Rosener differentiates between so-called masculine and feminine styles of leading. The masculine style uses structural power, which is based on authority associated with position, title, and the ability to reward and punish. The feminine style relies on personal power, which is based on charisma, work record, and contacts. Masculine versus feminine styles of leading also are labeled transactional versus transformational. Additionally, these teachers prefer shared leadership, with roles and tasks distributed among members of a group.
Individuals move in and out of membership.
Perchance, these teachers' hazy notions of leadership hint at a dynamic organizational form for which an organizational chart does not as yet exist. Unfortunately, not enough information is available to warrant such generalizations. Dilemmas and Dreams Paradoxically, though the teachers described here are highly proficient leaders of their students and themselves, in their work with colleagues they appear to be reluctant leaders who exercise incomplete leadership. For example, they neither accept nor fulfill their leadership role in the school due to prevalent misconceptions about professionalism and leadership. To be fair, though, they seem to reject the leader's job because they like neither the structure that props up leaders, nor the style the role requires.