1. Let Her Speak: The Effects of Gendered Communication Patterns on Perceptions of
Leadership
Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Communication Studies
Gonzaga University
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of the
Bachelor of Arts
by
Brady Essmann
Spokane, WA

2. 2014
Abstract
Research indicates that students can and do increase their leadership skills throughout the
course of their collegiate education. Consequently, these increases in leadership development in
turn enhance self-efficacy, multicultural, societal, and self-awareness, civic responsibility,
character development, academic performance, and personal development in students (Benson &
Saito, 2001; Fertman & Van Linden, 1999; Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen,
2005; Scales & Leffort, 1999; Sipe, Ma, & Gambone, 1998). While a significant goal of
attending college is ultimately to attain a competitive academic degree, this would suggest that
the intentional development to prepare students for lives of leadership “may be one of the most
challenging and most important goals of higher education,” as psychologist Patricia King asserts
(1997).
However, little research has surfaced that has integrated theoretical understandings of
college students’ contemporary leadership education to comprehensively explore how the higher
education environment shapes this developmental process. Therefore, this thesis will specifically
navigate that process in regard to verbal communication patterns on perceptions of women in
leadership.
Verbal and non-verbal communication, power, and identity are intimately intertwined with
one another; the way a person holds themselves, speaks and writes directly affects the
assumptions of power made and social status attributed to that individual by others. In this
respect, people wishing to gain access to leadership positions must proficiently use verbal
communication skills to generate influence and control in a society which values impressions of
power.
If communication styles do in fact reflect perceptions of qualification and leadership
ability, which features (specifically regarding verbal communication in language) underlie the
formation of a powerful or powerless impression? This study then further questions how to align
the paradox of excellent qualification with powerless language use – focusing narrowly on the
subject of women in the collegiate classroom. Lastly, the research addresses whether this
problematic struggle, which stems from gender bias and discrimination, should best be addressed
on a structural or individual level.
This thesis examines a variety of empirical studies, theoretical positions, methodologies,
experiential accounts, and substantive issues as they pertain to the use of language for generating
influence and control during collegiate development. An important issue of substantive concern
and focus in this thesis revolves around how power-based language influences perceptions of
leadership development among college men and women. This thesis will prove that the language
used in verbal communication does in fact alter the language, and in turn, perceptions, used to
communicate competency and efficacy in leadership settings. The research concludes that while
significant progress has been made regarding the socialization of females to assert dominant
language, there continues to be a serious lack of alignment on college campuses in terms of
strong leadership skills and communication of ability to lead.

3. Limitations on Research
The following thesis includes analysis of traditional, dominating patterns of gendered
language patterns that are used by both males and females, citing research of generalized
behaviors, assumptions, and studies. It must be noted that the following research is based on
broad generalizations and that all communication behaviors occur on a continuum; each
individual adopts qualified behaviors based upon condition, therefore being flexible enough to
modify said behavior based on various situations when needed or motivated to do so. As a
further precedent, it must be noted that the following principles of behavioral study must be
taken on a case-by-case basis and do in no way act as overarching maxims. All studies
concerning gendered communication must be interpreted with caution, as not all people fall
within the outlined generalizations. Furthermore, when discussing gender and communication it
must be understood that differences between male and female communication are not necessarily
due to biological genetics, but rather socialized influences.
Furthermore, references made to the “workplace” do not necessarily encompass all career
opportunities or accurately represent all positional environments women may enter.
“Factors of race, class, gender, culture, and personality are equally important in determining
who gets to speak and for how long and whose voice is taken seriously in the classroom and in
our culture at large” (Brookfield, 158).
Diverting Communication Paradigms: A Brief Introduction to Increasingly Complex
Problems
A variety of historical events have allowed for an in-depth analysis of the differing
communication and learning styles between men and women. Whether these gender differences
exist in the way in which they communicate, influence, or lead, men and women have always
been viewed as different and unique through the ways they approach the world and its problems.
Historically however, these differences have put women in the classroom and workplace at a
disadvantage because of their perceived inferiority to men, mainly due to historical gender
inequalities. Such gender inequalities typically stem from the traditional leadership roles in
society that have defined and developed the communication patterns of each gender. Any attempt

4. to examine language as it affects this leadership must first be framed by the theoretical context
that influences its understanding today.
Though many characterize leadership as “an easily recognized construct that is
particularly difficult to comprehend, scholars have developed an array of theories to describe the
phenomena (Burns, 1978). In an essay titled “Leadership for the 21st Century,” Joseph Rost
identifies two distinct paradigms that outline the drastic shifts in gendered communication styles,
known as industrial and post-industrial (1993). Prior to WWII, it was generally expected that the
working man the main provider for his family; therefore, any woman in the workforce was seen
to somehow be taking a job from a man who needed it more in order to support his family. Due
to these societal constraints, women were expected to assume the role of wife and mother,
providing emotional support and care in the home. With the exceptions of nurses, teachers,
actresses, and librarians during this time, most women became housewives automatically upon
the exchange of their wedding vows. Therefore, women naturally adopted the industrial
communication styles these roles demanded of them: supportive in nurturing, collaborative in
relationship building with strong emphasis on value-centered, non-coercive, transformative
patterns of speech. Subsequently, men adapted to the requirements of the industrial workforce:
assertive, curt, transactional communicative models of control, authority, and command.
However, by the end of the war, more than six million women, most of them married, had
entered the workforce due to the vast numbers of men being drafted. This shift in societal
expectation of roles ushered in the first wave of the feminist movement as a surge of female
workers entered the workplace, many for the first time. Though the entrance of women into the
workforce positively changed society’s attitude and perception of women, male-dominated
companies remained incredibly suspicious of women gender differences in workers. For this
reason, women were not taken as seriously as men. Unfortunately, this stigma carried into the
dynamics of the twenty-first century, male-dominated workplace and continues to be an issue of
tension for many working females. For example, women comprise a mere 5% of the chief
executives of the world’s biggest companies. Of that 5%, women are more likely to be fired than
their male colleagues: studies show that 38% of the female CEOs who left their jobs over the
past ten years were forced to go, compared with 27% of the men. Yet, new research also suggests
that by 2040 women will make up a third of up and rising CEOs. (“The Glass Precipice,” 2014).
Although there is general consensus regarding the benefits of studying sex and gender
differences, the results of numerous studies conducted over the past 45 years are often
contradictory (Dugan, 2006). What this plethora of research does provide, however, is the use of
meta-analysis to examine overall trends in data. In the 1990’s, Eagly and Johnson conducted
studies that found women to employ much more interpersonal approaches in leadership than
their task-reliant male counterparts (“Gender and leadership styles: A meta-analysis”). However,
even these positive results were diminished in both organizational and male-dominated settings
due to most of the twentieth century has been governed by this industrial understanding of
leadership communication, which “focused primarily on the individual as leader, rational and
analytical thinking, and…emphasis on determining task over democratic leadership styles”
(Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003 as cited in Dugan, 2006).
Due to the lasting effects of this industrial paradigm of communication, women to this
day struggle more so than their male counterparts to attain higher-status positions of power in the

5. workplace. The reality of the current situation manifests from a historical hierarchy of privilege
and power differential taking place over the last two centuries; because society has favored and
valued the work ethic, communication styles, and leadership of dominance primarily exhibited
by males throughout history, denials surmounting to taboos surround the subject of advantages
that men gain from women's disadvantages. According to the founder of the National S.E.E.D.
Project on Inclusive Curriculum (Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity) Peggy McIntosh,
“These denials protect male privilege from being fully acknowledged, lessened, or ended”
("White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences
through Work in Women's Studies," 1988).
It can be questioned, then, if this problematic struggle should best be addressed on a
structural or individual level? Or perhaps, both?
If structurally women are oppressed by a system of discrimination, which rewards the
behavior of men -- using language of authority and control (a communication style historically
employed by men as outlined by the industrial paradigm) -- then the “boys network” must be
broken down on the macro-level to create substantive change in opportunity for women. If the
root cause of women’s immobility in the workplace is structurally defined, society must begin to
consider the implications of these constrictions on women – implications which have lasting
affects from earliest development through their adult careers.
If, however, this issue is seen as an individual problem, what steps must be taken to
empower young women to begin utilizing communication styles of confidence and power?
Many critics advocate that the United States is currently undergoing a shift in the power
differential toward one, which favors more transformational communication in the workplace
over the transactional. This new paradigm, labeled by Rost as “post-industrial,” demonstrates
communication behaviors with clearly articulated values, motivation, optimism, willingness to
consider new perspectives, and attention to individual needs, all historically “feminine”
behaviors (1993). This research would suggest that women may possess a leadership advantage
under the post-industrial paradigm (Eagly et al.).
Yet it must be considered that if this were true, why are women still currently making 77
cents to every dollar earned by a man for the same work? Why are young women at a prestigious
academic institution such as Gonzaga University overwhelmingly using disclaiming, discrediting
statements such as “This is probably the wrong answer, but…” or “I don’t know if this is the
answer you are looking for but…”? Generationally, why are more young women abusing non-
committal statements such as the word “like” into daily conversation? On a national scale, why
do college-aged female possess reported lower leadership efficacy (confidence in and aspirations
to lead) than their male counterparts, yet females report higher leadership competency (complex
cognitive skills and social perspective-taking) than males (“2012 Multi-Institutional Study of
Leadership”)?
As the critically acclaimed yet also heavily criticized author of Lean In, Sheryl Sandberg,
would attest, women simply need to adopt more “traditionally masculine” approaches to
communication in order to gain credibility in leadership. Be assertive, but be careful. The most
brilliant women are still attempting to navigate exactly what that means.
It would appear that the answer to the aforementioned question is undoubtedly a

6. resounding yes – it is the duty of collegiate programming to both help deconstruct persisting
stereotypes regarding women’s ability to lead while empowering woman to combat restraining
communicative behaviors that contribute to a lack of self-confidence. To see any improvements
within structural discrimination, the feminine perspective must be present in the workforce;
society needs women in position of power to make changes from within. With a female holding
authority, the structural patterns of society can change the styles of the individuals beneath her.
But is it possible for an individual to change industrial favoritism present within current power
structures?
In order to alleviate disproportionate power differentials in the workplace, awareness and
analysis of powerless behavior must begin from the earliest stages of socialized development in
students, specifically females. One of the most tangible tools for deconstructing powerless
impressions is through developing positive communication behaviors that inevitably shape
perceptions of qualification, credibility, and ability.
Classroom Development
As the majority of co-ed, non-familial relations from an early age take place in the
educational arena, the classroom sets the stage for relevant discussions of gender relations.
"Until educational sexism is eradicated, more than half our children will be shortchanged and
their gifts lost to society." (Sadker, 1994). Gender and education, from a sociological
perspective, “refers to the idea that the current structure of America’s educational system does
not offer the same type of opportunities for upward mobility to both genders equally” (Ms,
2012). Critically, this sex discrimination being applied in the education system affects both men
and women during and after their educational experiences – most recognizable in the ways they
communicate. The victims of this bias have been psychologically trained through years of
schooling to remain silent and passive, and are therefore unwilling and/or unable to resist the
power differential elicited in unfair treatment they are receiving.
"Over the course of years, the uneven distribution of teacher time, energy, attention, and talent,
with boys getting the lion's share, takes its toll on girls" (Sadker, 1994). The problem lies in
instructors (as reflective of the public in general) being generally unaware of their own biased
teaching behaviors due to learned behaviors; they are simply “teaching how they were taught,”
therefore overlooking the subtle gender inequities found in teaching materials (Ms, 2012).
Females and males today are receiving separate and unequal educations due to the gender
socialization that takes place in America’s school systems, through both sexist hidden curriculum
and communication behaviors.
Communication involves both a verbal code (language) and non-verbal codes which
inevitably shape perceptions of how people see reality. Therefore, it is pivotal to develop positive
communicative habits to display desired perceptions of self. Yet, due to the paradigms
influencing socialization, there are generalized behaviors of habit that seemingly “define”
masculine and feminine relations; it is such definitions that educators, parents, mentors, and
professionals working within higher education must highlight and work to overcome. The subtle
or overt ways in which students are often treated differently must be discussed, and actions must

7. now be taken to create a learning climate that fosters the intellectual growth of all students.
Experiences in Early Schooling
Female and male students are likely to enter college with different educational histories –
regardless of attendance at the same elementary and high schools. Ongoing research proves, for
example, that elementary teachers frequently treat young male and female students differently in
everyday classroom interaction – most often without even knowing they are doing so. Every time
teachers or administrators separate or line up students based on gender, ignore an act of sexual
harassment, or tolerate different behaviors for boys than girls simply because “boys will be
boys,” they affirm that students should be treated differently in ways that negatively impact the
females. In fact, upon entering school, studies show that girls perform equal to or better than
boys on nearly every measure of achievement, but by the time they graduate high school or
college, they have fallen behind (Sadker, 1994). Research provided by empirical studies of post-
secondary and other classrooms, reports, and surveys have identified several reasons for the
socialization that hinders gender equity in the classroom. Notably, elementary school teachers
tend to:
• Call on and talk more to their male students, asking them to “try harder” if they
are initially unsuccessful, thus conveying the message that they have the ability to be
successful;
• remember and use the names of male students more often than their female
students
• give male students more time and eye contact when answering questions, thus
inviting response
• give male students specific instructions on how to complete a project but show
their female students how to do it – or, on occasion, do it for them;
• talk to their male students regardless of location in the classroom, but more
commonly talk to girls only when they are nearby;
• praise their male students for the intellectual quality of their work and coach
them to develop their thoughts by giving more extended and specific feedback on the
quality of their ideas; and
• criticize male students for lack of form and neatness, while communicating the
opposite to their female students (Hall & Sandler, 1982).
These communication patterns between teacher-student interactions have lasting
consequences on the learned behaviors of both male and female students. A key concern for
women in the contemporary classroom learning environment continues to be whether women’s
voices will be lost when men are present (Langdon, 2001). A hidden component of the education
bias, many teachers and professors are often unaware of the extent to which female and male
students actually participate. One female teacher, astounded to discover such patterns in her

8. classroom, was a twenty-year member of the National Organization of Women (Sadker, 1986).
These first messages produce expectations and habitual interactions that follow students into the
college classroom and eventually, the workforce. As with any learned behavior, it is assumed
that people fit gender stereotypes, especially when children are raised with those stereotypes
reinforced through social norms; when students notice female faculty, staff, and other students
operating under assumptions of being more nurturing (or to fit other feminine stereotypes) while
male faculty, staff, and students are assumed to be more insensitive and assertive (or fit other
masculine stereotypes), they too identify and adopt these socialized norms. Provoking and
reinforcing these expected communication behaviors have incredibly damaging effects on the
value of academic life for female students, negative effects that materialize in communication for
years afterward (Hall & Sandler, 1982).
While some of this research may be outdated, it continues to stand as the most
groundbreaking research done in the realm of elementary and high school education. After these
studies were released, it may be possible that teachers worked to alleviate unintentional gender
bias from the classroom. But, contemporary studies on the differing modes of gendered
communication completed within the last fifteen years suggest that this research still holds
credible. As documented by Belenky et al., Tannen, Clark and others, males and females in
contemporary culture often have different learning and communicating styles (arguably due to
historical context as outlined by the industrial paradigm): females tend to be more cooperative,
seeking connectedness; males more competitive, seeking independence and dominance, etc.
(Baker, 2000). Yet the conventional model of the classroom is rooted in what "objectivity,
separateness, competitiveness, and hierarchical structure," which are more indicative of male
characteristics than female (Cooper, 1993). This research from the 1980s examining gender bias
against women in academia coined the term “chilly climate” when the findings indicated obvious
discrimination against female students in elementary school (Sadker & Sadker, 1986), middle
school, (Altermatt, Jovanic, and Perry, 1998) and in the college classroom (Hall and Sandler,
1982). Even more recently, studies reveal that some aspects of the college experience continue to
create disadvantages for women, both faculty and students (Allan and Madden, 2006; Colbeck,
Cabrera, and Terenzini, 2001) and, in particular, for women in the Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines (Barres, 2006). The studies comprised by
Allan and Madden (2006) further suggest that college students still experience some “chilly”
behaviors from their male peers in the contemporary college classroom, such as men taking over
leadership roles, making sexual remarks or sexual humor, interrupting women, and ignoring
women’s ideas particularly in what are considered male-dominated fields (Tatum, Schwartz, et
al, 2013).
Self-reports of participation typically reveal that male students are more likely than their
female counterparts to report that they participate frequently in class (Crombie, 2003). In fact, in
one study at a small, liberal arts college, 58% of male students reported that they participated
often, compared to the 36.3% of women (Auster and MacRone, 1994). Possible influences for
this behavior stem from socialized behavior from early age contributing to comfort levels in
class. Women reported engaging more frequently in avoidance behaviors such as avoiding eye
contact or pretending to read when called on by the professor (Larkin and Pines, 2003), while

9. reporting higher levels of communication apprehension in the classroom compared to male
students (Jaasma, 1997).
Critical and Lasting Effects Displayed in the College Classroom
When overtly disparaging remarks, subtle differential behaviors, or stereotypical
expectations are enforced with frequency from an early age (especially when used by
“gatekeepers” – people of direct influence on the student’s career, whether an admired figure,
department chair, or instructor teaching introductory required courses), they can have a profound
negative impact on women’s academic and career development in college. For example, these
behaviors result in:
• discouraging classroom participation;
• preventing students from seeking help outside of class;
• causing students to drop or avoid certain classes, to switch majors, and in some
instances, even to leave a given institution;
• minimizing the development of the individual collegial relationships with
faculty which are crucial for future professional development;
• apologetic, disclaiming, and non-committal statements;
• dampening career aspirations; and undermining confidence. (Hall & Sandler,
1982 and Altermatt, Jovanovic & Perry, 1998).
Tannen also found that female students in the U.S. may be more likely than male students to
exhibit the following speech patterns, such as:
• make shorter and quieter statements;
• present their statements in a more hesitant, indirect, or "polite" manner or use "I"
statements ("I guess . . .," "I was wondering if . . .");
• qualify their statements ("sort of," "maybe," "perhaps");
• add "tag" questions (". . . isn't it?,". . . don't you think?");
• ask questions rather than give statements or use intonations that turn a statement
into a question even if they know an answer;
• accompany statements with smiles or averted eyes rather than more assertive
gestures, such as pointing; and
• apologize for their statements ("I may be wrong, but . . .") (Tannen, 1990).
Because women are generally shown how to relate collegially (rather than hierarchically,
as their male counterparts generally relate), their communication styles reflect a need to maintain
friendly orientation. In this respect, the classroom socializes women to be able to "take on the role

10. of the other" (a measure of empathy), to be polite, to smooth the interaction process, to be nice to
others, to provide more "back channel cues,” such as attentiveness, and linguistic disclaimers
listed above to avoid competition. In conversation, especially with other women, women exhibit
lower levels of dominance (Haught).
These speech patterns have implications for any female-male communicative
interaction. Often, the styles that women employ are viewed by men as wishy-washy, overly
tentative, and non-assertive, especially in the workplace. And yet, when women adopt traditional
styles of communication associated with masculinity (e.g. more direct speech), men and women
both percieve them as overly aggressive, perhaps even "cold."
Power Dynamics and Gender Relations: A Case Study
Throughout the past two centuries, society has seen a power differential and privilege
granted to those assuming patterns of power-based language. Historically, due to specific aspects
of socialization, these individuals have been male.
Yet the dynamics of collegiate environments are rapidly changing – more than ever
before, colleges have become more diverse, with the male-female ratio steadily moving in favor
of women since the 1970’s. Women became 50 percent of the college graduates in the early
1980s, and that number is only climbing (Goldin, Katz, et al, 2006). Currently 50-55 percent of
college students across the nation are women (Borzelleca, 2012). Primarily attributed to
economic conditions requiring two-income families, along with changing demographics in the
U.S., these trends have prompted major adaptations in the institutional socialization of gender.
No longer are women made to feel alien for seeking a collegiate education.
Though women have made prominent progress in holding a strong presence in higher
education, it is not reflected in society. As Sandberg notes in her book, of the 195 independent
countries in the world, women lead only seventeen, and women hold only twenty seats in
parliaments globally (2013). What’s more, in the United States, only twenty-one of the Fortune
500 CEO’s are women, women only hold fourteen percent of executive officer positions,
seventeen percent of board seats, and constitute eighteen percent of our elected congressional
officials (“Catalyst Census” as quoted in Sandberg, 2013). It is apparent there is still much
gendered miscommunication, along with subtle, often unconscious, bias taking place. This
subtlety in learned behaviors renders miscommunication and biases difficult to perceive and
correct. Yet the effects of the education bias in communication were staggering; similar to Hall
and Sandler’s research from 1982 on elementary education, and Sadker’s from 1994 on the
college classroom, Harvard’s School of Business noted substantive falling performance numbers
in females who came in with the same grades and test scores as their male peers. Therefore, in
2010 Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard’s first female president, set out to improve the numbers and
effectiveness of the school’s female professors, as well as the classroom participation and
academic achievement of its female students. Faust conducted a two-year study to “become a
laboratory for studying how women speak in group settings, the links between romantic
relationships and professional status, and the use of everyday measurement tools to reduce bias”
(Kantor, 2012). While Harvard women were scoring well on tests, their participation grades (a
highly subjective mark comprising nearly 50% of their final grade) often suffered due to timidity
or intimidation by overpowering, accomplished males. Described as a “gender makeover,”

11. Harvard altered its curriculum, rules, and social rituals to foster female success; Faust brought in
a new dean, Nitin Nohria, who vowed to “remake gender relations at the business school” by
changing “how students spoke, studied and socialized,” (Kantor, 2012). Administrators provided
coaching to teachers, made attempts to level grading inequities, assigned students into study
groups, and addressed the social environment. Not wishing to publicly dwell on the lack of
female participation in fear it would make women more self-conscious, professors the study
focused on changing patterns of communication behavior through expanding efforts such as
hand-raising encouragement, cold-calling methods, restructuring classroom dynamics to include
more group work, and adding stenographers in every class so professors would no longer rely on
possibly biased memories of who had said what. The results? By graduation, the school had
become a “markedly better place for female students,” according to interviews with more than 70
professors, administrators and students, who cited “more women participating in class, record
numbers of women winning academic awards, and a much-improved environment, down to the
male students drifting through the cafeteria wearing T-shirts celebrating the 50th anniversary of
the admission of women” (Kantor, 2012). An experiment in gender relations, the case study on
gender equity proved the impact structural redesign can have on an individual’s communication
patterns and behaviors of success.
The experiment allowed the space for professors to rid themselves of unconscious biases
and for women to perform better because of the improved environment. However, it must be
considered, as a female professor at the Harvard School of Business asked, “Are we trying to
change the world 900 students at a time, or are we preparing students for the world in which they
are about to go?” (Kantor, 2012). For, in reality, the Harvard Business School as one of the
world’s most elite institutions serves as a “microcosm of the larger business world, where
students are judged by wealth, appearance, and social status; a testosterone-fueled environment
quiets, objectifies, and holds women back from achievement; and a predominately male
leadership continues replicating itself” (Gourdeau, 2012). While the study did reveal beneficial
improvements to female students’ success, it also revealed many devastating truths about the
classroom environment that impact female college students across the nation. For instance, rather
than dedicated to academic rigor, the Harvard classroom was regarded as a “hostile environment
for female students, worse than any trading floor…[with classroom discussion] commandeered
by male students." Ultimately, females described they were seen as objects of amusement more
than intellectual equals (Kantor, 2012). As class participation statistics reported, some of the
most intelligent women in the world under conditions of hierarchal discrimination, were
silencing themselves. Furthermore, as cited previously by early development research, students
unconsciously adopt expected mannerisms and stereotypical behaviors as they see them
demonstrated by people holding authority of their same sex. At the time of the study only one-
fifth of the tenured faculty of the Harvard School of Business were female professors, with 76
male tenured professors to just nineteen women. Realistically, qualified female faculty were
harder to hire due to the business world being skewed toward male leadership. Therefore, not
only did female professors lack the system of support necessary to provide strong exemplars for
their female students, they also reported facing pressures such as "uncertainty over maternity
leave, a lack of opportunities to write papers with senior professors, and students who destroyed
their confidence by pelting them with math questions they could not answer on the spot or

12. commenting on what they wore” (Kantor, 2012). Without strong feminine influence, even the
most intelligent, success-oriented women stand at the margins in a male-dominated society. And
their communication styles reflect this self-debasing position.
There is only so much one can do to alleviate this issue as a micro-level problem
grounded in individual behavior, but the future female leaders of this country cannot afford to
have educators do nothing. As the success of the Harvard Business School case study and dozens
of findings exemplifies, a laissez-faire approach to gender equality in classrooms and later,
organizations, is not the answer. In fact, some studies have indicated that girls are more likely to
develop higher academic, and socially competent, self-images in the less competitive
environment of single-sex classrooms and schools, having more opportunity to participate
(Carpenter 1985; Mahony 1985; Rowe 1988). Thus, “girls in single-sex schools are more
positive about their own abilities and their control over their lives, have less stereotyped gender
role attitudes and hold higher aspirations for the future” (Bryk et al., 1993 & Cairns, 1990, as
cited in Smyth, 2010). Literature reviews on research prove that when placed in an
accommodating environment, women perform at much higher levels than when attempting to
constantly fight inveterate power differentials. At a time when the government is debating
institutional policies to level pay inequity and get more women on boards and in management
ranks, these are powerful findings.
As research explicated in this thesis would suggest, some of the issues surrounding
gender, communication, and education in regard to power-based opportunity and leadership in
society must be combated on a macro-level to initiate any substantial change. Individuals should
examine possible changes to the structure of discrimination to embrace a new post-industrial
communication style. Because when women assume leadership positions in companies, they
transform them by bringing in their leadership traits. For example, there is a growing emphasis in
business and industry on the importance of teamwork and collaborative practices (Lipman-
blumen, 1996; Pearce & Conger, 2003); therefore, the naturally interpersonal communication
style that most women already employ will prove beneficial to the work environment. Making
structural and sociological adjustments to allow women to assume post-industrial leadership not
only values what woman can contribute, but provides an even platform for both sexes to succeed.
The majority of women don’t need to be more aggressively assertive. They don’t need to be
more careful. They need be granted space. Space for awareness to reject adopted, powerless
communication behaviors and space to speak their opinions with confidence. Space to
communicate and practice their individual style of leadership, not necessarily to “lean in” to a
mold of traditionally masculine attributes, but to expand their own with competence in leadership
– a leadership that has the potential to expand the professional world in new, transformative, and
exciting ways.
Gonzaga University
Yet how prepared is contemporary society to make these changes? In a world governed
by rules much more typecast by gender differences than most are willing to admit, that internal
change does not come easily. Especially, as Gonzaga University’s Academic Vice President Dr.
Patricia Killen notes, for a leader working in company guided by traditional standards. Killen
describes perceptions of the role, office, and dynamic of the leader to differ drastically between

13. her male and female colleagues. In the political realm of higher education, Killen describes
“power as the ability to say what you think.” And that power does not necessarily favor the
female model of communication, even for one of the most influential women on Gonzaga’s
campus. According to Killen, “women are at an advantage [working in higher education]
because they tend to have the instincts that when they move an organization forward, they bring
the people with them.” Leadership is the function of the group, according to Killen. She states
that she has witnessed women with authority excelling at aligning purpose and the institutional
goals with the goals of their followers. Most notably, this takes shape in her communication.
“For me, I am always looking for the most suitable way to solve a problem by analyzing all
rationale approaches and setting on the best one. This means more and different kinds of
questions. I am always asking, what is our purpose? What is our content? What is it going to
cost? Is it worth it? What changes and new projects will this bring and what impact will it have
on others?” In this manner, Killen utilizes her interpersonal communication to lead through
process-oriented approaches. However, because the majority of her male colleagues tend to be
goal-driven, they criticize her process – “they don’t understand why I do things the way I do.”
Dr. Killen agrees that change must happen on a structural level within the college
classroom in impact an individual’s rate of academic and personal achievement.
“I was always very careful to keep a balanced count of [male and female students] I was
calling on [when teaching],” she remembers. “I would use a variety of collaborative activities to
try to resist the stereotypical roles we have internalized as the ones we should adopt.
It all begs the question, to what extent should we be thinking about the leadership
paradox in relation to socialization?”
It would appear exclusively.
Director of Gonzaga’s Leadership Resource Center Katie Herzog agrees, confidently
stating “gender absolutely plays a role in leadership styles and the communication we use to
express them.”
Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership
Dr. Killen’s reflections replicate findings from a national survey exploring leadership in
college.
Collegiate academia prepares students for their professional career in more ways than
one. Alongside gaining the appropriate and applicable credentials, experiential learning, time
management skills, and opportunity for self-development, the collegiate atmosphere also
provides students with recognition of potential and confidence to excel in the professional realm.
Yet a study based upon the theoretical framework of the social change model of leadership
development (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 1996) offers insight (see Figure 1) to
the unbalanced attention and power differentials operating at the college level which affect
leadership-related outcomes (e.g., complex cognitive skills, social change behaviors, spiritual
development, identity development, resiliency, social perspective-taking, aspirations, and
leadership efficacy) (“MSL Executive Summary School Report: Gonzaga University,” 2012).
This study, titled the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL), reflects key findings from a
multi-site, multi-year project, which reported findings from over 50,000 students from 52

14. campuses that participated in this study in the spring of 2006. The total sample size for the study
was 275,682 students, with a response rate of 33.08%. The study was conducted electronically,
inviting students via email with up to three reminder emails, if they had not responded to the
initial request. The questionnaire sent to students was developed with a core set of measures
adapted from the Social Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS) (Tyree, 1998), which measures
the eight core values of the social change model: consciousness of self, congruence,
commitment, collaboration, common purpose, controversy with civility, citizenship, resiliency,
and change (HERI, 1996).
General Outcome Measure Scores and Comparisons
On the national scale, women scored higher than men in all nine of the leadership
constructs listed above. The vales closest being -1.08 in handling “Controversy with Civility”
and the most drastic being -5.69 in “Citizenship” (Figure 2).
Reflective of the national rankings, Gonzaga’s female students also outscored their male
counterparts in eight of the nine leadership constructs, falling behind in “Resiliency” with a -
1.08 deficient. Gonzaga students collectively outscored the national benchmarks in eight of the
nine total categories, also producing lower scores in “Resiliency” with a .-04 difference (Figures
3 and 4).
Inputs by Outcome Measures: Leadership-Related Outcomes
According to the 2012 Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, females on Gonzaga’s
campus scored higher than their male counterparts on scales outlining leadership competency,
yet scored lower in leadership efficacy (internal belief and confidence of success in leading
others) and in overall aspirations (degree to which people aspire to leadership positions and
continued education within their careers) than men (Figure 5).
In terms of leadership-related outcomes, results showed that Gonzaga’s students
generally had confidence in their leadership efficacy with a mean of 3.13, slightly below the
national average of 3.15 (with 3.13 being the average mean on a 4-point scale). However,
contrary to their scores of leadership constructs, Gonzaga’s female students had lower scores in
leadership efficacy at 3.11, while their male peers scored at the national average at 3.15 and
aspirations at 3.90, while their male peers scored at 3.97.
What It Means and What Needs To Be Done
American society values and respects power-based language and those who use it. In
positions of leadership, credibility and trust lie with those who can best assert dominant
communication skills through the language choices they make. Historically, the gender taught
and socialized to speak with these patterns are males.

15. While women continue to outpace men in educational achievement, they have ceased making
substantial progress at the top of any industry. Logically following, women’s voices are simply
not being heard in making the decisions that most affect the world.
According to this analysis, it would appear the issue of gender bias and discrimination operates
at a macro level – a systematically entrenched issue based on socialized behaviors that allow
men (and the power-based language they use) to win, and women, inevitably, to lose.
Yet the results from the Multi-Institutional Survey suggest that the effects on communication (in
regard to language use) are incredibly evident when examined on a micro-level: In an informal
observation on the use of disclaiming statements at Gonzaga University, it was recorded that out
of the 63 times linguistic disclaiming phrases were used in the classroom, 57 of the speakers
were female. In this respect, it can be deduced that the issue rests not only on the long-held and
traditionally undisputed socialized power distribution, but also on the self-perceptions of
confidence and contributable worth.
If communication styles do in fact reflect perceptions of qualification and leadership ability,
which features (specifically regarding verbal communication in language) underlie the formation
of a powerful or powerless impression? This thesis argues that it is the use of power-based
language. This study then further questions how to align the paradox of excellent qualification
with powerless language use – focusing narrowly on the subject of women in the collegiate
classroom. Lastly, the research addresses whether this problematic struggle, which stems from
gender bias and discrimination, should best be addressed on a structural or individual level. As
the power structures in society ultimately influence the behavior of individuals, and individuals
in turn have the influence to change power structures, this study concludes that the only way to
break such a vicious cycle is to reframing perspectives on both levels – working on an individual
level to give females the confidence to express their opinions, and on a structural level to not
only appoint those women into positions of power, but to accept their leadership and the
language patterns that defines it.
Efforts must be made to align students’ self-perceptions of leadership competence and
confidence. Students, females and males alike, must be supported in adopting accurate and
healthy self-awareness regarding their leadership capacities, highlighting areas of strength and
weaknesses for improvement. For females, this will encompass aligning their low levels of self-
efficacy and confidence with their actual knowledge and leadership skills. For males, it will
mean providing access to programming which teaches the knowledge and leadership skills to
reflect their high levels of self-efficacy.
Appendix

16. Figure 1:”The Seven C’s: The Critical Values of the Social Change Model:” A brief overview of
Consciousness of Self, Congruence, Commitment, Collaboration, Common Purpose,
Controversy with Civility, Citizenship, and Change.
Figure 2: National Comparison of “Means, Standard Deviations, and t Values for Leadership
Constructs by Gender.” This table shows that on the national level, college females outscore
their male peers in every skill offered by the Social Change Model.
Figure 3: Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership Inputs by Outcome Measures – SCM
Leadership Outcomes Data Table: Results of students’ scores on the “Seven C’s of the Social
Change Model” at Gonzaga University as compared by Student Characteristics (Male/Female);
the results found in this table were used to create the findings present in Figure 5.
Figure 4: Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership Data Table: Comparison of Gonzaga
University’s overall scores on the “Seven C’s of the Social Change Model” to the National
Benchmark.
Figure 5: Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership Inputs by Outcome Measures Data Table:
Scores on Leadership Efficacy, Complex Cognitive Skills, Social Perspective Taking, and
Aspirations at Gonzaga University as compared by Student Characteristics (Male/Female) using
data compiled by Figure 3.

17. Figure 6: Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership Data Table: General Outcomes Measure
Scores and Comparison; this table outlines how Gonzaga University’s students score on the
“Seven C’s of the Social Change Model” against the MSL National Sample, Catholic Coalition
Peers, Size Peers, Control Peers, and Carnegie Peers.
Figure 7: Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership Inputs by Outcomes Measures – SCM
Leadership Outcomes Data Table: National Results of students’ scores on the “Seven C’s of the
Social Change Model” as compared by Student Characteristics (Male/Female); the results of this
data was used to create the findings in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership Inputs by Outcome Measures Data Table:
National Results of Leadership Efficacy, Complex Cognitive Skills, Social Perspective Taking,
and Aspirations as compared by Student Characteristics (Male/Female). This data was compared
against Gonzaga University’s results.

18. Bibliography
Allan, E. J. and Madden, M. (2006). “Chilly classrooms for females undergraduate
students: A question of method?” The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 684-711.
Altermatt, E. R., Jovanovic, J., and Perry, M. (1998). “Bias or Responsivity? Sex and
achievement-level effects on teachers’ classroom questioning practices.” Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 516-527.
Armstrong, Joshua. (2014). Director of Gonzaga University’s Undergraduate
Comprehensive Leadership Program. Interview.
Baker, Barbara. (2000). “Gender Interactions in the Classroom.”
Barres, B.A. (2006). “Does gender matter?” Nature, 442, 133-136.
Benson, P., & Saito, R. (2000). “The scientific foundations of youth development.”
Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Borzelleca, Daniel. “The Male-Female Ratio in College.” (2012) Forbes (with higher
education data from the Digest of Education Statistics: 2010, based on 2008 total
enrollment figures and population data from the US Census Bureau).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female-ratio-in-college/
Bryk, A., Lee, V., & Holland, P. (1993). “Catholic Schools and the Common Good.”
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cairns, E. (1990). “The relationship between adolescent perceived self-competence and
attendance at single-sex secondary school.” Journal of Educational Psychology. 60:207-
211.

19. Carpenter, P. (1985). “Single-sex schooling and girls’ academic achievements.” Journal
of Sociology. 21:456-472.
Colbeck, K., and Pringle, R. (1995). “The role of gender in college classroom
interactions: A social context approach.” Sociology of Education, 68, 161-186.
Cooper, P. J. “Communication and Gender in the Classroom.” In L.P. Arliss & D. J.
Borlsoff, E.D. Women and Men Communicating: Challenges and Changes. (Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1993). 122-141.
Dugan, John P. (2006). “Explorations using the social change model: Leadership
development among college men and women.” Journal of College Student Development,
47. (2), 217-225.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). “Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and
men.” Psychological Bulletin. 129, 569-591.
Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. (1990). “Gender and leadership styles: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin. 108, 233-256.
Fertman, C.I. & Van Linden, J.A. (1999). “Character education for developing youth
leadership.” Education Digest, 65. (4), 11-16.
Goldin, Claudia, Katz, Lawrence F., Kuziemko, Ilyana. (2006) “The Homecoming of
American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap.” Journal of
Economic Perspectives. 20, 4: 133.
Goudreau, Jenna. (2013). “7 Shocking Discoveries From Harvard Business School’s
Attempt To Improve Gender Equality.” Business Insider.
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-business-schools-experiment-to-improve-
gender-equality-2013-9#!GtBBn
Hall, Roberta M., & Sandler, Bernice R. (1984). “The Classroom Climate, A Chilly One
for Women?” Association of American Colleges, Washington, D.C. Project on the Status
and Education of Women.

20. Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). “A social change model of leadership
development: Guidebook version III.” College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for
Leadership Programs.
Haught, Lunell. “Two Different Worlds: Highlights from the Men and Women Working
Program.” Gonzaga University Masters of Communication Leadership. Interview.
Herzog, Katie. (2014). Director of Gonzaga University’s Leadership Resource Center.
Interview. 2014.
Jaasma, M.A. (1997). “Classroom communication apprehension: Does being male or
female make a difference?” Communication Reports, 10, 219-228.
Kantor, Jodi. (2012).“Harvard Business School Case Study: Gender Equity.” The New
York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-gender-
equity.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Killen, Patricia O’Connell. (2014). Academic Vice President at Gonzaga University.
Interview.
King, P.M. (1997). “Character and civic education: What does it take?” Educational
Record, 78 (3,4), 87-90.
Komives, S.R., Owen, J.E., Longerbeam, S, Mainella, F.C., & Osteen, L. (2005).
“Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory.” Journal of College Student
Development, 6, 593-611.
Langdon, E. A. (2001). “Women’s colleges then and now: Access then, equity now.”
Peabody Journal of Education, 76, 5-30.
Larkin, J., and Pines, H. (2003). “When teachers call on students: Avoidance behavior in
the classroom. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychological
Association, Toronto, ON, Canada.

21. Mahony, P. (1985). “Schools for the Boys? Coeducation Reassessed.” London:
Huctchinson.
“Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership Executive Summary School Report: Gonzaga
University.” (2012). National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Survey Sciences
Group, LLL.
Ng, Sik Hung and Bradac, James J. (1993). “Power in language: Verbal communication
and social influence.” Language and language behaviors, Vol. 3.Thousand Oaks, CA,
US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Rost, J. C. (1993). “Leadership for the twenty-first century.” Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rowe, K. (1988). “Single-sex and mixed-sex classes: The effect of class type on student
achievement, confidence, and participation in mathematics.” Australian Journal of
Education. 32:180-202.
Sadker, D., Sadker, M. (1994) “Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls.”
Toronto, ON: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Sadker, D., Sadker, M. (1986). “Sexism in the Classroom: From Grade School to
Graduate School. Phi Delta Kappan. 67: 512-515.
Sadker, D. (1999). “Gender Equity: Still Knocking at the Classroom Door.” Education
Leadership. 56: 22-26.
Scales, P. & Leffert, N. (1999). “Developmental Assets: A synthesis of the scientific
research on adolescent development.” Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Sipe, C.L. Ma, P., & Gambone, M.A. (1998). “Support for youth: A profile of three
communities.”
Smith, Emer. (2010). “Single-sex education: What does research tell us?” Revue
française de pédagogie. 171: 47-55.

22. Tannen, Deborah. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.
Tatum, Holly E., Schwartz, Beth M., Schimmoeller, Peggy A., and Perry, Nicole. (2013).
“Classroom Participation and Student-Faculty Interactions: Does Gender Matter?”
Journal of Higher Education.
“The Glass Precipice.” (2014). The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21601554-why-female-bosses-fail-more-often-
male-ones-glass-precipice?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/theglassprecipice
Tyree, T. M. (1998). “Designing an instrument to measure socially responsible leadership
using the social change model of leadership development. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59. (06)