25
Leadership attributes, masculinity and risk taking as predictors of crisis proneness Zachary Sheaffer Department of Management and Economics, Ariel University Centre, Ariel, Israel Ronit Bogler Department of Psychology and Education, The Open University of Israel, Ra’anana, Israel, and Samuel Sarfaty Profit Group, Tel Aviv, Israel Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which leadership attributes, masculinity, risk taking and decision making affect perceived crisis proneness. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws mainly on the literature about gender, leadership and organizational crisis to explore whether masculinity predicts crisis proneness, and the extent to which leadership attributes as well as risk-taking and decision-making style are efficient predictors of perceived crisis preparedness (CP). Utilizing pertinent literature and concepts, the paper evaluates a database of 231 female and male managers. Findings – As hypothesized, masculinity is positively associated, whereas transformational leadership is inversely associated with perceived crisis proneness. Both participative decision making and passive management predict higher degree of perceived crisis proneness and so does risk taking. Research limitations/implications – More in-depth research as well as larger and more diverse sample is required to explore more definitively why and how masculinity is positively associated with crisis proneness. Practical implications – The paper provides preliminary evidence regarding the merits of feminine leadership traits as facilitators of CP This finding does not, however, preclude the usefulness of masculine attributes in managing actual organizational crises. The findings appear particularly relevant given the current turbulent business environments and the increasing frequency and magnitude of corporate crises. Originality/value – The paper synthesizes evidence on CP proneness and gender, and the evidence of feminine attributes as an important antidote to perceived crisis proneness. The paper outlines reasons for this phenomenon and implications for placement of managers in current business arenas. Keywords Gender, Leadership, Risk management, Decision making Paper type Research paper The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2413.htm Sheaffer (corresponding author) and Bogler have contributed equally to the writing of this paper. The authors appreciate the helpful comments of Avi Carmeli on earlier versions of this paper and thank Jean Vermel for her assistance. They are also grateful to Editor Sandra Fielden for constructive feedback and guidance and to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions. Leadership attributes 163 Gender in Management: An International Journal Vol. 26 No. 2, 2011 pp. 163-187 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1754-2413 DOI 10.1108/17542411111116563

Leadership Attributes,

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Leadership Attributes,

Leadership attributes,masculinity and risk taking

as predictors of crisis pronenessZachary Sheaffer

Department of Management and Economics,Ariel University Centre, Ariel, Israel

Ronit BoglerDepartment of Psychology and Education, The Open University of Israel,

Ra’anana, Israel, and

Samuel SarfatyProfit Group, Tel Aviv, Israel

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which leadership attributes,masculinity, risk taking and decision making affect perceived crisis proneness.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws mainly on the literature about gender,leadership and organizational crisis to explore whether masculinity predicts crisis proneness, and theextent to which leadership attributes as well as risk-taking and decision-making style are efficientpredictors of perceived crisis preparedness (CP). Utilizing pertinent literature and concepts, the paperevaluates a database of 231 female and male managers.

Findings – As hypothesized, masculinity is positively associated, whereas transformationalleadership is inversely associated with perceived crisis proneness. Both participative decision makingand passive management predict higher degree of perceived crisis proneness and so does risk taking.

Research limitations/implications – More in-depth research as well as larger and more diversesample is required to explore more definitively why and how masculinity is positively associated withcrisis proneness.

Practical implications – The paper provides preliminary evidence regarding the merits of feminineleadership traits as facilitators of CP This finding does not, however, preclude the usefulness ofmasculine attributes in managing actual organizational crises. The findings appear particularlyrelevant given the current turbulent business environments and the increasing frequency andmagnitude of corporate crises.

Originality/value – The paper synthesizes evidence on CP proneness and gender, and the evidence offeminine attributes as an important antidote to perceived crisis proneness. The paper outlines reasonsfor this phenomenon and implications for placement of managers in current business arenas.

Keywords Gender, Leadership, Risk management, Decision making

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2413.htm

Sheaffer (corresponding author) and Bogler have contributed equally to the writing of this paper.The authors appreciate the helpful comments of Avi Carmeli on earlier versions of this paper andthank Jean Vermel for her assistance. They are also grateful to Editor Sandra Fielden forconstructive feedback and guidance and to two anonymous reviewers for their insightfulsuggestions.

Leadershipattributes

163

Gender in Management: AnInternational Journal

Vol. 26 No. 2, 2011pp. 163-187

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1754-2413

DOI 10.1108/17542411111116563

Page 2: Leadership Attributes,

Repercussions of the current global recession accentuate the indispensable role of crisismanagement (CM) in post-modern organizational arenas. Despite a plethora of scholarlywork addressing corporate downturns in recent years, organizations find themselvesdevoid of coping mechanisms intended to address crises (Stern, 2009). Consequently,organizations often fail in developing comprehensive CM programs (Wang et al.,2009, p. 26) since they fail in implementing systematic planning across increasinglyfragmented and often dispersed units (McConnell and Drennan, 2006).

Concurrent with the prevalence of crises, ascendance of women to higher managerialechelons (Avolio et al., 2009) is also becoming normative in business and non-profitorganizations (Sampson and Moore, 2008). This has taken place despite the fact that thepercentage of women decreases gradually but sharply towards the highest echelons(Haslam and Ryan, 2008, p. 531). Increasing awareness as to the centrality of gender inmanagement (Broadbridge and Hearn, 2008) and women executives in particularcoalesces in a timely manner with the ascendance of CM as an indispensable copingmechanism. However, the relationship between gender and crisis proneness orpreparedness has attracted but a marginal scholarly attention. Moreover, intuitively CMrequires seemingly quintessential masculine traits and thus we will examine thisrelationship by focusing on masculine traits as forerunners of crisis preparedness (CP)or proneness.

Key to understanding managerial functioning in crises is which leadership style(s)would be conducive to CP. Leadership characteristics have long been associated with avariety of adverse corporate circumstances, yet little empirical evidence posits them aspossible predictors of crisis proneness or CP.

The purpose of this study is to test leadership, decision making, masculinity andrisk-taking literatures regarding their ability to explain potential variance in themanagerial perception of CP proneness. Building on these literatures, we aim at testing amodel on a group composed of the sample of managers and on the two subgroups in thissample: male and female managers, respectively. Specifically, and followingMano-Negrin and Sheaffer (2004), we propose that masculine traits is instrumental inexplaining crisis proneness as but not necessarily CP. We also argue that key leadershiptraits, primarily those associated with transformational and transactional types,decision-making style and risk-taking propensities constitute conspicuous antecedents ofperceived crisis proneness or preparedness. While predicting perceived rather than actualeffectiveness of CM, we posit a number of instrumentally important organizational crisispredictors that point more accurately to potential crisis proneness. Most organizationalcrisis studies have accentuated exogenous forerunners of crisis (Yu et al., 2008) with fewerempirical studies (Carmeli and Halevi, 2007; Sheaffer and Mano-Negrin, 2003) addressinginternally and managerially induced crises. We focus, therefore, on a lacuna – therelationship between gender and CP and proneness in the extant organizational crisisliterature, primarily by incorporating the hitherto marginally studied effect of masculinetraits and archetypal leadership styles on CP proneness. Our motivation in highlightingkey managerial characteristics as a backdrop against which to explicate ingrained, albeitperceived CP proneness derives from the need to delineate a comprehensive researchmodel in which autogenic or endogenously engendered factors form the key predictors.Following this preliminary discussion, our research question ensues: to what extent doleadership and managerial attributes, masculinity and risk taking predict perceived crisisproneness in a population of 231 Israel top executives?

GM26,2

164

Page 3: Leadership Attributes,

Literature review and hypothesesCP and pronenessCrisis is addressed by many and varied disciplines (Pearson and Clair, 1998); hence,definitions draw on a particular point of departure. Typically, a crisis is perceived asbeing an uncommon event that demands swift and resolute response while constitutinga considerable threat to survival. The extant crisis literature focuses on suchcharacteristics as high vagueness with unknown causes and effects and with a lowlikelihood of occurrence (Sayegh et al., 2004).

CM constitutes organizational procedures aimed at sustaining normal businessoperations, reducing stakeholders’ loss and managerial unlearning to improve futureCM processes (Pearson and Mitroff, 1993). Irrespective of the growing awareness to theincreasing probability of crises and their overwhelming impact on firms andstakeholders, organizations fall short of preparing adequate CM plans (Regester andLarkin, 2008). Fegley and Victor (2005) indicate that typically organizations prepare forhighly probable events rather than addressing the issue comprehensively by visualizingworst case scenarios. Next, we elaborate on crisis proneness and preparedness.

Sheaffer and Mano-Negrin (2003, p. 575) define CP as:

[. . .] a state of corporate readiness to foresee and effectively address internal or exogenousadversary circumstances with the potential to inflict a multidimensional crisis, byconsciously and proactively preparing for its inevitable occurrence.

Crisis proneness is defined as the lack of readiness on the part of the top echelon, interms of awareness, and the dearth of contingency plans and coping mechanisms.

According to Perrow (1984), organizations are complex and imperfect; hence, they areinherently prone to crisis. The more complex the business, the more crisis prone it is(Yu et al., 2008). Consequently, organizations should be so designed that effective CM willbe effectuated whenever required. According to Sommer and Pearson (2007), CP involvescontingency plans, procedures and mechanisms aimed at the detection of early warningsignals and the ability to contain them prior to further escalation. Crisis-preparedorganizations audit their operations continuously and proactively monitor potentialflaws. Crisis-prone organizations tend to let pass or discount early warning signals(Sheaffer et al., 1998). As Mitroff and Alpaslan (2003) argue, crisis-preparedorganizations invest heavily in prevention and risk management, while crisis-proneones invest in CP solely to the extent that it is short term and cost effective. Crisisproneness is often engendered endogenously, thus dubbed autogenic (Akgun et al., 2006)or a self-generated adverse occurrence negligently triggered by top leaders (Barnett andPratt, 2000, p. 80).

Crisis-prone leaders are typified by centralization, overconfidence (Richardson, 1993)and risk taking (Watkins and Bazerman, 2003), generally implying a transactional style.Overconfidence and paranoid tendencies in this vein disrupt afflicted managers’judgment (Bar-Joseph and Sheaffer, 1998). Schwartz (1987, p. 56) referred to thisbehavioral pattern as narcissistic or a denial of reality. The latter connotes cognitivebiases presumed to lead managers to disregard or underrate looming crises.

Leadership and CMLeadership may prove a crucial factor in facilitating an effective response and managinganxieties that characteristically accompany adverse occurrences (Boin and McConnell,

Leadershipattributes

165

Page 4: Leadership Attributes,

2007, p. 53). Leaders are expected to perform effectively during crises when externalstakeholders expect transparency, resoluteness and purposefulness (Wang et al., 2009),while internal ones seek empathy, a sense of direction and personal example (Ulmer andSellnow, 2000). Inspirational leaders who articulate organizational vision that enthusestheir underlings would seem to be better prepared when crises occur. Consequently, webelieve that it is important to establish what leadership style would be more conducive interms of CP and likewise what style would be more crisis prone. The two styles that cometo mind are the transformational and transactional modes.

Transformational and transactional leadershipOver the past 25 years, the transformational and transactional leadership styles havedominated the study of leadership. Bass (1985) suggested that leaders who succeed inaffecting their followers to transcend self-interests for the benefit of the group ororganization to achieve extraordinary goals would be characterized as transformational.Contrastingly, managers who solely induce the most basic exchanges with theirfollowers embody transactional leadership (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Bass (1985)described four transformational and two transactional leadership factors.

Transformational leadership is comprised of:. inspirational leadership or leaders’ motivational skills that enhance performance

by portraying an optimistic future through an idealized vision and by inspiring asense of attainability of that vision (Antonakis et al., 2003);

. charismatic leadership leaders’ socialized charisma and their ensuing actionsbased on values, beliefs, and a mission to induce followers to pursue their vision(Waldman and Javidan, 2009);

. intellectual stimulation, leaders’ ability to challenge followers to think ofinnovative solutions (Keller, 2006); and

. individualized consideration, leaders’ awareness of followers’ needs and interestsaimed at facilitating self-actualization (Rafferty and Griffin, 2006).

Transactional leadership is comprised of:. a contingent reward or leadership behavior centered on transparent role and task

requirements for which the followers gain rewards contingent on the fulfillmentof contractual obligations (Walumbwa et al., 2008); and

. management by exception, the leadership’s active and passive behaviors aimedat ensuring that standards are met and intervention occurs whenever things goawry (Antonakis et al., 2003).

Interestingly enough, contingent reward subscale has been found to be related more tothe transformational leadership style ( Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Silins, 1992,) but Hinkinand Schriesheim (2008, p. 512) argue that the contingent reward subscale should be usedseparately. Hence, we refer to management-by-exception only to represent transactionalleadership. In sum, inspirational leadership entails a vision that refers to charisma thatappeals to organizational constituents primarily during downturns, intellectualstimulation of underlings that necessarily induce innovative solutions, andindividualized consideration that empowers underlings’ self-actualization.

GM26,2

166

Page 5: Leadership Attributes,

We postulate that these attributes would enhance CP, hence be instrumental in CM.Formally we hypothesize:

H1. Managers acting as transformational leaders will tend to be positivelyassociated with CP perceptions.

Passive leadership and crisis pronenessPassive leadership is a form of management-by-exception leadership. Passive leadersfail to respond to situations and problems systematically (Bass and Avolio, 1995). Theyrespond to problems only if they surface in an unavoidable way (Eid et al., 2008, p. 5).Passive leadership is akin to a laissez-faire style; both have negative impacts onfollowers. Consequently, these styles are jointly grouped as passive-avoidant leadership(Avolio et al., 1999).

The extant leadership and organizational crisis literatures only implicitly refer to apotential linkage between passive leadership and crisis proneness. Passive leadershipappears to be crisis prone rather than prepared because inaction necessarily involvesinattention that, in turn, precludes managerial activities geared towards crisisprevention. Passive management-by-exception is a key type of transactional leadership(Howell and Avolio, 1993) that motivates through extrinsic rewards or discipline (Fry,2003). Necessarily then, transactional leaders would be more likely to wait passively forsubordinates to err prior to initiating corrective action (Peters and Peters, 2007). In thisvein, crisis proneness may be associated with error detection and correction throughaltering presumptions and strategies (single-loop learning) within a steady context ofperformance norms (Barnett and Pratt, 2000, p. 85). Since single-loop learning endsfollowing detection and correction and induces neither restructuring of norms orstrategies, nor learning to learn schemas (Visser, 2007), it necessarily precludesunlearning which is key to CP. Indeed, Schimmel and Muntslag (2009, p. 404) argue thatan authoritarian leadership (often transactional) style scuttles double-loop learningwhile Colville and Murphy (2006) allude to the passive style as a hindrance tounlearning. In sum, while passive leadership is not directly associated with crisisproneness, allusions to its negative aspects suggest that passive leaders would be morelikely to be crisis prone. We, therefore, offer the following hypothesis:

H2. Passive leaders will be positively associated with perceptions of crisisproneness.

Decision making and crisesParticipative decision making is defined as joint power sharing between hierarchicalsuperiors and their underlings (Lam et al., 2002). Extensive research has shown thatparticipative decision making is linked with positive effects on commitment and jobsatisfaction (Bogler and Somech, 2005; Somech and Bogler, 2002). Individuals involvedin decision-making processes have the power to address internal and external processeswhich facilitate flexibility and spontaneity (Carmeli and Halevi, 2009). The relationshipbetween participative decision making and CP has yet to gain inroads into the extantorganizational crisis literature. In advancing the idea of ecocentric management,Shrivastava (1995) argues that participative decision making is instrumental tomaintaining a structure that inherently enhances CP.

Leadershipattributes

167

Page 6: Leadership Attributes,

Taking a different, if complementary angle, Kersten and Sidky (2005) indicate thatdeficient CP typifies organizations where decision making is non-participative.Similarly, Richardson (1995, p. 6) argued that crisis-prone organizations fail to inspirea collaborative and communicative culture which innately involves participativedecision making. While the degree to which management centralizes power iscontingent on leadership style, it seems not to concur with what would be conducive toinculcating awareness to crisis. Therefore, it does appear to be advantageous to CP.Contrary to participative decision making, centralized decision making is unreflectiveand impulsive. Consequently, power is necessarily channeled upwards and thecentralized structure impedes upwards or lateral communication that would facilitatejoint preparation for and increased awareness of looming crises. Based on empiricalfindings, Mano-Negrin and Sheaffer (2004) conclude that democratic orientation thatenhances consensual decision making would be more likely to improve CP.

While participative decision making would be advantageous as a mechanism withwhich to enhance CP, during crises participative leaders usually may become highlydirective because exigencies require quick and decisive action (Eagly, 2007, p. 2).Moreover, since during crises, organizations encounter a higher level of uncertainty,managers would ideally share reliable, accurate and timely information with lower levelechelons (Kapucu, 2006). These circumstances, however, differ markedly from “normal”organizational routines during which CP should be instrumentally part of strategicboundary-spanning activities.

Formally, we hypothesize:

H3. Managers supporting participative decision making will be positivelyassociated with perceived crisis proneness.

Gender and managerial rolesEarly work (Scheil, 1975) about gender stereotypes found that men were more likely topossess the characteristics associated with managerial success. Indeed, most descriptorsof male managers portrayed them as being assertive, self-reliant, competitive, objective,forceful, ambitious, emotionally stable and self-confident (Paris et al., 2009). Theseresults have not changed substantially over time, as aptly noted by Berthoin-Antal andIzraeli (1993, p. 63), and that presumably the most important obstacle for women inmanagement is the persistent stereotype that associates management with maleness.Furthermore, the perceived association between management and maleness seems to berobust and universally accepted (Ryan and Haslam, 2007, p. 550). This predilectionstems from people’s embedded theories of gender and management that are not merelydescriptive but essentially prescriptive. Consequently, if managerial positions areperceived to be inherently masculine, then males would necessarily be more qualifiedthan women (Scheil, 2007). Evidence suggests that a male executive with the above traitsis perceived as behaving properly and exhibiting leadership whereas a female whobehaves likewise is regarded as inappropriately forceful (Ryan and Haslam, 2007).Consequently, if women executives’ behavior concurs with the (masculine) genderstereotype (Powell et al., 2008), they are not regarded as performing accepted asperforming in an appropriate manner (Carbonell and Castro, 2008). However, shouldtheir behavior concur with the leader stereotype, they are not thought to be behavingappropriately as women.

GM26,2

168

Page 7: Leadership Attributes,

Gender, leadership and crisesThe extant gender and crisis literatures refer only implicitly to masculine attributes asfacilitators of CP or catalysts of crisis proneness. In light of this theoreticalpredisposition, we can postulate only positive relationships between masculinityand crisis proneness. Mano-Negrin and Sheaffer (2004, p. 118) found that CP perceptionsare “gendered” in the sense that it is the difference between masculine and femininemanagerial orientations that influences CP, and thus crisis proneness is gender basedrather than “gender neutral”. Male respondents were significantly more likely toacknowledge that crisis is a matter of luck, hence nothing can be done to prevent it(Mano-Negrin and Sheaffer, 2004, p. 117). However, as Richardson (1995) contended,crisis-prone leaders often display a higher degree of “one-sidedness”, meaning, theirbehavioral patterns are over-biased, hazardously and disproportionately stressing asingle extremity (being too competitive or too authoritative, etc.). Again, thesebehavioral patterns may be only indirectly associated with maleness, although suchpurportedly feminine attributes as espousing harmonic relationships, participativedecision making, care and empathy (Wann-Yih et al., 2000) are at the other extreme.

Hence, during crises, the almost instinctive interrelatedness between what it takes tobe a leader and what it means to be masculine may well be attenuated if not refuted. It isplausible to assume, therefore, that during crises, we must not instinctively associatemanagement with masculinity. Rather, we would be more inclined to think of femaleswhenever crises come to mind (Ryan et al., 2007). The question remains, however, whethersuch “feminine” traits as empathy or emotional intelligence would be advantageous forCP. Scheil (1973) confirmed that these traits were associated with managerial success andshowed that women are more likely to possess them. It should be asked, however, whetherthese feminine traits would be useful in managing crises. Ryan et al. (2007) found thatwhen respondents were asked to describe idyllic managers, the “think manager, thinkmale” relationship was attenuated when successful firms were involved while there was astrong association between management of an unsuccessful firm and the femalestereotype. According to Ryan and Haslam (2004), women executives are more likely to beappointed to relatively risky or precarious leadership positions which are logically moreprobable to involve management of crisis-beset units (Haslam and Ryan, 2008, p. 531).Necessarily, such appointments are more likely to involve failure, thus they are exposedto greater criticism in that they shift attention onto individual leadership competenciesrather than onto situational and contextual factors. Consequently, women appointed tothese positions will not only draw criticism but they will also be blamed for the negativeoutcomes, which should be attributed to previous managers.

The question remains as to the ability of women executives to perceive crisesdifferently than their male counterparts. Likewise, we ask, whether, owing to an inherentand a different array of leadership qualities, feminine leadership traits would be moreconducive to CP. We need to explore what feminine traits would be more advantageousin reinforcing CP. The distinction between people- (supposedly women) versustask-oriented (supposedly men) leadership styles has generated prolific literature(Kaiser et al., 2008), and it largely corresponds with transformational and transactionalleadership (Purvanova and Bono, 2009). Accordingly, women tend to endorse thepeople-oriented style (Avolio et al., 2009). Generally, a transformative-orientedmanagerial style is typified by empowerment, participatory teamwork and adecentralized structure. This managerial pattern facilitates decision making based on

Leadershipattributes

169

Page 8: Leadership Attributes,

consensus, and diversity of ideas that often enhance cooperation during crises(Bartunek et al., 2000), and it primarily nurtures a culture that facilitates CP.

Richardson (1993) alluded to crisis-prepared versus crisis-prone leaders suggestingthat such leadership traits as care and empathy characterize CP. While not indicatingspecifically that these characteristics are necessarily feminine, these have beenidentified as typifying feminine leadership (Johanson, 2008). James and Wooten (2005,p. 146) highlight trust-building as a leadership competence critical for CP. Contrastingly,Richardson (1993) suggests that crisis proneness is often accompanied by suchmasculine traits as narcissism and selfishness.

Convergence of the literature addressing compatibility between feminine traits andtransformational leadership (Powell et al., 2008) with CP seems plausible, notably giventhat empathy, holism, harmonic relationships or equity principles facilitate CP.Contrary, however, to this partly supported conjecture, Rosenthal et al. (1991) argue thatCM would, in fact, require temporary concentration of powers, hence centralizeddecision making. Consequently, we may conclude that feminine traits normally facilitateCP while masculine traits would be conducive in actual CM.

We, therefore, postulate that feminine characteristics would be helpful in enhancingCP. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that both male and female managers endorsingtransformational leadership would be more crisis prepared.

Formally, we hypothesize:

H4. Female and male managers’ use of a gender-based masculine style will bepositively associated with crisis proneness perceptions.

Risk taking and crisis pronenessRisk is defined as a situation where results and probabilities are unclear during thedecision-making process (Rode et al., 1999). Risk perception is subjective and risk takingis tantamount to a continuum from active searching to deadlock (Mythen and Walklate,2008). Categorizing risk depends on the context, industry, the selected strategy and onthe effect, timing and likelihood of occurrence (Drew and Kendrick, 2005). Hence,managers’ tendency to take risks depends not only on human/managerial andsituational factors (Das and Teng, 1998) but also on the perception of control (Mayer et al.,1995). When the perceived control is low, managers whose organizations are suffering a(financial) loss or experiencing a crisis may prefer to take risks in order to enhance theirchances to start and gain again (Sweeny, 2008).

According to behavioral theory, a decision maker’s risk preferences alter with theframing of problems (McElroy and Seta, 2007). Accordingly, problems are framed aseither negative or positive, employing a reference point to weigh against anticipatedoutcomes from the options on-hand (Andersen et al., 2007). Hence, problems can beframed as a choice among potential losses or gains. Therefore, decision makers weigh upresults against some reference point and then become risk averse when outcomes areabove that specific reference point (i.e. the domain of gains) but increasingly risk seekingwhen outcomes fall below the reference point (i.e. the domain of losses (Fiegenbaum,1990). Decision makers prefer to sidestep loss even if this means accepting a higher risk.Consequently, “risk preferences of loss-averse decision makers will vary with the framingof problems in order to prevent losses to accumulated endowment” (Wiseman andGomez-Mejıa, 1998, p. 135). From this vantage point, risk bearing is slanted, symbolizingperceived threats to decision makers’ endowment (Gomez-Mejıa et al., 2007).

GM26,2

170

Page 9: Leadership Attributes,

Generally, managers are uncertain in attempting to predict the future when makingdecisions based on existing information. This situation is further exacerbated whenuncertainty surrounding crises complicates evaluation and performance (Emsley, 2003)which leads to differential levels of risk taking.

Most studies addressing risk taking and concomitant organizational downturns focuson organizational decline and notably on the decline-innovation phenomenon (Mone et al.,1998) but ignore the linkage between risk taking and crisis proneness as opposed to CP.Specifically, the question of managerial risk taking and the repercussions of thispropensity on firms’ crisis proneness have yet to be adequately studied. The magnitudeand extent of business failures following the subprime mortgage crisis vividly illustratesthis linkage. It becomes rather noticeable that most failing top management teams(TMTs) in related industries took unwarranted risks prior to the 2008 financial crisis andthus negligently exacerbated their firms’ crisis proneness (Plantin and Rochet, 2009).

We, therefore, postulate that crisis proneness may ensue whenever managersconsistently and knowingly expect low after-the-fact levels of regret (Dembo andFreeman, 2001) in making critical decisions without consciously weighing adverserepercussions associated with their expectations. Hence, we argue that calculated risktaking (Carmeli and Sheaffer, 2009) would be more likely to prevent crisis proneness as itinvolves a chance of failure, the probability of which is estimated before some action istaken. In light of these arguments, we formally hypothesize:

H5. Risk taking will be positively associated with perceived crisis proneness.

MethodSample and data collectionA total of 600 Israeli organizations with at least ten employees were randomly pickedusing the Dun & Bradstreet Directory. The sample included 231 senior Israeliexecutives, having a ratio of 60 per cent men.

DistributionTo circumvent inherent managerial reluctance to answer questionnaires (Morishima,1991), we distributed the questionnaires in several ways. A total of 550 pre-addressedquestionnaires were mailed off to chief executive officers (CEOs) or vice presidents (VPs)with a return rate of 14 per cent (77 questionnaires), a low percentage despite a phone callfollow-up. Additionally, 200 questionnaires were sent to CEOs and VPs to whomexplanations concerning the study were elaborated over the telephone with a return rateof 65 per cent (130 questionnaires. We also used corporate web sites of firms known fortheir emphasis on women executives (www.wol.co.il; www.digitaleveisrael.org).From this category of firms (n ¼ 29), 83 per cent agreed to post the questionnaires ontheir web sites (24 returned questionnaires; Table I).

Type of distribution Pre-addressed Sent following explanations Corporate web sites Total

Questionnaires sent 550 200 29 774Returned (n) 77 130 24 231Returned (%) 14 65 83 30

Table I.Distribution ofquestionnaires

Leadershipattributes

171

Page 10: Leadership Attributes,

We applied a two-stage data collection process. First, a questionnaire was pre-testedwith 30 executives for construct validity and clarity. Second, following minorrefinements of the instrument, the questionnaires were administered to the CEOs orVPs, as detailed above. The questionnaire had two parts. Part I was comprised ofdemographic information; Part II was comprised of validated scales (Table I) addressingcrisis proneness, masculinity, decision making, leadership and risk taking.

We applied several measures to reduce social desirability bias. First, anonymousself-administration was used to provide detachment, neutrality and reassurance.Returning the questionnaires by mail or e-mail further guaranteed anonymity(Chambaere et al., 2008). Second, neutralized administration through PC was applied(McBurney, 1994), though, as indicated, only 83.3 per cent of the firms agreed to post thequestionnaires to their web sites.

Awareness as to the limitations emanating from self-report prompted us to undertakeremedies. First, scale reordering (Sprangers and Schwartz, 1999) was employed toreduce the effects of consistency artifacts. We reordered the items on the questionnairesuch that the items making up the dependent variable followed, rather than preceded theitems making up the independent variables which were also reordered. Second,Harmans’s one-factor test was used (Richard et al., 2009) to ensure that no commonmethod variance is present. We factor analyzed all items of this study to ensure that nosingle factor emerged from this procedure (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Indeed, theitems loaded onto thematic factors.

MeasuresA structured questionnaire was developed based on theoretical sources and validatedscales. The questionnaire is composed of five-point Likert scale managerial-behavioralstatements that examine perceived behavior in different managerial situations, where “5”represents the “strongly agree” response and “1” represents “strongly disagree” response.

Leadership styleMultifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) Short Form 6S was used to measuretransformational and transactional leadership styles (Bass and Avolio, 1992) based on24 items. We used 14 items for transformational leadership (a ¼ 0.85) and seven itemsfor passive leadership (a ¼ 0.63).

Decision makingWe used Vroom and Yetton’s Decision-Making Index (1973) to distinguish a centralizeddecision-making style from a collaborative one. Since we were interested in thecollaborative decision-making style, we used a factor that loaded a single variable(Table I). While in many cases, multiple-item measures would be preferable, empiricalfindings would be unaffected if solid single-item measures were substituted for theseconstructs in lieu of the frequently employed multiple-item measures (Bergkvist andRossiter, 2007, p. 183), which is the case in this instance.

Risk takingThis index distinguishes rapid and calculated risk-taking styles and is composed of twosources (Miller and Lee, 2001). Five items comprised of the risk-taking index (a ¼ 0.67).

GM26,2

172

Page 11: Leadership Attributes,

MasculinityBem’s Androgyny Index (1974) was used. The index maps masculine and femininestyles. The masculinity index was comprised of five items (a ¼ 0.80).

Crisis perceptionThis measure constituted our dependent variable for testing H1-H7. The variable proxiescrisis proneness as opposed to preparedness. This index distinguishes crisis-prone andcrisis-prepared styles accentuating managerial rationalizations as to why crises occur(Sheaffer and Mano-Negrin, 2003, pp. 594-5). The crisis proneness index was comprisedof 14 items (a ¼ 0.78).

Control variablesRespondents’ ageWe contend that the older and more experienced the managers, the more likely they areto employ fewer rationalizations with respect to such negative occurrences (Petty andWegener, 1991) as crises occurrences, antecedents and outcomes.

Statistical analysesExploratory factor analysisSince we posited no well-specified a priori restrictions concerning the number of factorsto extract or specific patterns of relationship between measured variables and commonfactors, we used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (Fabrigar et al., 1999). A standardeigenvalue of 1.0 and an inspection of a screen plot (Black and Porter, 1996) were used inall scales (Table II).

Regression analysesSince a priori, we assumed no precedence of any of the predictors, we resorted to forcedentry, hence enabled each of the predictors’ effects to be measured concurrently. Thisprocedure is consonant with Richardson’s (1995) double-sidedness theory, alleging thata simultaneous focus should be placed on diverse rather than on any single corporatedimensions to reinforce CP. Previous attempts to use gender dichotomously to predictCP proved unsatisfactory, possibly because of a comparatively large number ofmanagers who had androgynous traits, gender wise. To account for gender, weestimated a model on the full group composed of the entire sample of managers and ontwo subgroups: male and female managers, respectively.

ResultsTable III reports descriptive statistics and correlations for the variables used in thisstudy.

There was no anomalous multicollinearity among the research variables.The variables’ means indicate that only transformational leadership proved

statistically significant between female (M ¼ 4.15; SD ¼ 0.46) and male executives(M ¼ 3.94; SD ¼ 0.46) (t ¼ 23.32; p , 0.001), implying that women executives aresignificantly more inclined than their male counterparts to endorse transformationalleadership. No other statistically significant differences between female and malemanagers were identified. To test the effects of masculinity, gender, decision making,leadership and risk taking on perceived crisis proneness, three regression models

Leadershipattributes

173

Page 12: Leadership Attributes,

Index/variableused in analyses Questionnaire items loaded onto factor

Number ofitems used inEFA model

Total varianceexplained byEFA model a

Crisis proneness Recurrent successes induce me to becomplacent; crises have only negativeimpact on the organization; it isimpossible to prepare for crises sincethey are unexpected; it suffices to takemeasures when crises occur; mostcrises are resolved by themselves; Imostly attribute organizationalfailures to external parties

14 60.542 0.78

Masculinity I am manipulative; I am haughty; I amcoercive; I like to be flattered; I amaggressive

5 70.345 0.80

Decision making I prefer not to make my own decisions 5 61.98 aAge Respondents’ ageTransformationalleadership

I make others feel better when they arenear to me; I let my employees developthemselves; I let my employees knowwhat I think about their work; I helpmy employees find meaning in theirwork; I devote time to instruct andtutor my employees

14 60.90 0.85

Passiveleadership

I do not demand more of others than isessential for accomplishing their work;As long as things work I do notchange anything; I avoid interveninguntil problems become severe

7 58.461 0.63

Risk taking I tend to opt for high risk projects; Iconstantly renew organizationaltechnology; I consider daring actionsto gain high rewards

5 59.494 0.67

Note: aFor the purpose of this study, we adopted a factor onto which only this single variable wasloaded

Table II.Factor loadings, varianceexplained and Cronbacha of indices used

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Masculinitya 3.22 1.14 0.13 * 0.08 0.19 * * 0.03 0.24 * * * 20.122. Decision makingb 2.83 1.17 0.27 * * * 0.004 0.02 0.34 * * * 20.043. Passive L.b 2.85 0.89 20.03 0.09 0.48 * * * 0.054. Risk takingb 3.68 0.59 0.48 * * * 0.07 20.035. Transformational L.b 4.02 0.47 20.12 0.066. Crisis proneness b 2.08 0.72 20.22 * * *

7. Agec 3.72 1.36

Notes: n ¼ 231; significance at: *p # 0.05, * *p # 0.01, and * * *p # 0.001; arating scale: 1 – stronglydisagree, 7 – strongly agree; brating scale: 1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree; cordinal scale:1 – 20-25, 2 – 26-30, 3 – 31-35, 4 – 36-45, 5 – 46-55, 6 – 56-65, 7 – 66 þ

Table III.Means, SDs andcorrelations

GM26,2

174

Page 13: Leadership Attributes,

were run. The first involved the entire population (Table IV, Model 1). The secondinvolved male executives (Table IV, Model 2) while the third refers to female executives(Table IV, Model 3).

Test of hypothesesAs can be seen (Table IV, Model 1), transformational leadership is inversely associatedwith perceived crisis proneness, meaning that charismatic, inspirational and caringleaders would be less crisis prone. The results for the entire population corroborate H1(b ¼ 20.225; p ¼ 0.001). The results for the solely male executives (Table IV, Model 2)also support this hypothesis (b ¼ 20.209; p ¼ 0.022), and so do the results for thefemale managers (Table IV, Model 3; b ¼ 20.234; p ¼ 0.022).

H2 is also supported by our data (Table IV, Model 1) concerning the entire populationof executives. According to the results, passive leadership is a typical forerunner ofperceived crisis proneness (b ¼ 0.421; p ¼ 0.000) and is equally deleterious in terms ofhigher crisis proneness among both male executives (Table IV, Model 2) (b ¼ 0.341;p ¼ 0.000) and female executives (Table IV, Model 3) (b ¼ 0.523; p ¼ 0.000).

With regard to participative decision making, the results support H3 (Table IV,Model 1). Joint decision making is positively associated with crisis proneness in each of

Hypothesis number andpredicted direction B SE b t Significance

Model 1: entire population(constant) 1.287 0.406 3.17 0.002Masculinity 4: þ 0.087 0.035 0.142 2.45 0.015Decision making 3: þ 0.134 0.035 0.224 3.82 0.000Age 20.093 0.030 20.179 23.14 0.002Passive leadership 2: þ 0.374 0.052 0.421 7.18 0.000Risk taking 5: þ 0.205 0.081 0.166 2.53 0.012Transformational L. 1: 2 20.340 0.099 20.225 23.45 0.001R ¼ 0.618; R 2 ¼ 0.382; adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.363; F ¼ 20.072 (6,195); p , 0.001Model 2: male managers(constant) 1.746 0.523 3.34 0.001Masculinity 0.131 0.048 0.212 2.73 0.007Decision making 0.151 0.045 0.261 3.33 0.001Age 20.077 0.040 20.148 21.93 0.056Passive leadership 0.294 0.067 0.341 4.37 0.000Risk taking 0.055 0.111 0.045 0.49 0.662Transformational L. 20.318 0.137 20.209 22.32 0.022R ¼ 0.604; R 2 ¼ 0.365; adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.332; F ¼ 11.011 (6,115); p , 0.001Model 3: female managers(constant) 0.700 0.650 1.08 0.285Masculinity 0.051 0.054 0.084 0.94 0.349Decision making 0.119 0.056 0.190 2.12 0.038Age 20.120 0.045 20.229 22.64 0.010Passive leadership 0.482 0.083 0.523 5.83 0.000Risk taking 0.384 0.125 0.305 3.07 0.003Transformational L. 20.370 0.158 20.234 22.35 0.022R ¼ 0.677; R 2 ¼ 0.458; adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.413; F ¼ 10.278 (6,73); p , 0.001

Table IV.Predictors of perceived

crisis proneness(three models)

Leadershipattributes

175

Page 14: Leadership Attributes,

the sampled groups: entire population (b ¼ 0.224; p ¼ 0.000), male executives(Table IV, Model 2 b ¼ 0.261; p ¼ 0.001) and female managers (Table IV, Model 3)(b ¼ 0.190; p ¼ 0.038). Accordingly, participative decision making is likely to increaserather than decrease perceived crisis proneness.

Our results partially support H4 (b ¼ 0.142; p ¼ 0.015): gender-related masculinetraits affect perceived crisis proneness positively. In other words, respondentsexhibiting conspicuous masculinity, males and females alike, would be more likely to becrisis prone. Predictably, among male respondents (Table IV, Model 2), the results aresimilar to the entire sample (b ¼ 0.212; p ¼ 0.007). Expectedly, female executives(Table IV, Model 3) would be far less likely to exhibit masculine traits. Apparently, this iswhy the results in this model are statistically insignificant.

As to risk taking, the results support H5 (b ¼ 0.166; p ¼ 0.012) for the entirepopulation and for the female executive model. This result means that managers typifiedby noticeable risk taking would be more likely to be crisis prone. We were expecting toreceive similar results among male executives (Table IV, Model 2), but surprisingly, theresults were statistically insignificant, apparently owing to fewer than expected risktakers among male respondents and higher than expected female risk takers. Indeed,risk taking among women executives (Table IV, Model 3) is evident (b ¼ 0.305;p ¼ 0.003).

DiscussionThis study focuses on two critical managerial aspects, both of which have recentlycaptured scholarly attention albeit for different reasons. While both domains of CM andgender have been important on both the scholarly and the hands-on managers’ levels,they have nonetheless rarely coalesced into an integrated research theme.

Aspects of organizational crisis and particularly CM are seen as critically importantin current turbulent business environments. The current global recession andconsequent business failures exemplify the acute need in improved CM capabilities thathighlight earlier scholarly exhortations regarding managerial awareness to crisisproneness and preparedness. Concurrently, the ascendance of women to highermanagerial echelons raises the advantages of feminine traits in management and theadoption of these attributes by male executives. Viewing both aspects simultaneouslyraises such questions as to which gender-based traits would be advantageous in copingwith crisis; notably, what attributes would be conducive to CP or otherwise wouldaggravate crisis proneness. We investigated leadership CP and proneness with the viewof linking them with key facets of transformational and transactional leadership.Essentially, transformational leadership motivates followers to go beyond theirself-interests to achieve higher order goals for the good of the organization. Thus, duringcrises, managers endorsing transformational attributes are more likely to motivateunderlings to be engaged in CM collective efforts. Transformational leaders succeed inarousing subordinates’ aspirations to achieving goals considered to be beyond theiroriginal expectations. Hence, these leaders can rely on their subordinates’ cooperation inaddressing collective and individual tasks deemed critical during crises. Our analysessupport the hypotheses regarding transformational and passive leadership styles.Accordingly, male and female managers typified by transformational leadershipattributes are more likely to be associated with perceptions of CP as opposed to passiveleaders who are predisposed to be crisis prone. We have corroborated the hypothesis

GM26,2

176

Page 15: Leadership Attributes,

postulating that managers who articulate inspirational vision heed the needs andinterests of followers. Transformational managers are conscious and likewise proactivein terms of their overall perception of and attitude towards crises (Sheaffer andMano-Negrin, 2003). Transformational leadership has been found to be more proactive,hence more effective (Rubin et al., 2005), reflecting attributes seen as critical inaddressing uncertainties and intricacies associated with crises. Indeed, the literaturepoints to the positive relationship between visionary leaders and CP (Antonakis et al.,2003). Leaders concerned with careful and meticulous delineation of corporate visionwill more likely be prepared for crises, and hence they demonstrate personal exampledeemed crucial in leading subordinates when havoc and ambiguity prevail. Outstandingleaders are compelled to offer some form of sense-making to their underlings; to interpretthe situation and offer direction and comfort in stressful and ambiguous circumstances(Hunter et al., 2009, p. 384).

Specifically during crises, underlings are inclined to seek and follow directions. Thus,leaders’ articulation of a vision that reflects attention to and care of subordinates as wellas their ability to tackle problem-solving creatively (Reiter-Palmon and Illies, 2004) iscrucial during crises. In this vein, charisma would be noticeably conducive during criseswhen inspiring and leading by example seems indispensable. Passive leadership, on theother hand, has been theorized to be associated with the transactional leadership style(Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008). As hypothesized, we found that this sub-type oftransactional leadership is positively associated with crisis proneness. This is becausepassive leaders intervene reactively. These managers by exception wait until problemshave escalated although early warning signals have been observed ( Judge and Piccolo,2004; Peters and Peters, 2007). Specifically, while active leaders act proactive in terms ofdetecting latent but potentially dangerous organizational deficiencies, passive leaderstake corrective action only after problems have surfaced (Bass, 1998). In the same vein,similar circumstances were reported following the current global recession whenexecutives were blamed for being passive, ignoring a host of early warning signals andacting belatedly and ineffectively on symptoms rather than on the root causes(Mintzberg, 2010).

Hence, to be prepared for crises, leaders need to be active and initiating as well asstress that crises are inseparable from the organizational life cycle. Passive leaders, malesand females alike, lack this capability. Importantly, passive leadership was the mostsalient predictor of crisis proneness among our predictors. This finding complements theline of research that considers transformational leadership to be more effective, notablysince it provides direction and reassurance (Nemanich and Vera, 2009, p. 21).

Literature on decision making is inconclusive as to the relationship betweendecision-making styles and CP proneness. Decision making is argued to be centralizedduring crises because of the need to take fast and decisive action (Eagly, 2007). However,participative decision making is encouraged during harsh times (Mishra, 1996)primarily because this enhances the flow of additional and creative insights emanatingfrom underlings. TMTs in turn may benefit from and build on the diversity of views,attitudes and experiences, all of which have the potential to improve the quality of criticaldecisions made at higher echelons. We conjectured that decisions made during crises aresubject to a host of exigencies. Consequently, these decisions emerge from a state of fluxand volatility. Hence, we hypothesized a positive relationship between participativedecision making and crisis proneness. However, organizations beset by a crisis, facing a

Leadershipattributes

177

Page 16: Leadership Attributes,

high level of uncertainty coupled with an imminent threat, would benefit fromstrong-minded and decisive, if temporarily autocratic managers, rather than passive orsociable ones who rely on joint decision making. During a crisis, therefore, participativedecision making could prove counterproductive owing to the need to make swift,calculated while well-informed decisions. Clearly, participative decision makingprecludes these fundamental requirements, essentially because involvement ofadditional parties in the decision-making process is evidently time consuming, hencesubject to vacillations and delays. Indeed, we found that participative decision making ispositively associated with crisis proneness, implying that it is likely to raise perceivedcrisis proneness rather than diminish it. This finding is also in congruence with the fewsources in the literature addressing transformational leadership and crisis proneness,which assert that during crises, followers prefer to docilely follow directions(Hunter et al., 2009) rather than actively partake in decision-making processes.

Our findings indicate that masculine traits are positively and significantly associatedwith perceived crisis proneness. We may conclude that other things being equal,noticeable masculinity is more likely to be deleterious to CP. This finding may seem to beparadoxical, as theoreticians (Kirschenbaum, 2002) have long since postulated that,owing to severe time constraints and incessant pressures by worried stakeholders,temporary “dictatorial measures” are called for. In other words, temporary concentrationof powers aimed at conveying a message of control and calmness to key stakeholders inthe midst of chaos would best serve a firm’s image (Clair and Dufresene, 2007). However,while authoritativeness and resoluteness would seemingly be beneficial at the height ofcrises, they would not be advantageous in inculcating a corporate culture that fosters CP.Rather, quintessential feminine traits (Richardson, 1993) would be more appropriate interms of stimulating a sense of mutual understanding and primarily readiness to engagein unlearning. These managerial virtues, whether espoused by male or femaleexecutives, necessarily facilitate willingness to engage in preventive measures. Dearth ofempathy, conspicuous authoritativeness and selfishness are more likely to obstructrather than advance CP. We may conclude, therefore, that the application of masculinemanagerial traits is contingent on the circumstances. Whereas pronounced masculinitywould be advantageous in managing crises, it would not be as conducive as leadershipattributes that facilitate CP.

Several questions merit additional explanations. For instance, why would suchperceived masculine attributes as firmness, persistence, self-reliance and ambitiousness(de Pillis et al., 2008) be counterproductive in terms of CP? The answer is neitherstraightforward nor definitive. We conjecture that a certain combination of these andpotentially other male-related attributes would apparently be less conducive indelineating a corporate culture that fosters on-going introspection, critical thinking andunlearning. One may not preclude the possibility that, in fact, some of these or othermasculine attributes would be conducive to CP rather than detrimental. In the same vein,not every combination of so-called feminine traits would necessarily be conduciveto inculcating CP. There are contextual factors that might potentially mediatethe association between feminine attributes and CP. Future investigators would servethis open-ended question well if they incorporated such variables as the type ofcorporate culture, TMT makeup, industry or the nature of the specific task-environment.

We were able to corroborate the hypothesis postulating that risk taking amongmanagers is positively associated with crisis proneness. Intuitively, the propensity to

GM26,2

178

Page 17: Leadership Attributes,

take risks is liable to increase crisis proneness as the choice for risky strategiesnecessarily exposes firms to risks that innately exacerbate crisis proneness. This isbecause risk taking inevitably amplifies a firm’s exposure to hazards that could beavoided if the TMTs were more cautious in opting for and pursuing strategies thatwould seem highly alluring but would also entail the probability of failure and crisis.The current global financial crisis provides numerous instances where managershaphazardly opted for highly risky investments that initially seemed lucrative andpromising. Indeed, Landskroner and Raviv (2009) point to managers’ excessiverisk-taking incentives motivated by short-term gains. Demirguc-Kunt and Serven (2009)impute part of the blame for lending institutions’ crisis proneness on excessive risktaking among executives who, based on false securities, attracted funding independentof the risks they took. The propensity to take risks, despite the impact of the currentfinancial crisis, did not deter managers of insolvent institutions to persist in theirpredisposition for risk taking, thus further aggravating these institutions’ crisisproneness. Excessive risk-taking typifying lending institutions have been pivotal inturning these institutions into archetypal crisis-prone organizational entities with agrowing number defaulting on their debts (Diamond and Rajan, 2009). Excessive rathercalculated risk taking is, therefore, inherently intertwined with higher levels of crisisproneness. Since risk taking is intrinsically associated with executives, one may beaware of key human tendencies that underpin this well-ingrained human propensity.Decision making under uncertainty is inherently tricky because managers are oftenbiased towards optimistic scenarios, and they tend to suppress low probability-highconsequence events (Korhonen et al., 2008). A key lesson is that normally crises, andtypically the recent global financial imbroglio, are a predictable surprise(Ambachtsheer, 2009). Risk taking is an inevitable part of management, but it seemsthat opting for calculated rather than excessive risk taking demarcates the differencebetween crisis proneness and CP.

Limitations and future researchDespite being among the first studies that point at and analyze the effect of keyforerunners of CP, our empirical design did not allow us to control for and assess theimpact of additional antecedents. Future studies addressing similar relationships wouldgain much if structural equation modeling were used primarily concerning a path designwhere leadership and managerial attributes, risk taking and other organizationalcharacteristics, moderated by gender traits, affect CP.

Additionally, we are aware of the methodological limitations concerning potentialinaccuracies stemming from a self-report-based study. Though we employed conventionalremedies with the view of reducing inherent problems concerning social desirability andself-report, using two sources where applicable might ameliorate these limitations.

We adopted the shorter version of the MLQ that excluded such variables ascontingent reward and active management-by-exception. Replication of this study oremploying different research populations with the full range leadership theory (FRLT)(Avolio and Bass, 1991) is called for because it would be advantageous in exploringavowedly important relationships with potentially additional predictors. The omittedFRLT items would explore additional and hitherto unexplored dimensions, particularlyregarding the extent to which they predict CP and proneness. Essentially, we employedperceived CP rather than actual states of crisis. While indicative, concrete crisis

Leadershipattributes

179

Page 18: Leadership Attributes,

occurrences constitute more realistic scenarios, hence it would be valuable in exploringhow and why gender-related traits, leadership attributes and risk taking could foretellCP and proneness. While our sample size was statistically adequate, we conjecture thatextending the research population would be advantageous as additional participantsmight necessarily increase the number of respondents characterized by more clear-cutmale or female attributes. Likewise, exploring androgynous traits as a predictor is apotentially interesting gender facet that appears to be on the upswing with both maleand female executives adopting counter stereotypic traits interchangeably (Sczesny et al.,2007). Owing to an apparently large number of executives with androgynous rather thanclear-cut gender traits, we were unable to include a dummy for gender because theresults were unsatisfactory. Future studies would serve this purpose better by includingadditional respondents so as to enable the removal of outliers, thus generating a moredichotomous distribution between male and female executives. Our sample was basedon respondents from a single nation, thus they inevitably reflect a specific nationalculture’s leadership and gender orientations. To complement this limitation, theinclusion of managers from diverse national-cultural backgrounds would addpotentially important insights to gender, leadership and CM literatures.

Based on this study’s findings, several implications for management come to mind.First, while overstating the merits of feminine leadership attributes may not bepracticable vis-a-vis corporate hiring policies, implicit predilection to accentuatequintessential masculine qualities ought to be attenuated by the merits of feminineleadership attributes chiefly with respect to CP. Second, since organizational crises willmost likely increase in frequency and magnitude, managements ought not to overlookconcrete and well-structured CM mechanisms. Costs incurred by CP are necessarily andnoticeably lower than those sustained by multidimensional crises, for bothorganizations and their stakeholders. Third, transformational leadership is likely todecrease crisis proneness. Thus, on top of the myriad of merits associated with thisleadership style, managements would benefit should they acknowledge that endorsingthis style is likely to enhance CP. Fourth, calculated risk taking is intertwined withcorporate cultures that nurture innovativeness and creativity. Furthermore, (excessive)risk taking is often an alluring alternative but it is concurrently and inherently related tocrisis proneness and thus should be regulated by conventional risk managementmechanisms and primarily cautious and well-informed TMT.

References

Akgun, A.E., Lynn, G.S. and Byrne, J.C. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of unlearning innew product development teams”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 23,pp. 73-88.

Ambachtsheer, K. (2009), “The subprime crisis as a predictable surprise: strategic lessons to belearned”, in Rieves, R.A. and Wagner, W.H. (Eds), Investment Management: Meeting theNoble Challenges of Funding Pension, Deficits and Growth, Wiley Finance, New York, NY,pp. 45-56.

Andersen, T.J., Denrell, J. and Bettis, R.A. (2007), “Strategic responsiveness and Bowman’srisk-return paradox”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 407-29.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership:an examination of the nine-factor full range leadership theory using the multifactorleadership questionnaire”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 261-95.

GM26,2

180

Page 19: Leadership Attributes,

Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1991), The Full Range Leadership Development Programs: Basic andAdvanced Manuals, Bass, Avolio & Associates, Binghamton, NY.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformationaland transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”, Journal ofOccupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 441-62.

Avolio, B.J., Mhatre, K., Norman, S.M. and Lester, P. (2009), “The moderating effect of gender onleadership intervention impact: an exploratory review”, Journal of Leadership andOrganizational Studies, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 325-41.

Bar-Joseph, U. and Sheaffer, Z. (1998), “Surprise and its causes in business administration andstrategic studies”, International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, Vol. 11No. 3, pp. 331-49.

Barnett, C. and Pratt, M. (2000), “From threat-rigidity to flexibility: toward a learning model ofautogenic crisis in organizations”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13No. 1, pp. 74-88.

Bartunek, J.M., Walsh, K. and Lacey, C.A. (2000), “Dynamics and dilemmas of women leadingwomen”, Organization Science, Vol. 11, pp. 589-610.

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press,New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military and Educational Impact,Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1992), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire – Short Form 6S, Centerfor Leadership Studies, Binghamton, NY.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research,Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.

Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, Routledge, London.

Bem, S.L. (1974), “The measurement of psychological androgyny”, Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 155-62.

Bergkvist, L. and Rossiter, J. (2007), “The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-itemmeasures of the same constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLIV, pp. 175-84.

Berthoin-Antal, A. and Izraeli, D.N. (1993), “A global comparison of women in management:women managers in their homelands and as expatriates”, in Fagenson, E. (Ed.), Womenin Management, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 52-96.

Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), “Identification of the critical success factors of TQM”, DecisionSciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2005), “Organizational citizenship behavior in school: how does itrelate to participation in decision-making?”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43No. 5, pp. 420-38.

Boin, A. and McConnell, A. (2007), “Preparing for critical infrastructure breakdowns: the limits ofcrisis management and the need for resilience”, Journal of Contingencies and CrisisManagement, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 50-9.

Broadbridge, A. and Hearn, J. (2008), “Gender and management: new directions in research andcontinuing patterns in practice”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. 38-49.

Carbonell, J. and Castro, Y. (2008), “The impact of a leader model on high dominant women’sself-selection for leadership”, Sex Roles, Vol. 58 Nos 11/12, pp. 776-83.

Carmeli, A. and Halevi, M.Y. (2007), “Reacting to the remedia beriberi tragedy: doing the rightthing”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 244-58.

Leadershipattributes

181

Page 20: Leadership Attributes,

Carmeli, A. and Halevi, M.Y. (2009), “How top management team behavioral integration andbehavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role ofcontextual ambidexterity”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 207-18.

Carmeli, A. and Sheaffer, Z. (2009), “How leadership characteristics affect organizational declineand downsizing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 363-78.

Chambaere, K., Bilsen, Y., Cohen, Y., Pousset, G., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B., Mortier, F. andDeliens, L. (2008), “A post-mortem survey on end-of-life decisions using a representativesample of death certificates in Flanders, Belgium: research protocol”, BMC Public Health,Vol. 8, p. 299.

Clair, J.A. and Duefresne, R.L. (2007), “Changing poison into medicine: how companies canexperience positive transformation from a crisis”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 36 No. 1,pp. 63-77.

Colville, I.D. and Murphy, A.J. (2006), “Leadership as the enabler of strategizing and organizing”,Long Range Planning, Vol. 39, pp. 663-77.

Das, T.K. and Teng, B. (1998), “Resource and risk management in the strategic alliance makingprocess”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 21-42.

Dembo, R.S. and Freeman, A. (2001), Seeing Tomorrow, Wiley, New York, NY.

Demirguc-Kunt, A. and Serven, L. (2009), “Are all the sacred cows dead? Implications of thefinancial crisis for macro and financial policies”, Policy Research Working Paper No. 4807,The World Bank Development Research Group, Washington, DC.

de Pillis, E., Kernochan, R., Meilich, O. and Prosser, E. (2008), “Are managerial genderstereotypes universal? The case of Hawaii”, Cross Cultural Management: An InternationalJournal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 94-102.

Diamond, D.W. and Rajan, R.G. (2009), “The credit crisis: conjectures about causes andremedies”, American Economic Review, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 606-10.

Drew, S.A.W. and Kendrick, T. (2005), “Risk management: the five pillars of corporategovernance”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 19-36.

Eagly, A.H. (2007), “Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: resolving thecontradictions”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Eid, J., Johnsen, B.H., Bartone, P.T. and Nissestad, O.A. (2008), “Growing transformationalleaders: exploring the role of personality hardiness”, Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 4-23.

Emsley, D. (2003), “Multiple goals and managers’ job-related tension and performance”, Journalof Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 345-56.

Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R. and Strahan, E. (1999), “Evaluating the use ofexploratory factor analysis in psychological research”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 272-99.

Fegley, S. and Victor, J. (2005), Disaster Preparedness Survey Report, SHRM Research,Alexandria, VA.

Fiegenbaum, A. (1990), “Prospect theory and the risk return association: an empiricalexamination in 85 industries”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 14,pp. 187-203.

Fry, L.W. (2003), “Toward a theory of spiritual leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14,pp. 693-727.

Gomez-Mejıa, L.R., Haynes, K.T., Nunez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K.J.L. and Kathyrn, J.L. (2007),“Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: evidence fromSpanish olive oil mills”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 52, pp. 106-37.

GM26,2

182

Page 21: Leadership Attributes,

Haslam, S.A. and Ryan, M.K. (2008), “The road to the glass cliff: differences in the perceivedsuitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failingorganizations”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 530-46.

Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2008), “A theoretical and empirical examination of thetransactional and non-leadership dimensions of the multifactor leadership questionnaire(MLQ)”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 501-13.

Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated business unitperformance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 891-902.

Hunter, S.T., Bedell-Avers, K.A. and Mumford, M.D. (2009), “Impact of situational framing andcomplexity on charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders: investigation using acomputer simulation”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 383-404.

James, E.H. and Wooten, L.P. (2005), “Leadership as (un)usual: how to display competence intimes of crisis”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 141-52.

Johanson, J.C. (2008), “Perceptions of femininity in leadership: modern trend or classiccomponent?”, Sex Roles, Vol. 58 Nos 11/12, pp. 784-9.

Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership:a meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89No. 5, pp. 755-68.

Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R. and Bartholomew, C.S. (2008), “Leadership and the fate of organizations”,American Psychologist, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 96-110.

Kapucu, N. (2006), “Interagency communication networks during emergencies: boundaryspanners in multiagency coordination”, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 36,pp. 207-25.

Keller, R.T. (2006), “Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes forleadership: a longitudinal study of research and development project team performance”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 202-10.

Kersten, A. and Sidky, M. (2005), “Re-aligning rationality: crisis management and prisonerabuses in Iraq”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 31, pp. 471-8.

Kirschenbaum, A. (2002), “The organization of chaos: the structure of disaster management”,in Vigoda, E. (Ed.), Public Administration – The New Generation: An InterdisciplinaryCritical Analysis, CRC Press, Francis & Taylor, New York, NY, pp. 259-85.

Korhonen, P., Mano, H., Stenfors, S. and Wallenius, J. (2008), “Inherent biases in decision supportsystems: the influence of optimistic and pessimistic DSS on choice, affect, and attitudes”,Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 45-58.

Lam, S., Chen, X. and Schaubroeck, J. (2002), “Participative decision making and employeeperformance in different cultures: the moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism andself-efficacy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 905-14.

Landskroner, Y. and Raviv, A. (2009), “The 2007-2009 financial crisis and executivecompensation: analysis and a proposal for a novel structure”, Finance working papers,Stern School of Business, available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2451/28105

McBurney, D. (1994), Research Methods, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.

McConnell, A. and Drennan, L. (2006), “Mission impossible? Planning and preparing for crisis”,Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 59-70.

McElroy, T. and Seta, J.J. (2007), “Framing the frame: how task goals determine the likelihoodand direction of framing effects”, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 251-6.

Leadershipattributes

183

Page 22: Leadership Attributes,

Mano-Negrin, R. and Sheaffer, Z. (2004), “Are women ‘cooler’ than men during crises? Exploringgender differences in perceiving organisational crisis preparedness-proneness”, Women inManagement Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 109-22.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integration model of organizationaltrust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.

Miller, D. and Lee, J. (2001), “The people make the process: commitment to employees,decision-making, and performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27, pp. 163-89.

Mintzberg, H. (2010), “Managing on three planes”, Leader to Leader, Vol. 57, pp. 29-33.

Mishra, A.K. (1996), “Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, R.M.and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 261-87.

Mitroff, I.I. and Alpaslan, M.C. (2003), “Preparing for evil”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81No. 4, pp. 109-15.

Mone, M., McKinley, W. and Barker, V. (1998), “Organizational decline and innovation:a contingency framework”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 115-32.

Morishima, M. (1991), “Information sharing and firm performance in Japan: do joint consultationcommittees help?”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 37-61.

Mythen, G. and Walklate, S. (2008), “Terrorism, risk and international security: the perils ofasking ‘What if?’”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 39 Nos 2/3, pp. 221-42.

Nemanich, L.A. and Vera, D. (2009), “Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in thecontext of an acquisition”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 19-33.

Paris, L.D., Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W. and Hanges, P.J. (2009), “Preferred leadership prototypesof male and female leaders in 27 countries”, Journal of International Business Studies,Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1396-405.

Pearson, C.M. and Clair, J.A. (1998), “Reframing crisis management”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 23, pp. 59-76.

Pearson, C.M. and Mitroff, I.I. (1993), “From crisis prone to crisis prepared: a framework for crisismanagement”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7, pp. 48-59.

Perrow, C. (1984), Normal Accidents, Sage, New York, NY.

Peters, G.A. and Peters, B.J. (2007), Medical Error and Patient Safety: Human Factors in Medicine,CRC Press, New York, NY, pp. 61-84.

Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1991), “Thought systems, argument quality, and persuasion”,in Wyer, R.S. and Srull, T.K. (Eds), Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. 4, Erlbaum,Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 147-61.

Plantin, G. and Rochet, J.C. (2009), “When insurers go bust: an economic analysis of the role anddesign of prudential regulation”, International Journal of the Economics of Business, Vol. 16No. 1, pp. 139-46.

Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986), “Self report in organizational research: problems andprospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.

Powell, G.N., Butterfield, D.A. and Bartol, K.M. (2008), “Leader evaluations: a new femaleadvantage?”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 156-74.

Purvanova, R.K. and Bono, J.E. (2009), “Transformational leadership in context: face-to-face andvirtual teams”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 343-57.

Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), “Refining individualized consideration: distinguishingdevelopmental leadership, and supportive leadership”, Journal of Occupational &Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 37-61.

GM26,2

184

Page 23: Leadership Attributes,

Regester, M. and Larkin, J. (2008), Risk Issues and Crisis Management in Public Relations:A Casebook of Best Practice, Kogan Page, London.

Reiter-Palmon, R. and Illies, J.J. (2004), “Leadership and creativity: understanding leadershipfrom a creative-problem solving perspective”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 55-77.

Richard, O., Kiran, I., Bhuian, S. and Taylor, E. (2009), “Mentoring in supervisor-subordinatedyads: antecedents, consequences, and test of a mediation model of mentorship”, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 62 No. 11, pp. 1110-18.

Richardson, B. (1993), “Why we need to teach crisis management and to use case studies to do it”,Management Learning, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 138-48.

Richardson, B. (1995), “Paradox management for crisis avoidance”, Management Decision, Vol. 33No. 1, pp. 5-18.

Rode, C., Cosmides, L., Hell, W. and Tooby, J. (1999), “When and why do people avoid unknownprobabilities in decisions under uncertainty? Testing some predictions from optimalforaging theory”, Cognition, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 269-304.

Rosenthal, U., Hart, P. and Kouzmin, A. (1991), “The bureau-politics of crisis management”,Public Administration, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 211-33.

Rubin, R.S., Munz, D.C. and Boomer, W.H. (2005), “Leading from within: the effects of emotionrecognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 845-58.

Ryan, M.K. and Haslam, L. (2007), “The glass cliff: exploring the dynamics surrounding theappointment of women to precarious leadership positions”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 549-72.

Ryan, M.K. and Haslam, S.A. (2004), “The glass cliff: evidence that women are over-representedin precarious leadership positions”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 2-22.

Ryan, M.K., Haslam, S.A., Hersby, M. and Bongiorno, R. (2007), “Think crisis-think female: glasscliffs and contextual variation in the think manager-think male stereotype”, working paper,University of Exeter, Exeter.

Sampson, S.D. and Moore, L.L. (2008), “Is there a glass ceiling for women in development?”,Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 321-39.

Sayegh, L., Anthony, W.P. and Perrewe, P.L. (2004), “Managerial decision-making under crisis:the role of emotion in an intuitive decision process”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 14No. 2, pp. 179-99.

Scheil, V.E. (1973), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite managerialcharacteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 95-105.

Scheil, V.E. (1975), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite managementcharacteristics among female managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 340-4.

Scheil, V.E. (2007), “Women in management: reflections and projections”, Women inManagement Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 6-18.

Schimmel, R. and Muntslag, D.R. (2009), “Learning barriers: a framework for the examination ofstructural impediments to organizational change”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48No. 3, pp. 399-416.

Schwartz, H.S. (1987), “On the psychodynamics of organizational totalitarianism”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 41-54.

Sczesny, S., Bosak, J., Diekman, A. and Twenge, J. (2007), “Dynamics of sex role stereotypes”,in Kashima, Y., Fiedler, K. and Freytag, P. (Eds), Stereotype Dynamics: Language-basedApproaches to the Formation, Maintenance, and Transformation of Stereotypes, LawrenceErlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 137-63.

Leadershipattributes

185

Page 24: Leadership Attributes,

Sheaffer, Z. and Mano-Negrin, R. (2003), “Executives’ orientations as predictors of crisismanagement policies and practices”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 2,pp. 573-606.

Sheaffer, Z., Richardson, B. and Rosenblatt, Z. (1998), “Early warning signals management:a lesson from the Barings crisis”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 6No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Shrivastava, P. (1995), “The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability”, Academyof Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 936-60.

Silins, H.C. (1992), “Effective leadership for school reform”, The Alberta Journal of EducationalResearch, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 317-34.

Somech, A. and Bogler, R. (2002), “Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational andprofessional commitment”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 555-77.

Sommer, A. and Pearson, C.M. (2007), “Antecedents of creative decision-making in organizationalcrisis: a team-based simulation”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 47No. 8, pp. 1234-51.

Sprangers, M. and Schwartz, C. (1999), “Integrating response shift into health-related quality oflife research: a theoretical model”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 48, pp. 1507-15.

Stern, E.K. (2009), “Crisis navigation: lessons from history for the crisis manager in chief”,Governance, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 189-202.

Sweeny, K. (2008), “Crisis decision theory: decisions in the face of negative events”, PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 134 No. 1, pp. 61-76.

Ulmer, R.R. and Sellnow, T.L. (2000), “Consistent questions of ambiguity in organizational crisiscommunication: Jack in the box as a case study”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 143-55.

Visser, M. (2007), “Deutero-learning in organizations: a review and a reformulation”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 32, pp. 659-70.

Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. (1973), Leadership and Decision-Making, University of Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh, PA.

Waldman, D.A. and Javidan, M. (2009), “Alternative forms of charismatic leadership in theintegration of mergers and acquisitions”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 130-42.

Walumbwa, F.O., Wu, C. and Orwa, B. (2008), “Contingent reward transactional leadership, workattitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: the role of procedural justice climateperceptions and strength”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 251-65.

Wang, J., Hutchins, H.M. and Garavan, T.N. (2009), “Exploring the strategic role of humanresource development in organizational crisis management”, Human ResourceDevelopment Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 22-53.

Wann-Yih, W., Chinho, L. and Li-Yeuh, L. (2000), “Personal characters, decision-making patternsand leadership styles of female managers: a comparative study of American, Taiwanese,and Japanese female managers”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 18-32.

Watkins, M.D. and Bazerman, M.H. (2003), “Predictable surprises: the disasters you should haveseen coming”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 72-80.

Wiseman, R.M. and Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1998), “A behavioral agency model of managerial risktaking”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 133-53.

Yu, T., Sengul, M. and Lester, R.H. (2008), “Misery loves company: the spread of negativeimpacts resulting from an organizational crisis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33No. 2, pp. 452-72.

GM26,2

186

Page 25: Leadership Attributes,

Further reading

Dichev, I.D. and Tang, V.W. (2009), “Earnings volatility and earnings predictability”, Journal ofAccounting and Economics, Vol. 49 Nos 1/2, pp. 160-81.

Kets de Vries, M. (2004), “Dysfunctional leadership”, in Goethals, G.R., Sorenson, G.J. andBurns, J.M. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Leadership, Vol. 1, Sage, Great Barrington, MA,pp. 368-72.

Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B. and Dukerich, J.M. (1985), “The romance of leadership”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 78-102.

Sen, F. and Egelhoff, W. (1991), “Six years and counting: learning from crisis management atBhopal”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 69-83.

Corresponding authorZachary Sheaffer can be contacted at: [email protected]

Leadershipattributes

187

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints