GENDER AND LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AMONG SENIOR PASTORS

Research findings have been equivocal as to the existence of gender difference in leadership across settings. However, some studies based on transformational leadership theory and employing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to measure leadership behaviors have indicated a difference in the leadership styles of female and male leaders. This study sought to test whether there were gender differences in the use of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership behaviors by Senior Pastors in an Australian Christian Church. The study did not detect any significant gender differences in leadership behaviors. Gender and Leadership Behavior among Senior Pastors Gender and Leadership Leadership has been typically a male prerogative in most sectors of society, including the corporate, political, military, and church sectors (Eagly & Karau, 2002). However, over the last 30 years women have made steady progress in moving into leadership roles. In 1972, women held 17% of all management and professional positions in Fortune 500 Companies. By 2006, this number had grown to 50.3% (Hoyt, Simon, and Reid, 2009). Women typically tend to occupy lower and middle management ranks while men cluster around the most powerful positions at the top. Women managers still receive significantly less remuneration for their work, with female managers receiving 24 percent less pay than men performing the equivalent function (Haslam and Ryan, 2008). Nonetheless, despite continuing 138 Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 12:2 (2009) inequity, it is clear that women are gradually occupying an increasing number of management and leadership positions. Although women have increasingly gained access to supervisory and middle management positions, they remain quite rare as elite leaders. For example, in 2006 women represented 5.2% of top earners, 14.7% of board members, 7.9% of the highest earners, and less than 2% of CEOs in Fortune 500 Companies (Hoyt, Simon, and Reid, 2009). This phenomenon has been explained by use of the idea of a “glass ceiling” – an invisible barrier preventing the rise of women within leadership ranks (Haslam & Ryan, 2008). Eagly and Karau (2002) describe it as “a barrier of prejudice and discrimination that excludes women from higher leadership positions” (p. 573). It is evident in the lower number of women in leadership positions, and particularly in high-level leadership positions. Yukl (2006) observes that “In the complete absence of sex-based discrimination, the number of women in chief executive positions in business and government should be close to 50 percent” (p. 427). A variety of explanations have been offered for the existence of gender-based discrimination in the appointment of organizational leaders. These include: (1) gender stereotypes suggesting that men are more suited to leadership positions and that women are more suited to support roles (Yukl, 2006); (2) overt sexism in the workplace (Schwartz, 1971); (3) perceived incompatibilities between women’s abilities and the requirements of leadership (Arvey, 1979); (4) women’s competing responsibilities in the home (Schwartz, 1994); and (5) women’s fear of success (Horner, 1972). The explanations are not mutually exclusive and they may combine to create significant barriers to the advancement of women. Martell and DeSmet (2001) found that a contributing reason for the glass ceiling and the continued absence of women in the upper ranks of management is “the existence of gender-based stereotypes in the leadership domain” (p. 1227). Gender stereotypes are “categorical beliefs composed of the traits and behavioral characteristics assigned to women and men only on the basis of the group label” (Martell & DeSmet, 2001, p. 1223). Such stereotypes serve as a type of expectation regarding the likely abilities of group members and, if left unchallenged, can translate into discriminatory behavior. Eagly and Karau (2002) point out that a “potential for prejudice exists when social perceivers hold a stereotype about a social group that is incongruent with the attributes that are thought to be required for success in certain classes of social roles” (p. 574). Prejudice against women as leaders Fogarty, Gender and Leadership 139 “follows from the incongruity that many people perceive between the characteristics of women and the requirements of leader roles” (Eagly & Karau, 2002, p. 574). Gender and Leadership within Christian Churches Within Christian churches gender based discrimination has been reinforced by theological perspectives (Barron, 1990; Bridges, 1998; Franklin, 2008; Scholz, 2005). The case that women are forbidden by scripture and church tradition to assume leadership within the church has been made frequently (Barron, 1990). This exclusion has been predominantly based on two Pauline texts (1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-34) and a broader theological position which sees men and women as being ontologically equal but functionally different. Its basic logic is that “God designed women to be subordinate to men in role and function” and therefore “women should not operate in positions of authority over men” (Franklin, 2008, 14). For example, Piper and Grudem (1991) state that “we are persuaded that the Bible teaches that only men should be pastors and elders. That is, men should bear primary responsibility for Christlike leadership and teaching in the church. So it is unbiblical, we believe, and therefore detrimental, for women to assume this role” (p. 60-61). Complementary to this theological position is the suggestion that women do not have the capacity for effective church leadership (Bridges, 1998). Piper (1991) exemplifies this position when he writes: “At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships” and “At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships’ (p. 35-36). The understanding portrayed is that men have the capacity to lead and that women do not. The assumption implicit within this understanding is that leadership does not involve affirming and nurturing behaviors.