly
larger ratio for moderately effective female leaders compared with their male counterparts, and thisdifference remains consistent with the most effective leaders.

Ratio of Strengths to Challenges
4
3
2
1
0

Least Effective

Moderately Effective
Female Leaders

Most Effective

Ma le Leaders

When we looked at the most prevalent descriptors for male and female leaders at each level of
effectiveness, we found some interesting variations, as depicted in the next table. [Note that the
red highlighted descriptors reflect challenges as opposed to strengths.] The most prevalent traits of37© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

the least effective leaders were all Reactive challenges (which no doubt has contributed to others’
ratings of these leaders as ineffective). Moderately effective leaders had fewer frequently observed
challenges, and by the time leaders are rated as highly effective, their most prevalent traits include
only strengths. With few exceptions, the most prevalent traits are similar for females and males
at each level (although the order by strength of endorsement is slightly different). The notable
exceptions are highlighted in bold print.
Least Effective Leaders
FemalesModerately Effective Leaders

Males

Most Effective Leaders

Females

Males

Females

Males

Ineffectual
communicator

Inattentive

People person

Ineffectual
communicator

People person

Visionary

Inattentive

Ineffective
interactions

Personable &approachable

People person

VisionaryPeople person

Inflexible

Micromanages

Micromanages

Knowledgeable

Passionate

Develops others

Ineffective
interactions

Ineffectual
communicator

Knowledgeable

Micromanages

Develops others Passionate

Micromanages

Shallow
relationships

Overloaded /overcommitted

Too reserved /passive

Leads byexamplePersonable &approachable

Shallow
relationships

Operates
independently

Team builder

Passionate

Personable &approachable

Motivator

Not enoughbackground

Inflexible

Passionate

Personable &approachable

Team builder

StrongcommunicatorInterestingly, moderately effective male leaders have more prevalent challenges than their female
counterparts. This finding is consistent with the developmental trajectories coming from the rating
results that showed that female leaders transition to a higher level of Creative leadership by thetime they are seen as moderately effective.
Consistent with the rating data, differences in the improvement of strengths between female andmale leaders is less about which strengths improve and more about the magnitude of improvement.
For example, consider the prevalence of People Person skills at each level of effectiveness forfemale and male leaders, illustrated in the next graph.

38© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Endorsement Level

Development of the "People Person" Skill

Least Effective

Moderately Effective
Female Leaders

Most Effective

Ma le Leaders

Both female and male leaders improve in this skill area as their effectiveness increases; however, themagnitude of improvement is greater for female leaders. The least effective female leaders begin
with a slight advantage over their male counterparts in this skill area and that advantage grows
as female leaders become more effective. Female leaders continue to deepen their relationships
while male leaders continue to build connections but often at a more shallow (less emotionallyvulnerable) level.
The development trajectories for most strengths follow the same pattern as observed for people
skills. However, there were two notable exceptions as illustrated in the next side-by-side graphs. In
the example on the left, the least effective male leaders are slightly more likely to lead by example
compared with their female counterparts. However, this trend reverses as female leaders become
more effective and the most effective female leaders lead by example much more frequently thantheir male counterparts.
Development of "Project Management"

Endorsement Level

Endorsement Level

Development of "Leading by Example"

Least Effective

Mo derately

Female Leaders

39

Mo st Effective

Ma le Leaders© Leadership Circle | All Rights Reserved

Least Effective

Mo derately

Female Leaders

Mo st Effective

Ma le LeadersUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

In the example on the right, the least effective female leaders demonstrate project management
skills more frequently than their male counterparts, but they do not appear to focus on further
development in this area. Whereas the prevalence of project management skills continues toincrease as male leaders’ effectiveness improves, resulting in an ever-widening gap in the strengthof endorsement compared with their female counterparts.
When comparing the development trajectories for the areas with the greatest differences between
the least effective female and male leaders, we found two distinct patterns, as illustrated in thenext multigraph illustration. Either leaders quickly address the challenge, and it is nearly gone by
the time they are moderately effective, or leaders make slow and steady progress reducing thechallenge up through their transition to highly effective leaders.

Addressing "Blaming Others"
Endorsement Level

Endorsement Level

Addressing "Lack of Background"

Least Effective

Mo derately

Female Leaders

Mo st Effective

Least Effective

Ma le Leaders

Mo st Effective

Ma le Leaders

Addressing Being "Inattentive"
Endorsement Level

Endorsement Level

Addressing "Operating Independtly"

Least Effective

Mo derately

Female Leaders40

Mo derately

Female Leaders

Mo st Effective

Ma le Leaders© Leadership Circle | All Rights Reserved

Least Effective

Mo derately

Female Leaders

Mo st Effective

Ma le LeadersUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The trajectories for most challenges fell into these two patterns. The one exception is for thechallenge of being overloaded, illustrated in the next graph. This is the only challenge where thefrequency did not diminish with increasing effectiveness. Indeed, for female leaders the challenge
grows as their effectiveness grows. This finding supports the earlier supposition that there may
be an inherent blind spot that challenges people-focused leaders. In an attempt to meet people’s
needs, leaders may be hesitant to say “no” to requests or take on too much. As female leaders
become more and more focused on people (which also consistently increases with effectiveness),they may be more susceptible to this challenge. This may also affect male leaders as they become
more people-focused, but as we have seen previously, their growth in people skills is not as large
and this may be why there is a much smaller incremental increase in this challenge for male leaders.

Endorsement Level

Challenge with being "Overloaded"

Least Effective

Moderately Effective
Female Leaders

Most Effective

Ma le LeadersPervasive Differences
To understand the extent to which gender differences occur, we conducted several analyses
based on specific groups to which leaders belong. Although there were some interaction effects
where the gap between female and male leaders was larger or smaller according to specific groupmembership, the overall direction of the differences remained consistent – female leaders weremore Creative and less Reactive than male leaders.

Influence of Management Level
The first analysis we conducted compared the Creative and Reactive orientations of female andmale leaders at different management levels. The results are presented in the next graph.

41© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Reactive-Creative Scale Scores for Female and Male Leadersby Management Level
54

Standardized Score

53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45

C-S uite

Officer

Executive Director

Female Leaders

Dire ctor

Ma nager

Ma le Leaders

Female leaders show up more Creatively and less Reactively than male leaders at every
management level. Female and male leaders are closest in performance at the lowest managementlevels and the difference is most pronounced for the top management levels.
When we break this score out into the gender gap for Creative and for Reactive (as has been donein the next table), we see that not only are female leaders becoming more Creative as they climb
up the corporate ladder, their Creative advantage over their male counterparts is also increasing. [Itshould be noted that any gap above 2.5 reflects a meaningful difference. The positive or negative
sign indicates whether female leaders score higher or lower than male leaders, with a high score in
Reactive being less desirable.]Management Level

Creative Gap

Reactive Gap

C-Suite

+3.4

-3.9

Officer (e.g., President, VP)

+3.0

-3.2

Executive Director

+2.8

-3.2

Director

+2.1

-2.9

Manager

+1.9

-2.7

Further, the gap in Reactive tendencies also widens with higher levels of leadership. Female frontline managers are already significantly less Reactive than male front-line managers, but female
leaders continue to make progress in evolving Reactive tendencies as they move into higher
leadership positions, whereas male leaders tend to remain fairly Reactive regardless of managementlevel.

42© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The pronounced feminine leadership advantage occurring at higher levels of management is
consistent with at least one other study. Zenger & Folkman (2019) found that the higher thelevel of management, the wider the gap between male and female effectiveness, with females
outperforming males.

Influence of Age
Next, we looked at gender differences by age, which may be related to management level but is
not a one-to-one correspondence. (Some senior leaders may be quite young as is often the casein start-up companies, while more established companies often have front-line managers who
have been with the organization for years.) The trend for female leaders to be more Creative andless Reactive than male leaders holds true across all age groups. However, the size of the gendergap varies by age, as illustrated in the next graph. [The gap was determined by subtracting theReactive-Creative Scale score for males from the score for females. Again, any gap greater than 2.5
is meaningful]. The general trend is for the gap to be greater, as age increases, particularly in theage range of 41-65.

Gap between Female and Male Leaders'
Reactive-Creative Scale Scores by Age
6Size of the Gap

5
4
3
2
1
0

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

51-55

56-60

61-65

66-70

Influence of Culture
We looked at gender differences by culture from two perspectives. First, we compared the Creativeand Reactive orientations of female and male leaders living and working in different geographic
regions. The results of this analysis are presented in the next graph.

43© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Reactive-Creative Scale Scores for Female and Male Leaders
by Geographic Region in Which They Work58

Standardized Score

56
54
52
50
48
46
44

Asia

Australia &OceanaCentralAmerica & the
Caribbean

EasternEuropeMiddle East, North America South America Sub-Saharan
North Africa, &AfricaGreater Arabia

Female Leaders

WesternEurope

Ma le Leaders

The differences between female and male leaders follow the same general trend as what wasobserved overall and suggests that the feminine leadership advantage is not restricted to a single
culture. However, the differences are less pronounced for some regions. These differences canbe further clarified by looking at the Creative and Reactive scores for each region, as have been
provided in the next table.

Creative
Creative
Reactive
Reactive
Female Leaders Male Leaders Female Leaders Male Leaders
Asia

49.9

47.6

51.3

52.6

Middle East, North
Africa, & Greater Arabia

53.7

52.3

53.1

53.7

Western Europe

50.7

49.4

49.0

51.4

Eastern Europe

52.1

51.0

50.8

54.3

North America

54.0

51.6

45.2

47.9

Central America & the
Caribbean

52.0

49.3

51.6

55.8

South America

54.3

52.3

53.3

55.3

Sub-Saharan Africa

51.2

50.7

51.3

53.1

Australia & Oceana

53.1

50.0

45.1

48.4

44

© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Within some cultures, leaders may often lead from both a Creative and Reactive orientation(scoring high in both). For example, in the Middle East and South America regions, leaders (bothfemale and male) have higher Creative scores than leaders in many other regions, but they also
have higher Reactive scores. Whereas in North America and Australia, leaders have significantly
higher Creative versus Reactive scores, thereby increasing their Reactive-Creative Scale score. Not
only is the Reactive performance in the Middle East and South America higher than in many otherregions, but the difference between females and males is less pronounced. This combination offactors results in a smaller feminine leadership advantage.
We also compared the Creative and Reactive orientations of female and male leaders belonging
to different ethnic groups within the USA. As the next graph shows, there are variations in
performance across ethnic groups, and the size of the gender gap differs. However, across allgroups there is a feminine leadership advantage.

Again, a further understanding of the gender differences for each ethnic group can be garnered bylooking at the Creative and Reactive scores, as laid out in the next table. There are a few interesting
interactions. For example, the gender gap in Reactive is more pronounced than for Creative for
Asian/Pacific Islander and Black/African American leaders. The reverse, where the gender gap inCreative is more pronounced than Reactive, occurs for leaders who identify with one of the “Other”
ethnicities, and the gender gap is similar across Creative and Reactive for Hispanic/Latin Americanand White leaders. The difference may be an indication of a greater acceptance of Reactive
tendencies among male leaders within some ethnic groups and cultural differences that influencethat acceptance. Although we observe a consistent female advantage in leader performance acrosscultures and ethnicities, there are variations in the magnitude of these differences. It is possible that
other factors related to diverse experiences and expectations in leadership are playing a role andthese should be explored further in research that specifically collects data related to the diverse
perspective to determine the extent to which the conclusions drawn here apply to all leaders.

45© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male LeadersEthnicity/Race ofAmerican Leaders

Creative
Creative
Reactive
Reactive
Female Leaders Male Leaders Female Leaders Male Leaders

Asian/Pacific Islander

53.5

53.3

46.3

48.8

Black/African American

55.7

54.8

44.5

46.0

Hispanic/Latin
American

54.7

53.3

45.7

47.1

Other

57.7

50.4

43.6

49.0

White

54.9

51.7

45.9

49.0

Differences in How Leaders Rate Themselves
Several past research studies suggest that there are differences in how female and male leaders
perceive their own leadership. To test this conclusion, we began by directly comparing the selfassessments of female and male leaders. The averaged self-ratings for the two genders areprovided in the next graphic.
Aggregate Female Leader’s Self-Assessment

Aggregate Male Leader’s Self-Assessment

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1090 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Identity10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1090 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Identity

10

10

20

20

30

30

40

40

50

50

60

60

70

70

80

80

90

90

10

10

20

20

30

30

40

40

50

50

60

60

70

70

80

80

90

90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

A quick perusal of the shading in the profile circles will reveal that there are very few obvious
differences in how female and male leaders rate themselves. Indeed, out of the 36 dimensions
and sub-dimensions, there were only 8 with meaningful differences (Effect Sizes larger than .20).
However, there was an overall difference in how female and male leaders rated their Creativecompetencies versus Reactive tendencies. Female leaders rated their development and expressionof Creative competencies higher than their exhibition of Reactive tendencies, whereas male leaders
rated their exhibition of Reactive behaviors as more frequent than their expression of Creative skills.

46© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

In other words, female leaders see themselves as more Creative and less Reactive and male leaders
see themselves as more Reactive and less Creative.
This finding may suggest that both female and male leaders have a good grasp on theirperformance as it lines up with the overall conclusions based on evaluator data. However, thespecific nature and magnitude of differences in Creative abilities and Reactive tendencies inthe self-ratings do not always correlate with evaluator ratings and sometimes lead to different
conclusions. For example, male leaders rate their abilities in Strategic Focus considerably higher
than female leaders rate their abilities on this leadership competency (p<.001, E.S. = .26). But
evaluators do not rate males and females substantially differently on this competency (p<.001, E.S.=06), and even rate female leaders slightly higher.
This type of discrepancy may be at the heart of many of the contradictory findings within theliterature, as some studies rely on self-assessment for drawing conclusions and others rely on
evaluator ratings. Our findings emphasize the caution in using only self-assessment data to identify
gender differences.
When analyzing the self-assessments of leaders on the LEI scale, we found that female leaders
rate their effectiveness slightly below the rating that male leaders gave their effectiveness (withstandard scores of 49.8 and 50.9, respectively). Although the difference in self-assessmentsof effectiveness was statistically significant, it was not practically meaningful (E.S.= -0.11). Thisfinding runs contrary to many studies that have found a “modesty effect” in which female leaders
often downplay their strengths and significantly underestimate their effectiveness comparedwith how male leaders rate their performance. Other studies also suggest that male leaders may
have an inflated perception of their leadership and so are likely to downplay their challenges andoverestimate their skills. At first blush, our results appear to refute these findings.
However, when we compare leaders’ self-scores to their evaluators’ scores, we do see somesignificant and meaningful gender differences that corroborate some of the past research.
[Note that for this comparison we used the raw rating scale scores so we could conduct a directcomparison. Raw scores are based on a 5-point scale.] The self-ratings of both female and maleleaders are lower than evaluator ratings for leadership effectiveness, as the next table indicates.
Yet, the underestimation for female leaders is considerably greater than for male leaders, in effectdoubling the gap between genders compared to the direct difference in self-ratings. This finding
is more in line with past research that suggests females underrate their performance to a larger
extent than males. However, this finding also refutes the notion that males inflate their leadershipperformance, at least in comparison to how others view their effectiveness.

Ratings of Leadership
EffectivenessAverage SelfRating

Females

3.59

4.05

0.46

Males

3.65

3.96

0.31

47

© Leadership Circle | All Rights Reserved

Average Rating of Difference in Self and
Evaluators
Evaluator Ratings

Understanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Across most areas of leadership, there is a general trend for leaders to underestimate their Creative
abilities and overestimate their Reactive tendencies compared with evaluators’ ratings. Of more
importance is the finding that female leaders underestimate their Creative abilities and overestimate
their Reactive tendencies to a much larger extent than male leaders, as the following graphillustrates.

Gap Between Self-Assessment and Evaluator Ratings by Gender
0.4
0.3

Overestimation

0.2
0.1
0

Underestimation

-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

Relating

Self-Awareness Authenticity

Female Leaders

Systems
Awareness

Achieving

Controlling

Protecting

Complying

Ma le Leaders

These findings support other research that suggests that female leaders are harder on themselves
than male leaders and often undervalue the contribution they are making. Further, in the caseof Relating, we see evidence of male leaders’ inflated self-perception. According to evaluators,
Relating is a core leadership strength for female leaders and one in which they are significantly
more capable than male leaders. However, female leaders’ self-scores in Relating are lower thanwhat evaluators give, and male leaders’ scores are higher than what evaluators give creating a selfperception view that male leaders are better relationship builders than female leaders – which ofcourse is inconsistent with the way they are showing up.
It may be that male leaders are not perceiving how they come across with respect to Relating as
they think they are showing up differently from how others experience them. It is also possible thatthey do not hold themselves to the same standards as others do in this area. In either case, this may
be what is preventing male leaders from improving their Relating skills at the same pace as female
leaders, thus creating the ever-widening gap that is observed between their performance andfemale leaders’ performance even as their overall effectiveness increases.

48© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

CONCLUSION – PUTTING THE FINDINGS IN CONTEXT
It may be tempting to conclude that females make better leaders than males, however, this may
or may not be true. Our findings certainly show that female leaders are more effective than maleleaders – they have developed, and exhibit, more Creative competencies and they are far less
Reactive. Our findings of a feminine leadership advantage are consistent with findings from manystudies, and it has been shown in this study to be robust – the feminine leadership advantage exists
at all management levels, all age groups, and across cultures.
So why then do some studies find no difference and other studies find mixed results with someadvantage to male leaders and some to female leaders? Our analysis of the differences in skills andbehaviors at different levels of leadership effectiveness may help explain this. At the least effective
level of leadership, there are fewer differences than similarities between female and male leaders– largely no differences in Creative competencies or Reactive tendencies. At the moderate levelof effectiveness, female leaders have better developed Creative competencies and fewer Reactive
tendencies than male leaders in several areas but not in every area of leadership – in a few areas,
male leaders outperform female leaders. By the time leaders are highly effective, the performancewithin nearly all areas of leadership favor female leaders. Thus, the differences in past findings may
be the result of the interaction of gender differences with overall leadership effectiveness and thepossibility that past studies have used narrowly defined samples of leaders who are predominately
at one level of leadership effectiveness.
Further, our findings related to differences in gender leadership orientation are not always
consistent with leadership styles as previously researched. Contrary to several studies andpopular belief, we did not find that female leaders were more relationship-oriented and maleleaders more task-oriented. Both leaders tend to be balanced in their approach to people andtasks. Further, female leaders perform consistently well in both areas of leadership, although thedifference with male leaders is more pronounced in terms of Relationship competencies. Indeed,
our findings suggest that female leaders have developed greater Creative competencies in all five
Creative leadership dimensions (including the vast majority of sub-dimensions). Further, females
leaders have significantly fewer Reactive tendencies and that in combination with their Creativeskills creates a distinct Feminine Leadership Advantage. Feminine leadership is balanced in taskrelationship with a super charge in Relating. It may be the elevated development in Relatingcompetencies that leads to the impression of stylistic differences along the Relating-Achieving
dichotomy. However, our results suggest that it is the proclivity of male leaders to engage inProtecting behaviors that undermine their relational skills, cancelling them out and preventing
male leaders from forging the deeper more vulnerable relationships that are requisite for higher
level performance within this dimension of leadership. That is, it is not so much that male leaders
are overly focused on Achieving but rather that they are overly focused on strategies of Distance,
Arrogance, and superiority to protect position, and maintain sense of self-worth and/or safety that
leads to their lower performance in Relating compared with their female counterparts who do not
engage as often in these Reactive styles.
This latter finding is consistent with several articles (e.g., Ito & Bligh, 2017; Arata, 2018) that suggest
female leaders are better at Relating because they are more emotionally vulnerable, have developed
empathy for others, and take a genuine interest in others’ lives. (We add that these skills are moreaccessible in the Creative orientation.) Whereas male leaders tend to avoid emotional connections,remain more aloof, show less compassion, and are reluctant to engage in personal conversations or

49© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

genuinely listen to others when they express their feelings. These descriptions of male and female
leaders closely correspond to the feedback evaluators gave leaders in our study. It is important to
notice that both male and female leaders were described as people persons (echoing the previously
cited finding that both male and female leaders focus on Relating). However, the frequency withwhich evaluators reported on the depth, compassion, empathy, and trust of connections createdby female leaders was nearly the same as the frequency that evaluators reported male leaders
struggling in these areas. Although male leaders were reported as personable and approachable,
capable of reaching out to others and building relationships, they were also described as having
challenges with forming relationships at a shallow level and of being inattentive to others’ needs,
feelings, and opinions – a more Reactive approach to the relationships they had formed.
One last observation from our findings that is worth noting, as it has implications for future researchand organizational practice, comes from comparing the results obtained from our analysis of thequantitative and qualitative feedback. Although the findings coming from our descriptive analysesof evaluator feedback support the findings from the evaluator rating data overall (the qualitative
results show more Creative strengths and less Reactive challenges for female leaders comparedwith male leaders, consistent with the quantitative ratings), the direction and magnitude of somestrengths did not align with the rating data. That is, a few strengths were reported significantly
more frequently for male leaders than female leaders in the feedback data, but they showed nodifference in the rating results.
Interestingly, the disparate qualitative strengths correspond to stereotypical masculine traits that
other studies have found are more often ascribed to male leaders, including project management,
strategic thinking, and problem solving – traits that are hallmarks of task-oriented styles (and that
correspond to Systems-Awareness and Achieving on the LCP). In fact, this type of finding has beenused to support the claim that males are more task-oriented. However, our evaluator ratings forthese same dimensions showed no significant differences between male and female leaders’ actual
performance, with female leaders slightly (although not meaningfully) outperforming their malecounterparts in these areas of leadership.
For these few instances, evaluators report qualities differently than how they evaluate them, andwe might ask why so? The answer may be in the nature of the methodology used between thetwo studies. In the descriptive study, evaluators’ feedback was solicited based on open-ended
questions, without focusing the respondent on a specific aspect of leadership. Without the specificframing, it may be that evaluators responded in accordance with what they stereotypically look forin a male and female leader and reported on that. As a consequence, evaluators may have analyzed
male leaders’ assets from the Achieving role and noted whether they were present or not but did
not even consider these when thinking and responding to the assets of female leaders, thus underreporting the same skills.. However, on the LCP rating assessment tool, evaluators were specificallyasked about performance within the Systems-Awareness and Achieving (task-oriented) dimensions.
In completing the rating scales, evaluators were focused less on their general impressions (which
may be heavily influenced by stereotypes) and more on actual behaviors (as the instrument
asks them to rate the frequency of behaviors). In this case, evaluators did not differentiate theperformance of male leaders and female leaders on the task-oriented traits.
The difference in outcomes by methodology is important. First, it may help explain thediscrepancies in past research between those studies that find traditionally accepted genderleadership style differences versus those that do not. As mentioned in the literature review
section of this report, most of the studies that have found evidence for males using a task-

50© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leadersoriented approach to leadership are based on descriptive data and this may naturally lend itself tomeasuring stereotypical impressions as opposed to perceived performance.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the tendency to focus on impressions aligned withstereotypical thinking may indicate a potential bias in everyday assessment of leaders in theorganization. If bosses use conventional wisdom, as opposed to more formal assessments, toevaluate and promote leaders they may not always select those best suited to the job. Indeed, someresearchers have suggested that because the male stereotype is more closely related to leadership
impact (specifically in terms of achieving results) and male leaders are perceived as being proficientin these areas, it can create an undo disadvantage for female leaders and may be one of thereasons that there is disparity in the frequency of female compared with male leaders (Eagly &Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Brooks, 2011).
Third, there may be a female bias that overlooks development attained. When we examine
the research provided in the categories of maturing age and leadership positions, there is anincreasing feminine advantage gap. When examining leadership position, the data indicates thatfemale leaders advance in Creative competency at all levels, notably in senior positions. The sameis indicated for maturing age, where a female advantage gap widens compared to their malecounterparts in senior position and age.
Taken altogether, the variances shown in this study contribute to meaningful gender differencesin leadership competency and effectiveness and perhaps opportunities to be realized fororganizations. Our findings suggest that the Creative vs. Reactive orientations to leadership best
distinguish differences between female and male leaders. It is also this shift that creates better
leaders, regardless of gender. Female leaders’ Creative orientation to leadership results in showing
up more effectively in the workplace. Organizations might benefit from looking to promote womenleaders that lead effectively, as the results of this study show that they will continue to add greater
effectiveness as they lead. There may be a decisive advantage in promoting, developing, andproviding opportunities sooner to female leaders than has historically been the case or in areas andjobs that have not previously been considered.
There is also an advantage and opportunity for male leaders to increase leadership competency
toward more Creative orientations. It may not have seemed as critical for promotion oreffectiveness for male leaders in the past; however, this study demonstrates a clear advantage formales to begin new levels of Creative orientation for greater leadership effectiveness. There is asignificant advantage in creating diverse teams that include the leadership effectiveness of female
leaders. Diversity in Creative leadership expression and style can elevate an organization in waysthat have been previously overlooked or not yet realized.

Why are there Gender Differences in Leadership?
Why is there a feminine leadership advantage? There are at least three hypotheses that have been
proposed in the literature. We look at each of these in the light of our findings to determine which
reason(s) are most strongly supported.

Hypothesis 1: Females have innate and/or socialized skills that provide an advantage
in leadership as it develops.

51© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Many studies report that females enter leadership positions with strong relational skills and that thiscreates an advantage over male leaders because female leaders only have to focus on developing
other leadership capabilities in order to become great leaders, whereas males must develop all
aspects of leadership. Some research suggests that women are born with a predisposition toward
Relating that is not part of men’s DNA (e.g., Van Edwards, 2017). These studies use recent evidence
from neuroscience that indicate that women are hardwired genetically with hormones (namely
Oxytocin) that promote intimate connections, whereas men are hardwired differently. According
to this research, when men engage in emotionally vulnerable interactions (a key to deeper
relationships), it triggers the release of cortisol prompting a stress reaction. As a consequence,
most men avoid such intimate interactions and subsequently don’t develop the relationshipcompetencies that women bring to the leadership table.
Other research (e.g., Reddy, 2018) has suggested that from childhood, females are taught toexpress their emotions and are rewarded for demonstrating nurturing tendencies, whereas males
are taught to hide their emotions and not express their true feelings. These social expectations
continue into adulthood and subsequently better prepare females to take a transformational (orwhat we would call Creative) leadership orientation that focuses on building deep and effective
relationships.
Although our study cannot fully distinguish whether there is a biological predisposition to Relatingskills or if female leaders have been socialized into these skills, our findings do support the assertion
that enhanced Relating abilities contribute to overall leadership effectiveness and female leaders, on
average, have more developed relational competencies than male leaders. Even the least effective
female leaders, as well as female leaders in lower management positions, demonstrate earlier ability
to form warm, caring relationships than their male counterparts. This finding does suggest thatsome Relating skills have already been developed before females assume leadership positions.
However, our findings also show that female leaders’ Relating skills continue to improve as they
become more effective, are elevated to higher management levels, and as age increases. This latter
finding suggests that at least some of the relationship competencies female leaders possess arelearned and/or honed on the job.

Hypothesis 2: Female leaders are more demanding of their performance and so work
harder at development.
Several studies suggest that female leaders strive harder once in their leadership positions thanmale leaders and this results in higher-level performance compared to their male counterparts.
Zenger & Folkman (2012) suggest that female leaders may feel they have to work harder in allcompetency areas to be rewarded for their leadership skills. In follow-up interviews they conductedwith female leaders, they found evidence that female leaders believe they have to continually prove
themselves to be accepted and secure in their positions. Interestingly, as they point out, this propels
female leaders to take initiative, seek feedback, and incorporate feedback into their leadership
practice – the very developmental strategies that lead to more Creative leadership. This highlights
another avenue for organizations to take seriously.
Several findings from our research also suggest that female leaders may be more demanding of
their performance than male leaders – even at times engaging in overdrive and perfectionism in an

52© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

attempt to maintain their security. See for example the elevated Reactive tendencies for Driven and
Perfect that continue to be prevalent up until the time female leaders become highly effective, atwhich point they appear to have channeled the power within these Reactive tendencies into more
Creative expressions of leadership. Further, evidence from the progression of leadership strengths(as noted in both the rating data and the feedback data), where female leaders frequently outpace
male leaders in the development of Creative competencies, suggests that female leaders may
be putting more effort into their development. Our findings from the self-assessment study alsosuggest that female leaders may try harder for their work to have worth, but because they do notappreciate how much they have accomplished or undervalue the contribution they have made,causing them to strive for more perfect results.
A counter possibility that our findings suggest that has not been raised in the literature, focusesless on the increased effort of female leaders and rather on the possibility that male leaders may
put less focus into development, at least of relational competencies. Why would male leaders exert
less effort to improve? It may be, as the data from the self-assessment suggests, that male leaders
have lack of awareness with respect to Relating and do not perceive how they are coming acrossin the workplace. This obstruction in view may be the result of lack of socialization into these skills,
as the previous hypothesis surmised. Another possibility is that male leaders have less incentive todevelop their relational awareness, or to evolve their Reactive tendencies, because these skills andbehaviors have not been required for their promotion into higher management levels, as the next
hypothesis suggests.

Hypothesis 3: Males are promoted to leadership positions even if less skilled and thus
are at a comparative disadvantage.
Some studies report that male leaders are often promoted without some of the qualities required
for exceptional leadership and that this is less true for female leaders (e.g., Eagly and Carli, 2007;
Edwards, 2017; Chamorro-Premuzic & Gallop, 2020). This research suggests that there exists a
double standard in many organizations, where male leaders need only to display achievement
strengths to be promoted, whereas female leaders must have strengths in both Achieving andRelating. This research suggests that the reason female leaders employ a transformational
leadership style (or we would say a Creative orientation to leadership) more frequently than maleleaders is because it increases their likelihood of success. Further, these studies offer evidence
that because female leaders must excel compared with male leaders to be promoted, this leads todisparity among promotion rates of males and females. Consequently, there are more male leaders
who do not have the ideal requisite leadership skills or possess skills that are developmentally
below those of female leaders in the same leadership roles.
Although the LCP database does not contain information on the skills required for promotionof the leaders who participated in the LCP, our findings do line up with the results as would be
predicted from the above hypotheses. We found evidence that male leaders can achieve high levelsof effectiveness (as evidenced by the 29% who do) but are more likely to perform at a much lower
levels of effectiveness (as evidenced by the 34% who score well-below average on effectiveness).
The exact opposite is true of female leaders, only 27% score in the less-effective range and 37%score at least one standard deviation above average on leadership effectiveness.
In addition, our analyses of management levels support the idea that females are promoted as theireffectiveness increases. As female leaders move from lower-level management positions to senior53© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leadersmanagement positions, their Creative competencies continue to improve (as does their reduction
in Reactive tendencies). Male leaders also show some improvements at successively higher levels ofmanagement; however, the growth is not nearly as dramatic as for female leaders and may reflectthat they have been promoted without the same level of skill exhibited by female leaders. Thesefindings also suggest that it is valuable to consider strategies of developing and promoting female
leaders earlier on in their careers as results show that this investment has significant advantage
once female leaders achieve even moderate levels of effectiveness.

Developing Leaders toward Higher Effectiveness within an Organization
Based on the findings of a feminine leadership advantage, it can be argued that employing
female leaders is smart and healthy for an organization. This is supported by other evidence thatshows that companies with larger frequencies of female leaders, particularly in the top leadership
positions, also have better business performance than companies with significantly fewer female
leaders (e.g., Nolan, Moran, & Kotschwar, 2016; Ting, 2021; Lemke, 2021). Additionally, these finds
are suggested by Development Dimensions International (DDI), reporting that “Organizations in
the top 20 percent of financial performance counted 37 percent of their leaders as women; amongorganizations in the bottom 20 percent, only 19 percent of leaders were women (DDI, Global
Leadership Forecast 2014/2015).
Some of the benefits for companies who employ more female leaders (particularly over those that
do not employ any) is that they realize greater net profit and ROA, generate more creative andprofitable solutions to business problems, and implement innovations faster.
To maximize the impact of leadership within an organization, diversity in leadership ranks is proving
to have a strategic advantage. It will be important to not only hire and promote female leaders, but
to encourage their development along with the development of male leaders. Our findings suggestthat the pathway to more effective leadership is similar for females and males, although there aresome unique challenges that each must transcend.
Transcending from a Reactive to Creative orientation is distinguished by a substantive shift in ourmeaning, making interpretations of our narratives, context, experience, and perceptions of reality
and success. These may vary in various cultural groups, race, gender and other constructs. Thisdevelopment will comprise the following journey and provides a pathway for coaching:54© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male LeadersThough the overall development pathway follows the same principles for all leaders, for typicalmale and female leaders highlighted in this study, there are differences required to understandwhen coaching specific Reactive Tendencies, within a gender construct. The context provided inthis study is important for coaches to glean insight into gender patterns that may (not always) be
operating. This awareness and knowledge for potential gender patterns beyond “the one person”
with whom a coach is engaged can be instructive. Regardless of the particulars of the journey, thetransformation from Reactive to Creative leadership results in significantly increased leadershipeffectiveness.

Coaching and Developing the Average Male Leader: The Forceful Knower
The Forceful Knower: The center of gravity for development of typical male leaders lies
within the Protecting Dimension. While male leaders do possess increased scores in theControlling sub-dimensions (particularly Autocratic and Ambition) and in the Complying
sub-dimensions (more notably Passive and Belonging) the potency for development ismost likely found in Protecting – and informed by a more aggressive energy in Autocratic or afading energy in Passive. The swing of the line, either into Autocratic or into Passive and potentiallyboth, focuses the coaching agenda. The largest differentiator between male and female leaders
occurs for the Protecting-Controlling aggregate and results in an archetype described as theForceful Knower. The secondary pattern which moves into a Complying Dimension with a subdimension of Passive can be described as the Elusive Knower. We describe both below.

Coaching and Developing the Average Female Leader: The Exhausted HeroThe Exhausted Hero: The center of gravity for development of an average female leader
likely lies within the Controlling sub-dimensions of Perfect and Driven. While female leaders
may have other areas needing development, the sub-dimensions of Perfect and Driven areat the heart of what persists with women leaders over time and even when more highly
effective, like an unshakeable overload. It isn’t that the scores continue to be strong when highly
effective, but that the exhausted hero remains, requiring further development. (Note the challenges
on Page 30 for highly effective female leaders.)

Finally, our findings reveal that with focused development work, both female and male leaders canoffer exceptional leadership.

55© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The Forceful Knower
Evolving the Forceful Knower requires an identity narrative shift from “knower in chief” (I am my ideas,
if they are not best, I am a nobody) to a courageous relational learner (I am good with ideas and havemuch to learn from and with others). This is a transformational shift from the stance of “retreating tomind and moving away from people,” to an embodied vulnerable presence, learning in partnership,with others.

Internal Assumptions,Behaviors, and Impact
Forceful Knower behaviors are
based on internal assumptions
that link security and worth withbeing superior, smartest, right,
self-sufficient, and hyper-rational.
Focus and Behaviors: This leader
is likely to focus on superiority- superiority of their ideas andreason, therefore behaviors
show up in determining how topreserve that superiority of ideas
and brilliance. Including: whoand what is wrong, criticizing
others’ ideas, avoiding conflict(or ensuring dominance duringconflict), dismissing, interrupting,forming opinions before listening
all the way through to others, andensuring emotional distance.
Impact: Can be in missed
opportunities in achievement andrelationship. Overlooked is thatthe scaling of ideas and initiatives
requires learning with others andhighly engaged committed teams
for collective breakthrough. Thisrequires emotional intelligence,vulnerability, connected relational
leverage, and self/systems
awareness that at this orientation
are generally not operating.
Finally, leadership effectivenesssuffers as scale without
relationship competency is
impossible.

56

Coaching and Experiments to Consider
The first step in assisting the Forceful Knower is to help them to become
more aware of the narrative experiences that form their current results,
and bring clarity to whether the current way of being (the inner andouter game of leadership) is able to bring them to who they want to be
and where they want to go. This requires creating a space of trust andsafety for the leader to begin to assess what is at stake, needed, anddesired now in their leadership and if they want to take the journey.
Interrupting narratives: Interrupting narratives can start by asking
questions that bring some pause to things not thought about before.
Some interrupting narrative questions could be: What is a cost to you
personally/professionally for having to be the one with the right orbest answers? What is at risk if you are not seen as put together whenpresenting thoughts and ideas? Are there circumstances where your best
ideas are not moving forward, why? What is the real challenge for you
in this? What is the cost of distant rationality in your role as a leader?
As a spouse/friend? What do you want now? This phase loosens faulty
narratives in service of greater awareness and choice and helps leaders
to reframe old narratives to newer and more expansive narratives.
Conducting experiments with new beliefs is a lot like putting on a pairof glasses and simply noticing the difference to determine if you likethe results. ‘What if’ questions are useful: What if… “I can learn frompeople who are not as smart is me?” “I can be more fulfilled and wiser inemotional connection.” “I am more than my knowing and ideas.” “I canlearn more by leaning fully into undefended presence and openness.”
These are just a few.
Behavior experiments can begin small and then take on sustainability.
Experiments for male leaders in this pattern may be in yielding toothers - listening before speaking and deciding, seeking out different
voices than before, asking how people are feeling and responding with
empathy or genuine curiosity, listening to how one listens, delegatingidea creation to the team, deciding not to use “me/ I” and include “we/us”, practicing being fully engaged and present (in the body) in difficultand emotionally charged situations.
The result is in forming a more complex narrative that isn’t as tied to ego
identity, but rather drawn to purpose and presence, fluidly learning andin scaling effectiveness with others.

© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The Elusive Knower
Evolving the Elusive Knower requires the same shift as described above as both of these patterns are
centered in protecting. The Elusive Knower includes moving from knowing big and playing small (“I ammy brilliance, emotionally contained, if I am not right, smart I am nothing”) to a courageous relational
learner (“I am good with ideas and as I share these I ideas I learn from and with others. Learningwith others brings scale.”). This is a transformational shift from the stance of “retreating to mind andmoving away from people,” to an authentic embodied vulnerable presence, learning in partnership,with others.

Some Differences – Internal Assumptions, Behavior, and Impact
Elusive Knower behaviors are based on internal assumptions that link security and worth with being superior,smartest, right, self-sufficient, and hyper-rational and retreating to self-contained mind. This leads to outcomesof “knowing big yet playing small”.
Focus and Behaviors:
This leader is likely to have brilliant ideas and yet the focus of isolation and self-sufficiency leads to not showing
up fully in a way that these ideas are heard and implemented. Playing small and knowing big can bring passiveaggressive behavior and shrinks impact, containing emotion and belief in their ability to influence.
Therefore, behaviors are centered in self-containment - protecting ideas and brilliance. These behaviors can beseen more by what is not - not committing to teams, not being fully present, not speaking up and influencing
in power situations, appearing to agree (through silence) in public and doing their own thing anyway, taking a
project and moving it privately without organizational knowledge or support, criticizing others’ ideas indirectly,
avoiding conflict and ensuring emotional distance by disappearing or not showing up.
Coaching ideas can be gleaned from the above table descriptions. Developing the ability to remain fully present
in mind, body, and spirit in relationship requires practicing and is critical to the coaching journey.

For male leaders in both patterns, creating integrated teams and launching peer coaching may assist in
developing skills that do not come as naturally. Learning from peer groups that have diversity including womenas part of the mix is essential. Studies (e.g., Hauwiller, 2021) demonstrate that peer coaching can help leaders todevelop more emotional intelligence and strengthen relationships.

57© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

The Exhausted Hero
Evolving the Exhausted Hero requires a narrative identity shift from an unyielding heroic doer (I must
do better than best/I am what I do – if I am not doing, I am irrelevant) to Balanced Creator in service.
The exhausted hero is also exhausting, illuminating intensity. This requires a fundamental shift frommoving against obstacles with personal/solo will, toward moving with what is, allowing obstacles toinform action in partnership.

Internal Assumptions,Behaviors, and Impact

Coaching and Experiments to Consider

Exhausted Hero behaviors are
based on internal assumptions
that link security and worth withdoing, high accomplishment, andbeing seen as accomplishing – “I
am how much and how flawlessly
I produce”.

The first step in assisting the Exhausted Hero is to help them to become
more aware by working with them to uncover for themselves how deep,
persistent, and pernicious the pattern is in their life – professionally andpersonally and to honestly assess what they truly want. These costs
usually are perpetuating internal stress and helping them to bring clarity
to the chronic nature of doing results in this manner brings new resolve
to evolve.

Focus and Behaviors: The
exhausted hero can over focus
on looking and doing better than
the rest – more achievement andmore carrying the load. Therefore,
behaviors show up in an effort topreserve the appearance of thehighest accomplishment status.
Behaviors are likely to include:
Ignoring and dismissing feedback
that doesn’t fit the agenda,
pushing forward regardless ofcircumstance, expectations for self
and others that are exhausting,overlooking (self/other)boundaries and needs.

Interrupting narratives: Some interrupting questions for this patternmight be: Is there a cost personally for believing you must achieve
above or else? What is the risk to you if you don’t accept an important
assignment? What if you fail to meet or exceed standards? What is yourexhaustion level and what do you want? Are their circumstances where
you are preventing others from growing because you carry the load?

Impact: Underlying internal
self-doubt as doing enough isnever enough and “I will never beenough”. Missing opportunities
for seeing and enjoying successand in recognizing growthand competence. Dampened
leadership scale and long-termsustainability.
To scale leadership, balancedservant mastery will be needed.

With greater clarity, awareness and choice, it is time to experiment withsome ‘what ifs’: What if… “I gain greater results from not working aroundthe clock?” “What if showing more vulnerability brings strength?” “Whatif you mattered, without having anything to prove?” “What if you could
get better results without the cost extracted now?” “What if you could
help others in a more impactful way by being present more and doing
less?”
Behavior experiments can begin small and then take on sustainability.
Experiments for women leaders will likely consist of: Trying out small
to larger boundaries, letting go of the shield of perfection and leaning
into vulnerable authenticity, strengthening others’ ability to be authentic
by example, slowing down to listen to inner wisdom, learning to pay
attention to body signals, valuing presence over task to assess wiser
action.
Learning to utilize presence and attention with informed wisdom inservice of purpose and in authentic partnership is the master journey.
Learning to distinguish between overdrive and purpose ensures scalable
results, sustainable performance, and a much more fulfilling experienceof leadership.

Female leaders would benefit from advocating for and owning their leadership abilities, forthrightly
acknowledging the contribution they are making, removing the self-doubt, and creating boundaries without
guilt. Our findings show that female leaders underestimate the impact they are having, and other researchsuggests that this lack of confidence in, or undervaluing of, their competencies may prevent female leadersfrom pursuing more senior positions or achieving success when they do so (e.g., Chief Executive, 2016).

58© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Cynthia Adams is Global President of Products, Certification andCommunity at Leadership Circle. She leads global leadership teams
and organizational initiatives for product innovation and codification,
global scale, and advancing leadership that elevates humanity through acommunity of practitioners, organizational leaders and partners worldwide.
Cindy combines a deep understanding of leadership development, wholesystems change and business process performance to guide outcomes thatmatter, engagement, adaptive capacity, and fulfillment. As a fellow traveler
on the leader’s path, both personally and professionally, she is intimatelyfamiliar with the challenges that leaders face throughout their careers andthe adaptive challenge inherent in meeting today’s turbulent conditions.
As a founding partner and leader, Cindy has worked with leaders from awide array of businesses and industries. Cindy holds a master’s degree inmanagement: human resources and organizational behavior.

Lani Van Dusen, Ph.D. specializes in designing and conducting bothquantitative and qualitative assessments of organizational systems, culture,
leadership effectiveness, and human performance. As the President of theWorldwide Institute for Research and Evaluation, she has designed andconducted over 200 studies for government agencies and educational
institutions, as well as for profit and non-profit organizations in 23
countries. She also serves as an external director of the Leadership Circle
Assessment Center, where she works with both consultants and clientsusing best practice research and evaluation technologies to provide
meaningful and actionable information to leaders, their teams, and theorganizations they serve.

59© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

APPENDIX – DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LCP SUBDIMENSIONS
Relating Dimension•

Caring Connection measures leaders’ interests in and abilities to form warm, caring
relationships.

•

Fosters Team Play measures leaders’ abilities to foster high-performance teamwork among
team members who report to the leader, across the organization, and within teams in which
the leader participates.

•

Collaborator measures the extent to which leaders engage others in a manner that allows
the parties involved to discover common ground in conflict situations, find mutually
beneficial agreements, develop synergy, and create win-win solutions.

•

Mentoring & Developing measures leaders’ abilities to develop others through mentoringand maintaining growth-enhancing relationships. Helps people grow and develop personallyand professionally. Is genuinely interested in seeing another develop / improve.

•

Interpersonal Intelligence measures the interpersonal effectiveness with which leaders listen,
engage in conflict and controversy, deal with the feelings of others, and manage their own
feelings.

Self-Awareness Dimension•

Selfless Leader measures the extent to which leaders pursue service over self-interest. It
measures a very high state of personal awareness where the need for credit and personal
ambition is far less important than creating results – in collaborative relationships – which
serve a common good.

•

Balance measures leaders’ abilities to keep a healthy balance between business and family,
activity and reflection, work, and leisure. It measures leaders’ tendencies to be self-renewing
and handle the stress of life without losing sense of self.

•

Composure measures leaders’ abilities, in the midst of conflict and high-tension situations, toremain composed and centered, and to maintain a calm, focused perspective.

•

Personal Learner measures the degree to which leaders demonstrate a strong and active
interest in learning, personal and professional growth. It measures the extent to whichleaders actively and reflectively pursue growing in self-awareness, wisdom, knowledge, andinsight.

Authenticity•

60

Integrity measures how well leaders adhere to the set of values and principles that they
espouse; that is, how well they can be trusted to “walk the talk.”© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders•

Courageous Authenticity measures leaders’ willingness, one-on-one and in groups, to taketough stands, bring up the “undiscussables” (risky issues the group avoids discussing),
openly deal with relationship problems, and share personal feelings / vulnerabilities about asituation.

Systems Awareness•Community Concern measures the service orientation from which leaders lead. The extent towhich they link their legacy to service of community and global welfare.

•

Sustainable Productivity measures leaders’ abilities to achieve results in a way that maintains
or enhances the overall long-term effectiveness of the organization. It measures how
well they balance human and technical resources so that long term high performance issustainable.

•

Systems Thinker measures the degree to which leaders think and act from a whole systemperspective as well as the extent to which they make decisions in light of the long-term
health of the whole system.

Achieving•

Strategic Focus measures the extent to which leaders think strategically. How well leaderstranslate strategic thinking into rigorous and thoroughly developed business strategies toensure that the organization will thrive in the near and long-term.

•

Purposeful & Visionary measures the extent to which leaders clearly communicate andmodel commitment to personal purpose and vision.

•

Achieves Results measures the degree to which leaders are goal directed and have a trackrecord of goal achievement and high performance.

•

Decisiveness measures leaders’ abilities to make decisions on time, and the extent to which
they are comfortable moving forward in uncertainty.

Controlling•

Perfect measures leaders’ needs to attain flawless results and perform to extremely highstandards in order to feel secure and worthwhile.

•

Driven measures the extent to which leaders are in overdrive.

•

Ambition measures the extent to which leaders need to get ahead, move up in theorganization, and be better than others.

•

Autocratic measures leaders’ tendencies to be forceful, aggressive, and controlling.

Protecting•

61

Arrogance measures leaders’ tendencies to project a large ego – behavior that is© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

experienced as superior, egotistical, and self-centered.
•

Critical measures leaders’ tendencies to take a critical, questioning, and somewhat cynicalattitude.

•Distance measures leaders’ tendencies to establish a sense of personal worth and security
through withdrawal, being superior and remaining aloof, emotionally distant, and above it all.

Complying•

Passive measures the degree to which leaders give away their power to others and tocircumstances outside their control.

•

Pleasing measures leaders’ needs to seek others’ support and approval in order to feelsecure and worthwhile.

•

Belonging measures leaders’ need to conform, follow the rules, and meet the expectations of
those in authority.

•

Conservative measures the extent to which leaders think and act conservatively, follow
procedure, and live within the prescribed rules of the organization with which they areassociated.

REFERENCES
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2003). Under the influence. People Management, 9(5), pp.
32-36.
Andersen, J. A. & Hansson, P. H. (2011). At the end of the road? On differences between women andmen in leadership behavior. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 32 (5), 428–
441. doi:10.1108/01437731111146550.
Anderson, R. (2009). The Leadership circle and organizational performance. Research Paper Series:
The Leadership Circle.
Appelbaum, S., Audet, L., & Miller, J. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? Ajourney through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
24(1), 43-51.
Arata, R. (2018). Vulnerability: A 21st century leadership skill. Ethics and Values: The Good Men
Project. https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/vulnerability-a-21st-cengry-leadershipskill/
Brooks, H. (2011). Women in power: Leadership differences by gender. Women on Business. https://www.womenonbusiness.

62© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Burke, S., & Collins, K.M. (2001). Gender differences in leadership styles and management skills.
Women in Management Review, 16(5), pp. 244-257.
Business News Daily (2020, March). Male vs. female entrepreneurs: How are they different? https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/6762-male-female-entrepreneurs.html#:~:text=Female%20
entrepreneurs%20might%20be%20outdoing,comes%20to%20running%20successful%20
businesses.&text=According%20to%20the%20findings%2C%20women,and%20time%20
with%20their%20children.
Chaluvadi, N. (2015). “Differences in Leadership Styles between Genders: Outcomes andEffectiveness of Women in Leadership Roles” MBA Student Scholarship. 35. Johnson & Wales
University. https://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/mba_student/35
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Gallop, C. (2020). 7 leadership lessons men can learn from women.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/04/7-leadership-lessons-men-can-learnfrom-women
Chapman, J.B. (2017). Comparison of male and female leadership styles. Academy of Management
Journal, 18(.3). DOI: 10.5465/255695
Chief Executive. (2016). Leadership differences between Men and women. Chief Executive Research.
https://chiefexecutive.net/leadership-differences-between-men-and-women/
Cliff, J. E. (2005). “Walking the talk? Gendered rhetoric vs. action in small firms”. Organization
Studies,26, 63–91.
Dalal, D., Lin, B., Smith, B.S., Zickar, M. J. (2008). Psychometric properties and validation of
the leadership circle profile. Technical Report. Institute for Psychological Research andApplication. Bowling Green State University.
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L.L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence.
Leadership Quarterly, 14 (6), pp. 807-834.
Eagly, A.H. & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review,
85, 62-71.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men.
Psychological Bulletin, 129,569 –591.
Eagly, A.H. & Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2007). Leadership style matters: The small, but important,style differences between male and female leaders. In Bilimoria, D. and Piderit, K. (Eds),
Handbook on Women in Business and Management, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
Cheltenham, pp. 279-303.
Eagly, A.H. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2011). The leadership styles of women and men. Journalof Social Issues, 57(4), 781-89.
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.
Eklund, K.E., Barry, E.S., & Grunberg, N.E. (2017). Gender and leadership. Chapter in Gender63© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Differences in Different Contexts. DOI:10.5772/65457. https://www.intechopen.com/books/
gender-difference-in-different-contexts/gender-and-leadership
Globe (2004). An overview of the 2004 study: Understanding the relationship between national
culture, societal effectiveness and desirable leadership attributes. Global Leadership andOrganizational Behavior Effectiveness. https://globeproject.com/study_2004_2007
Hamori-Ota, V.E. (2007). Gender differences in leadership style: Predictors of level of agreement
between leader self-ratings and supervisory ratings, peer ratings, and ratings by direct
reports. Dissertation: University of Michigan.
Hauwiller, J. (2021). Peer coaching can be a win for organization when everyone plays their part.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2021/05/03/peer-coaching-canbe-a-win-for-organizations-when-everyone-plays-their-part/
Horowitz, J.M., Igielnik, R., & Parker, K. (2018). Chapter 2: Views on leadership traits andcompetencies and how they Intersect with gender. Pew Research Center: Social &Demographic Trends. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/09/20/2-views-onleadership-traits-and-competencies-and-how-they-intersect-with-gender/
Hyde, J.S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592 DOI:
10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
Ibarra, H. & Obodaru, O. (2009). Women and the vision thing. Harvard Business Review pp. 62–70.
Ito, A., & Bligh, M. (2017). Feeling vulnerable? Disclosure of vulnerability in the charismatic
leadership relationship. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(3), 66-70.
Institute for Women’s Leadership (2020). Facts & stat Tracking issues in women’s leadership.
https://iwl.nichols.edu/facts-stats/
Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M.L., & Schneider, S.C. (2010). Gender differences in leadership – believing isseeing: implications for managing diversity. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 29(6), 549-572. DOI: 10.1108/02610151011067504
Kent, T. W. Blair, C. Rudd, H.F., & Schuele, U. (2010). Gender differences and transformational
leadership behavior: Do both German men and women lead in the same way? International
Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 52–66.
Kinicki, A. & Williams, B. (2009). Management: A practical introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill Irwin, p. 443.
Leadership. (2012). Insight: The differences between male and female leaders. Trainingzone. https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/lead/culture/insight-the-differences-between-male-and-femaleleaders
Lemke, T. (2021). Do companies with female executives perform better? The Balance. https://www.
thebalance.com/do-companies-with-female-executives-perform-better-4586443
Levy, P. (2010). Industrial organizational psychology: Understanding the workplace (3rd ed.). New
York: NY: Worth Publishers.

64© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leaders

Lyncova, D. (2020). Shocking male vs female CEO statistics 2020. Leftronic. https://leftronic.com/
ceo-statistics/#:~:text=Amazing%20Female%20CEOs%20Statistics.%20Let%E2%80%99s%20
get%20started%2C%20ladies,senior%20management%20roles%2C%20globally%2C%20
are%20fulfilled%20by%20women.
Madsen, S.R. & Scribner, R.T. (2017). A perspective on gender in management: The need for strategic
cross-cultural scholarship on women in management and leadership. Cross Cultural &Strategic Management, 24(2), 231-250.
Marinakou, E., & Giousmpasoglou, C. (2015). Gendered leadership as a key to business success,evidence from the Middle East. In Ordóñez de Pablos, P. and Tennyson, R. (Eds) Handbookof Research on Human Resources Strategies for the New Millennial Workforce. Hershey: IGI
GlobalNoland, M., Moran, T., & Kotschwar, B. (2016). Is gender diversity profitable? Evidence from a global
survey. Peterson Institute for International Economics – Working Paper Series, 16-3. https://www.piie.com/system/files/documents/wp16-3.pdf
Paustian-Underdahl, S.C., Walker, L.S., & Woehr, D.J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadershipeffectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology,99(6), 1129-1145.
Radu, C., Deaconu, A., & Frăsineanu, C. (2017). Leadership and gender differences—Are Men
and women leading in the same way? Intech Open. https://www.intechopen.com/books/
contemporary-leadership-challenges/leadership-and-gender-differences-are-men-andwomen-leading-in-the-same-wayReddy, K. (2018). Male vs female leadership: Differences and similarities. Wisestep. https://content.
wisestep.com/male-vs-female-leadership/
Riggio, R.E. (2010). Do men and women lead differently? Who’s better? Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201003/do-men-and-womenlead-differently-whos-better
Rosette, A. S. & Tost, L. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions
confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 221–235.
doi:10.1037/a0018204. PMID 20230065.
Smith, D.G., Rosenstein, J.E., & Nikolov, M.C. (2018). The different words we use to describe male andfemale leaders. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-different-words-weuse-to-describe-male-and-female-leaders#:~:text=Our%20research%20on%20leadership%20
attributes%20found%20significant%20differences,more%20often%20assigned%20
compassionate%2C%20enthusiastic%2C%20energetic%20and%20organized.
Snaebjornsson, I.M., Edvardsson, I.R., Zydziunaite, V., & Vaiman, V. (2015). Cultural leadership:
Expectations on gendered leaders’ behavior. Sage. April-June, 1-8.
Stentz, J.E., Clark, V.L.P., & Matkin, G.S. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A
review of current practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1173-1183.
Ting, H.-I. (2021). CEO gender, power and bank performance: evidence from Chinese banks. Journal

65© Leadership Circle | All Rights ReservedUnderstanding the Differences in Reactive and Creative Orientations
Between Female and Male Leadersof Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. DOI: 10.1108/JEC-042020-0065
Trinidad, C. & Normore, A.H. (2005). Leadership and gender: A dangerous liaison? Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 26(7), 574-590.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). Labor force statistics from the current population survey.
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
Van Dusen, L. (2020). LCP and bias. Unpublished technical report. Worldwide Institute for Researchand Evaluation.
Van Edwards, V. (2017). Battle of the sexes: Male vs. female leadership. Huffpost. https://www.
huffpost.com/entry/battle-of-the-sexes-male-vs-female-leadership_b_59647ddbe4b09be68
c00551a
Vecchio, R.P. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 643-671.
Vecchio, R.P. (2003). In search of gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), pp. 835-850.
Wharton (2005). The ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ sides of leadership and culture: Perception vsReality. Leadership Conference help at Wharton Business College, University of Pennsylvania.
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-masculine-and-feminine-sides-ofleadership-and-culture-perception-vs-reality/
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2019). Research: Women score higher than men in most leadership skills.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-women-score-higher-than-menin-most-leadership-skills

66© Leadership Circle | All Rights Reserved