1. The Utilization of Transformational Leadership
by Texas Women in Addressing Gender Bias
Laura Jean Calcote
PBA 575 – Capstone Defense

2. ▪ Leadership – historically defined in masculine terms
▪ Agentic traits: Assertiveness, control, confidence
▪ “Think manager, think male” phenomenon
▪ Gender bias and discrimination for females seeking and obtaining managerial positions
▪ Public Administration (P.A.) – also historically defined in masculine terms
▪ Masculine characteristics: Expertise, leadership, and virtue
▪ Progressive Era: P.A. should be tough-minded, rational, scientific, and businesslike
▪ “Three steps forward, two steps back” for women’s integration into P.A.
Introduction to Leadership and Public Administration

3. Texas Women, Leadership, and Public Administration
▪ “Good ol’ boys’ club” – tightly knit fraternal organization
▪ Females constitute half of Texas’s population
▪ Females are underrepresented in leadership positions in the private and public spheres
▪ Current statistics for Texas women:
▪ One woman out of nine statewide executive offices
▪ Three women out of 38 offices in the United States Congress
▪ 58.1 percent of the state’s labor force, hold 38.9 percent of managerial/professional occupations
▪ Thesis: The current study sought to gain an understanding of how women in managerial
positions in Texas’s 15 most populated counties have adopted a transformational leadership
style to address and overcome gender bias/discrimination in public administration.

4. Three Leadership Styles
▪ Transformational leadership
▪ “4 I’s”
▪ Idealized influence: attributes and behaviors
▪ Inspirational motivation
▪ Intellectual stimulation
▪ Individualized consideration
▪ Transactional leadership
▪ Two components:
▪ Contingent reward
▪ Management-by-exception: active
▪ Laissez-faire leadership
▪ Two components:
▪ Laissez-faire
▪ Management-by-exception: passive

5. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
▪ Measures transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles
▪ Transformational by five subscales
▪ Transactional by two subscales
▪ Laissez-faire by two subscales
▪ 5X-Short version
▪ 45 items that identify and measure key leadership and effectiveness behaviors
▪ Items are measured on a five point frequency scale:
▪ 0 – not at all
▪ 1 – once in a while
▪ 2 – sometimes
▪ 3 – fairly often
▪ 4 – frequently, if not always

6. Prior Research on Transformational Leadership and Gender
▪ Women are more effective and satisfying leaders than males
▪ Women rate higher on three of the “4 I’s” for transformational leadership
▪ Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individual consideration
▪ Women have an advantage when using transformational leadership
▪ Female gender role correlation
▪ Androgynous view of leadership
▪ Contingent reward behavior
▪ Women can utilize transformational leadership to overcome bias in
stereotypical male industries
▪ Communal traits correspond with transformational leadership

7. Study Methodology
▪ Purpose and objective
▪ Hypothesis
▪ Sample
▪ 150 women
▪ Texas’s 15 most populated counties
▪ Procedure
▪ Twenty question survey sent electronically through Survey Monkey
▪ Five questions were demographic
▪ Fifteen questions were drawn from 45 found on the MLQ 5X-Short survey measure
▪ Likert Scale for measurement (0 – 4)
▪ Frequency of answer choice = leadership style

8. Demographic Findings
▪ Twenty-five participants completed the
survey (16.7% response rate)
▪ Demographics for respondents
▪ Ages 35 to 64
▪ 28 percent were 35-44
▪ 24 percent were 45-55
▪ 48 percent were 55-64
▪ Various ethnicities
▪ 66.67 percent were White/Caucasian
▪ 12.50 percent were Hispanic/Latino
▪ 12.50 percent were Black/African American
▪ 8.33 percent were multiple ethnicity/other
▪ Differing levels of education
▪ 12 percent had some college but no degree
▪ 48 percent had a bachelor’s degree
▪ 24 percent had a master’s degree
▪ 16 percent had a doctorate degree
▪ Assorted time spent in current leadership
position
▪ 8 percent at one or less
▪ 24 percent at two to five
▪ 8 percent at six to ten
▪ 28 percent at 11 to 15
▪ 8 percent at 16 to 20
▪ 24 percent at 20 or more

9. Table 1 – Percentage Response by Leadership Style
Leadership Style Answer
Category Subcategory Not at all
Once in
a while
Sometimes
Fairly
often
Frequently,
if not always
Grand
Total
Laissez Faire Laissez Faire 55.10% 32.65% 10.20% 2.04% 0.00% 100.00%
Management-by-exception
(passive)
41.67% 25.00% 12.50% 16.67% 4.17% 100.00%
Laissez Faire Total 50.68% 30.14% 10.96% 6.85% 1.37% 100.00%
Transactional Contingent Reward 4.08% 2.04% 22.45% 30.61% 40.82% 100.00%
Management-by-exception
(active)
0.00% 32.00% 44.00% 8.00% 16.00% 100.00%
Transactional Total 2.70% 12.16% 29.73% 22.97% 32.43% 100.00%
Transformational Idealized Influence (attributed) 0.00% 4.00% 8.00% 24.00% 64.00% 100.00%
Individual Consideration 4.00% 0.00% 16.00% 38.00% 42.00% 100.00%
Inspirational Motivation 0.00% 2.67% 8.00% 36.00% 53.33% 100.00%
Intellectual Stimulation 0.00% 4.00% 18.00% 40.00% 38.00% 100.00%
Idealized Influence (behavior) 0.00% 0.00% 4.17% 25.00% 70.83% 100.00%
Transformational
Total
0.89% 2.23% 11.61% 34.82% 50.45% 100.00%

10. Table 2 – Weighted Responses by Answer Scale
Leadership Style Answer
Category Subcategory Not at all
Once in
a while
Sometimes Fairly often
Frequently,
if not always
Grand Total
Laissez Faire Laissez Faire 0.00% 1.60% 1.00% 0.30% 0.00% 2.90%
Management-by-exception
(passive)
0.00% 0.60% 0.60% 1.20% 0.40% 2.80%
Laissez Faire Total 0.00% 2.20% 1.60% 1.50% 0.40% 5.70%
Transactional Contingent Reward 0.00% 0.10% 2.20% 4.50% 8.00% 14.80%
Management-by-exception
(active)
0.00% 0.80% 2.20% 0.60% 1.60% 5.20%
Transactional Total 0.00% 0.90% 4.40% 5.10% 9.60% 20.00%
Transformational Idealized Influence (attributed) 0.00% 0.10% 0.40% 1.80% 6.40% 8.70%
Individual Consideration 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 5.70% 8.40% 15.70%
Inspirational Motivation 0.00% 0.20% 1.20% 8.10% 16.00% 25.50%
Intellectual Stimulation 0.00% 0.20% 1.80% 6.00% 7.60% 15.60%
Idealized Influence (behavior) 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 1.80% 6.80% 8.80%
Transformational Total 0.00% 0.50% 5.20% 23.40% 45.20% 74.30%
Grand Total 0.00% 3.60% 11.20% 30.00% 55.20% 100.00%

11. Graph 1 and Graph 2
5.70%
20.00%
74.30%
Weighted Responses by Leadership
Style (Graph 1)
Laissez Faire Transactional Transformational
8.70%
8.80%
15.70%25.50%
15.60%
Transformational Leadership's Weighted
Responses (Graph 2)
Idealized Influence (attributed) Idealized Influence (behavior)
Individual Consideration Inspirational Motivation
Intellectual Stimulation

12. Study Limitations/Recommendations
▪ Limitations
▪ Available time
▪ Response rate
▪ Sample size and demographics
▪ Reduced version of the MLQ 5X-Short
▪ Researcher bias
▪ Skewed results towards transformational leadership
▪ Recommendations
▪ Pilot study
▪ Expand the sample size
▪ Women at all levels of Texas government
▪ Men and women
▪ Use the full version of the MLQ 5X-Short for the survey

13. Conclusion
▪ Historical masculine contexts of leadership and public administration
▪ Gender bias/discrimination against women in the fields
▪ Texas women in public administration
▪ “Good ol’ boys’ club”
▪ Underrepresented in percentage to their population size
▪ Purpose of the study and findings
▪ Supports the hypothesis
▪ Limitations
▪ Recommendations
“Our place may have once been in the home, but now we belong in the
people’s houses – city halls, county courthouses and offices, state and federal
agencies and legislatures, Capitol domes, and the White House.”

14. Thank you for your time.