The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men.
Abstract
A meta-analysis of 45 studies of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles found that female leaders were more transformational than male leaders and also engaged in more of the contingent reward behaviors that are a component of transactional leadership. Male leaders were generally more likely to manifest the other aspects of transactional leadership (active and passive management by exception) and laissez-faire leadership. Although these differences between male and female leaders were small, the implications of these findings are encouraging for female leadership because other research has established that all of the aspects of leadership style on which women exceeded men relate positively to leaders' effectiveness whereas all of the aspects on which men exceeded women have negative or null relations to effectiveness.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Self-citationPodsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630002600307 · Cited by 5,897
Heilman, M. E. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234 · Cited by 2,482
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(1977) · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-10517-x · Cited by 2,457
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(03)00030-4 · Cited by 1,533
Rudman, L. A. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629 · Cited by 1,511
The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis
Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2001) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.6.3.203 · Cited by 716 · cited 1×
“…and its subscales were negative (i.e., female direction), we confined our additional analyses to the 44 study-level transformational effect sizes, for which the sample size was largest and thus provided adequate statistical power for testing moderator variables (see Hedges & Pigott, 2001).”
Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review
Sutton, A. J., Song, F., Gilbody, S. M., & Abrams, K. R. (2000) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228020000900503 · Cited by 288
Cited by
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Self-citationUnderstanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015575 · Cited by 3,257
The gender similarities hypothesis.
Hyde, J. S. (2005) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.6.581 · Cited by 3,084
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x · Cited by 2,623
On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010 · Cited by 2,441
Metadata
- Authors
- Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 569-591
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2106045451
- Cited by
- 2,547
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 21.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
