Influences of Female Leadership on the Employer Brand

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Abbreviations

List of Symbols

1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Definition and Relevance of the Topic
1.2 Objectives of Work
1.3 Structure of Work

2 Definition of Terms
2.1 Employer Brand
2.1.1 Corporate Image
2.1.2 Human Resource Policy
2.1.3 Recruiting
2.1.4 Branch Image
2.1.5 Location Image
2.2 Leadership
2.2.1 Female Leadership
2.2.2 Differences between Female and Male Leadership

3 Theoretical Examination of the Influences of Female Leadership on the Employer Brand
3.1 Influences on Corporate Image
3.1.1 Economic Power
3.1.2 Awareness
3.1.3 Corporate Culture
3.2 Influences on Human Resource Policy
3.2.1 Type of Work
3.2.2 Conditions of Employment
3.3 Influences on Recruiting
3.3.1 Recruiting Process
3.3.2 Potential Colleagues
3.4 Interim Conclusion

4 Practical Examination of the Influences of Female Leadership on the Employer Brand
4.1 Overview of Study
4.1.1 Methods and Procedure of Research
4.1.2 Presentation of Interview Guideline
4.2 Best Practice
4.2.1 Influences on Corporate Image
4.2.1.1 Economic Power
4.2.1.2 Awareness
4.2.1.3 Corporate Culture
4.2.2 Influences on Human Resource Policy
4.2.2.1 Type of Work
4.2.2.2 Conditions of Employment
4.2.3 Influences on Recruiting
4.2.3.1 Recruiting Process
4.2.3.2 Potential Colleagues
4.2.4 Comparison Between Theoretical and Best Practice Examination
4.3 Presentation of Interview Findings
4.3.1 Differences between Female and Male Leadership
4.3.2 Perception of the Employer Brand
4.3.3 Influences of Female Leadership on the Employer Brand
4.3.3.1 Corporate Image
4.3.3.1.1 Economic Power
4.3.3.1.2 Awareness
4.3.3.1.3 Corporate Culture
4.3.3.2 Human Resource Policy
4.3.3.2.1 Type of Work
4.3.3.2.2 Conditions of Employment
4.3.3.3 Recruiting
4.3.3.3.1 Recruiting Process
4.3.3.3.2 Potential Colleagues
4.3.4 Recommendations
4.3.4.1 Demonstrative Communication
4.3.4.2 Taking Advantage of Chances
4.3.4.3 Employer Image
4.3.4.4 Women in Leading Positions

5 Management Implication
5.1 Positioning of Female Led Employer Brand
5.1.1 Competence of the Female Led Employer Brand
5.1.2 Benefits and Attributes of the Female Led Employer Brand
5.1.3 Tonality of the Female Led Employer Brand
5.1.4 Design of the Female Led Employer Brand
5.2 Presentation of Female Led Employer Brand

6 Conclusion
6.1 Results
6.2 Outlook and Future Research

Appendices

Heike Manal CEO of Anlagenbau Böhmer GmbH, Siegen

Susanne Irle-Mülln CEO of GIP Waagen- und Maschinenbau KG, Wilnsdorf

Anette Schieferstein-Christof, owner of Schieferstein Maschinenbau, Lollar

Katja Hof, CEO of Franz Hof GmbH CNC-Blechbearbeitung, Haiger

Bibliography

List of Figures

Figure 1: Stakeholders of Corporate Brand

Figure 2: Dimensions of Employer Image

Figure 3: Dimensions of Employer Image Related to Female Leaders

Figure 4: Influence between Corporate Brand, Product and Employer Brand

Figure 5: Importance of the Tools in Corporate Governance – Female Leaders in Relation to Decision-makers of Medium Sized Enterprises

Figure 6: Usage of Measurements for Qualifying and Keeping Professionals from
the View of Female Leaders

Figure 7: Employer Brand Wheel

Figure 8: Female Led Employer Brand Wheel

List of Tables

Table 1: Differences between Female and Male Leaders Compared Employees

Table 2: Conclusion Economic Power

Table 3: Conclusion Awareness

Table 4: Conclusion Corporate Culture

Table 5: Conclusion Type of Work

Table 6: Conclusion Conditions of Employment

Table 7: Conclusion Recruiting Process

Table 8: Conclusion Potential Colleagues

Table 9: Interim Conclusion

Table 10: Overview of Expert Interviews

Table 11: Comparison between Best Practice Leadership and Interim Conclusion

Table 12: Essences of Expert Interviews about the Differences between Female and Male Leadership

List of Abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem Definition and Relevance of the Topic

Women are on the rise.^[1] Besides the current debate of female quota in German supervisory boards, where the share of women in management and supervisory boards is about 6.5 % in 2012,^[2] the share of leading women in family operated companies is about 20 % in Germany in 2006 and the number is on the increase. This is an important process, because family operated companies are the dominated economic system in Germany.^[3]

At this time women lead a quarter of personal services, such as dry-cleaning establishments, hairdressers or private education institutes. In commerce the quota of female leaders is more than 23 % and 13 % of the companies in the manufacturing industry were women operated.^[4]

A further trend emerges that many women prefer to put their own children in the company’s succession; thus the chances for their daughters to become company leader also rise.^[5] This is important for women, because the respect of female leaders, especially in male dominated branches, in our society will rise when more women get leadership positions. Then it would be more normal than an exception that a woman leads a company. This will also have effects on parity of pay as well as on the opportunity to break the glass ceiling on which many women currently fail.^[6]

This work should render assistance to women and men in leadership positions. For women to get to know their qualities and how they could position as an employer, especially in times of shortage of skilled labour it is getting more important to become an employer of choice for recruiting the necessary employees and for keeping them in the company. For men this work is the assistance of decision-making, if they are considered for staff leading positions. Obviously many companies overlook the advantages of women in top-management, female led companies are more successful and seldom become insolvent compared to male led companies.^[7] One reason for this is that women are more cautious and they take fewer financial risks than men.^[8] This work also addresses employees who are working in a female led company or who want to change their employer, to show them the advantages and disadvantages of female leaders.

There is a need to research the female led employer brand (EB). Currently there are no studies existing about female led EB and this work only covers a small part of this topic. It examines female led companies in male dominated branches and also only gives a view of the female employer’s opinion. The employee’s point of view as well as a comparison between female and male led companies could not be considered in this work, as this would go beyond the scope of it.

1.2 Objectives of Work

The main objective of this work is to find out, how female leaders influence the companies EB. In this context the question arises, what describes female leaders? Do they differ from male leaders and if there is a difference to male leaders, which effect this leadership style has on the corporate governance and thus on the EB.

These questions will be examined from the employer’s point of view. It will be proved theoretically by literature and studies. The practical part is made up of expert interviews with female company leaders in male dominated branches. The reason why female leaders in male dominated branch were chosen is that the differences between the female influences compared to the male influences in these branches are better to observe than in female dominated branches. The interviewed women have mostly taken over the company from their fathers. The female led companies are from the metalworking and the machinery and plant-engineering sector. This work should also give an implication to female led companies as to how they should position their EB, especially in male dominated branches.

1.3 Structure of Work

At first the problem and the objective, as well as the structure of this work will be presented in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2 the term EB will be defined, cf. Chapter 2.1 . For evaluating the EB the model of Teufer (1999) will be used, which is subdivided in five determinants, the corporate image (CI), human resource (HR) policy, recruiting, branch image and location image.^[9] After EB and its dimensions, also leadership will be defined, as well as its requirements and three selected leadership styles, cf. Chapter 2.2 . Afterwards the female leadership is described in Chapter 2.2.1 as well as the differences between female and male leaders, cf. Chapter 2.2.2 .

In Chapter 3 a theoretical examination of the influence of female leadership on the EB will be set. This examination based on the model of Teufer (1999) will be examined and proved theoretically by literature. The subdivision is the influence on CI, cf. Chapter 3.1 , on HR policy, cf. Chapter 0 , and on recruiting, cf. Chapter 3.3 , which are also subdivided by further determinants. The conclusions of the theoretical examination will be assumed in an interim conclusion in Chapter 3.4 .

After the theoretical examination a practical examination of the influence of female leadership on the EB will be made in Chapter 4. At first the study will be presented, cf. Chapter 4.1 , with its method and procedure and with the presentation of the interview guideline. The practical examination includes a best practice part, cf. Chapter 4.2 , by reference of Katja Hof, CEO of Franz Hof GmbH, and the influence of a female leader on the EB will be shown also based on the model of Teufer (1999). Afterwards the interview-findings will be presented in Chapter 4.3 , based on the interview-guideline, cf. Appendix 1.

Out of the findings of the theoretical and practical examination a management implication in Chapter 0 demonstrates, with the help of an EB wheel, how female led EB could be positioned, cf. Chapter 5.1 , and how they should present their female led EB, cf. Chapter 5.2 . The last chapter, Chapter 6, summarises the results of this work and gives an outlook, cf. Chapter 6.1 , as well as suggestions for future scientific research on this topic, cf. Chapter 6.2 .

2 Definition of Terms

2.1 Employer Brand

An EB is a facet of the corporate brand (CB).^[10] The EB fulfils the scientific requirements of a brand, which defines a brand as a name, term, sign, symbol, design or combination of these to differentiate it from other suppliers.^[11] The brand’s function is to build up an emotional relationship between the brand holder and the recipient, to develop a strong affection and loyalty.^[12] Therefore a brand creates an image of a product or service in the customers or reference group mind.^[13] Besides products or services also an image can also be transferred to a company, which is part of the approach of the CB. Thus it can also be transferred to an employer as an EB.^[14]

According to this a company has to operate with many stakeholders, thus a CB is not a homogenous entity, it has to be viewed from different perspectives of the stakeholders (cf. Figure 1).^[15] So every perspective of the CB causes a new image of the company. Only differentiating and individual interacting with the target group allow the brand to appear positively. Thus the EB describes how current and potential employees perceive the company, as an employer and how they should perceive the company as an employer in future. This means that the EB is not only a marketing tool; it is also a tool for corporate governance, for the personal management activities as a whole.^[16]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1: Stakeholders of Corporate Brand

(Based on: Meffert/Bierwirth (2001), p. 7; Stotz/Wedel (2009), p. 6.)

In literature different definitions of EB exist;^[17] the following work applies to the definition of Ambler/Barrow (1996), who firstly defined the EB as:

“… the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company.”^[18]

The employer image (EI) can be subdivided into several levels. The first level assembles five dimensions that are CI, HR policy, recruiting, branch image and location image (cf. Figure 2).^[19]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 2: Dimensions of Employer Image

(Based on: Teufer (1999), p. 186.)

2.1.1 Corporate Image

The first dimension, which will be described, is the CI. The three most important factors, according to Teufer (1999), to evaluate the CI are economic power, awareness and corporate culture.^[20]

An important factor for evaluating the CI is the economic power of the company. Profit situation, growth perspectives and future orientations are also positive characteristics for popular workplaces as are company’s size or internationalization.^[21]

The awareness is the dimension of coactions between perception and capacity for the recipient to remember a message.^[22] The awareness of the EB is often equated to the awareness of a company’s product or service image.^[23] Companies with famous and powerful products are on top of employer rankings e.g. Audi, BMW Group and Volkswagen, they are the three most popular employers in Germany.^[24] Thus prestige and good products receive more positive assessments of CI and a good standing often transmitted to the EI.^[25] The awareness of companies with less famous products and services depend on their reputation as an employer.^[26]

The third factor is the corporate culture.^[27] The corporate culture is the entirety of values, norms, moral concepts and attitudes, which affects the personnel behaviour at all levels and resulting with the appearance of the company. These are linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour,^[28] as well as interior design, marketing, status symbols, clothing etc.^[29] The corporate leadership style also has effects on the corporate culture, especially in the manner of practicing leadership and management functions in the organisation.^[30]

2.1.2 Human Resource Policy

The second dimension is the HR policy. The HR policy, related to the EI, can be subdivided in two factors, types of work and conditions of employment. The determinants are the formal characteristics, bureaucratic versus creative, and social characteristics, which are teamwork versus single man work.^[31]

The determinants in conditions of employment are professional development, salary and further benefits, like working hours and workplace design. Professional development, which also includes company’s career opportunities, is an important factor for measuring employer attractiveness.^[32] Further effects on HR policy are salary and further benefits.^[33] According to Wiltinger (1997) the salary has the second highest importance for the choice of employer.^[34] A reason for this high ranking is on the one hand social prestige towards colleagues. On the other hand salary is the only objective employer’s attribute and according to this the only source for employer valuing of meaning to the position.^[35] Further benefits also called fringe benefits also have an effect on the EI; with these fringe benefits companies want to differentiate from other employers.^[36] Another factor for evaluating an employer is working hours. The duration of working hours is less important during the selection of an employer. After recruiting, the meaning of shorter or flexible working hours rises. An assumption might be, that flexible working hours are more interesting for employees with children, so it depends on the employee’s stage of life.^[37] The fourth condition of employment is workplace design. This condition is also important for evaluating an employer, because this is an indicator of the employer’s appreciation of the employees.^[38]

2.1.3 Recruiting

A further dimension to evaluate the EI is recruiting,^[39] which is subdivided in recruiting process and potential colleagues. This is a crucial point, because in this situation applicants get the first impression of the employer and the potential colleagues, as well as the possibility to evaluate the company as an employer.^[40] According to Nedinger (1994) the first meeting with a potential employer is a key factor for the choice of an employer.^[41] The responsible HR personnel give most impressions of an employer; the employer should use this tool for cultivating his image. Additionally contact by e-mail, telephone or mail is important and has a high effect on the EI, if it is a pleasant or a cool welcoming. Thus the employer should attach importance to this tool.^[42]

The recruiting process will be divided into two determinates; these are organisation of process and the method of selection. The first determinant, which will be described, is the organisation of recruiting.^[43] A critical point is the duration after receiving the application and the first contact. A rule of thumb is, the earlier the better, because for many applicants it is difficult to refuse a position without having further offers. So companies with fast response time have the best chances.^[44] The same applies for results of assessment centres as well as job interviews. Especially because of the organisation and the time of response the applicants make conclusions of how the company treats their employees. This means, which importance have the employees for the company, in particular the appreciation between employer and employees. A recruiting process always contains unknown situations for applicants. To minimize these unknown situations the employer can give pre-info to the applicant to transparent the recruiting process and to convey security. A further criterion for evaluating is a quick welcome or long unnecessary waiting time. Long waiting time might be an indicator for less priority to the applicant. A further positive criterion are employees, e.g. at the reception, who were briefed about the name of the applicant and the purpose of the visit.^[45]

The method of selection is the second determinate of the recruiting process. The most preferred methods of selection are job interviews, assessment centres, work samples and internships.^[46] According to Köchling/Körner (1996) a fair and trusting interaction between the employer and the applicant during the recruiting process creates an optimal foundation for further collaboration.^[47]

Besides the recruiting process the potential colleagues, who also include the supervisor, also have an effect on the recruiting and also on the EI.^[48] The potential colleagues are important transmitters of the EI. Their behaviour can indicate to an applicant whether they would like to work with them.^[49] The applicant assesses the potential colleagues if they are nice and if he would spend his leisure time with them.^[50] As well as interviewer preferred applicants who have similar biographic characteristics.^[51] The determinants of potential colleagues are the interview procedure and the trustworthiness of the interview.^[52]

The evaluation of an interview procedure depends on the structure of the interview, unstructured interviews are more preferred than structured interviews, even if structured interview give more information about the position and the company.^[53] Additionally the evaluation depends on a nice welcome and warming-up phase.^[54] Not only this, but an interview can be differentiating if professional topics or questions about personality were asked.^[55]

The trustworthiness of the interview suffers due to the knowledge of the applicant that interviewers have to submit to the company’s best image.^[56] So it is necessary to include potential colleagues in the interview and let them say something about the job and the company.^[57] Interviewers who convey realistic information about the company, e.g. working hours, development of salary and corporate culture, are increasing trustworthiness of the company. It is to be expected that the impression, which the applicant receives at an interview, is going to be transferred to the company.^[58]

2.1.4 Branch Image

The next dimension is the branch image,^[59] which includes all perceptions of an industrial sector.^[60] Factors of this dimension are growth outlook and environmental behaviour. The growth outlook is a significant criterion for employees, because they want to have a secure job in a branch that is less prone to crisis.^[61] Additionally environmental behaviour of the branch is determining, because of the theory of cognitive dissonance.^[62] It means that branches with a negative image evoke a cognitive dissonance in applicants and employees minds because of the pressure of social justification. Because people do not want to work in a company, which evokes tonicity, they are looking for an employer with less conflict potential. Less known companies also have the hazard that negative branch images can be transferred to the company and so they get known as not being relevant sets for applicants. But just as a negative, a positive branch image can be transferred to the company and increase the image of the employer.^[63]

2.1.5 Location Image

The fifth dimension for evaluation of the EI is the location image, which gets more relevance within the change of values related to recreational activities.^[64] The location image is divided into recreational value, environmental quality and housing supply.^[65] These are factors, which define an attractive region.^[66] It is easier to get qualified employees in big cities, than in rural regions.^[67] In Germany a North-South divide also exists. Thus Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg are the most popular regions for junior staff. On the contrary the Ruhr area is regarded as unattractive.^[68] When employers are located in a rural region they often pay a bonus for their employees.^[69]

2.2 Leadership

In literature many definitions of leadership exist, this work leans on the definition of Baumgarten (1977):

“Leadership is every goal-orientated, interpersonal behaviour influencing with the help of communication processes.”^[70]

If leaders want to take the leadership role they have to meet the requirements and competencies, which are expected in between the leading group, department, organisation and stakeholders.^[71] Requirements are normative representations of conditions, which are needed for a specific task and which should be met by the holder of a position to cope with the task.^[72] A generally valid requirements profile of a leader does not exist. But in times of our fast moving business world the requirements for leaders are high and have many facets. They are distinguished by their hierarchy position (group leader or board member), function (production or distribution), branch (service or production), company size (family business or big concern) and technology (e.g. level of computerisation). These determinants require different tasks and skills to confront them.^[73] According to Henn (2012) the following requirements are necessary for every leader:^[74]

- Classical requirements: Besides expertise the classical requirements remain, such as intelligence, analytical mind, willingness, loyalty and enthusiasm.
- Communicative competencies: Leaders should not only give instructions, they also have to convince and inspire in a conversation as well as through their own examples. Additionally listening, information gathering and feedback from employees are important, too.
- Teamwork: The rising interdependence as much as higher complexity of tasks requires interdisciplinary thinking and working. Cross-departmental and projecting teamwork is part of everyday working life.
- Participation: Due to the change of values in society and the rising of educational level employees wish to be included in the planning and decision-making processes.
- Conflict management: Conflicts and tension always occur when working together and these have to be managed, which means, solving, preventing, bridging and eliminating.
- Management of diversity: Employees differentiate in sex, age, nationality and ethnically. Acceptance, tolerance, sensibility and flexibility are needed to deal with different people.
- Integrated/systemic thinking and flexibility: Badly determined problems with unintended consequences and side effects occur more frequently in daily business. Leaders have to fulfil this with integrated and systemic thinking. Skilfully, innovative and flexible reactions on uncertainties and complexities are required.
- Creativity: Creative problem solving is in the foreground, no work-to-rules. Free space and error culture are good conditions for it.
- Transparency and authenticity: Furthermore the change of requirement in management is not only more social competence; it is also in more transparency and authenticity in leadership behaviour.
- Lifelong learning: Continuous qualifications, keeping up with new technologies and requirements (cf. management of diversity) are essentials for leaders.
- Intercultural management skills: Linguistic competences are not sufficient to succeed in a global market. Sensibility for different cultures and flexibility for communication and behaviour with other persons are required.
- Innovation management: New key competencies for leaders are also the ability for release and implementation of innovation or the ability to balance inconsistent demands.
- Communication of sense and vision: Leaders need to be a visionary and a role model in their actions. They have to create values and communicate that sense to their employees.

Besides the requirements the leadership style is also important. For this work three selected leadership styles, according to Eagly/Carli (2007 a), will be used. These are transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership style.^[75]

The transformational leadership style involves establishing oneself as a role model by gaining follower’s trust and confidence as well as values. Transformational leaders set future goals, they generate plans to achieve them and they innovate, even when their company is generally successful. These leaders mentor and empower followers; they encourage them to develop their full potential and to contribute more effectively to their company.^[76]

The transactional leadership style concentrates on classical interpretation of target and objective oriented delegation. It includes two factors, contingent reward, which is characterised by path-goal theory and performance-related rewards, and management by exceptions. So it is based on give-and-take relationships.^[77]

The laissez-faire leadership style is characterised by not intervening in processes. The leader only provides materials for working. The employees have freedom to act with objectives, decisions, controls, interaction relations and working organisation.^[78]

The transformational leadership has the highest effectiveness, because it influences idealized attributes by demonstrating qualities that motivate respect and pride from association with the employee. It influences behaviour by communicating values, purpose and importance of organisation’s mission. Transformational leadership style inspires motivation by exhibit optimism and excitement about goals and future stats. It also stimulates intellectual because it examines new perspectives for solving problems and completing tasks. As well as considering individuals by focusing on development and mentoring of followers and attends to their individual needs. Transactional leadership style is more complex. It is positively related to its contingent reward component for appropriate behaviour and in relation to subordinates’ satisfaction with their leader. It has slightly more effectiveness by leaders’ drawing attention to subordinates’ flaws and otherwise punishing them, also known as active management by expectation. But this style means leaders often only intervene when situations become extreme, also known as ‘passive management-by-expectation’, which has proven to be ineffective, similar to laissez-faire, hands-off leadership.^[79]

2.2.1 Female Leadership

Besides the previously mentioned definition of leadership in Chapter 2.2 , female leadership is described by further characteristics. According to Iber-Schade (1988) a characteristic of female leadership style is that women have more team spirit.^[80] They talk more to their managers and they also talk more intensively and more frequently to their subordinates.^[81] Assig (2002) describes „… wherever women are, the climate is more open, discussions are lively and they come faster to the point …“^[82] Betz (2013) considers that female leaders have more distinct behaviour as integration, listening and connecting.^[83] Schwalbe (2002) characterises that women are more adaptable and they can convey better to others, so it is efficient to put women into leadership positions.^[84] Another female leader described her leadership style as reflecting how targets can be set or how inducements can be made, thus her subordinates find the solution and structure on their own. These incentive people are able to free their mind and be innovative and cope with tasks independently.^[85] Eagly/Carli (2007 a) consider that female leadership “… styles approximate the now valued model of a leader who acts as a good-coach or good-teacher rather than a traditional command-and-control boss.”^[86] Loden (1988) describes that female leaders bank on emotional and rational data. Female leaders tend to subordinate short-term personal advantages for long-term economic well being of the organisation, on which she and her employees depend.^[87] Further characteristics of female leadership style are that they increase the self-esteem of their employees, create a pleasant atmosphere and they are more sensitive, sympathetic and have more social competence.^[88] Thus women fulfil the mentioned requirements from Chapter 2.2 .

An observation from a women executive depicted “There’s a basic expectation that a woman is going to be the comfortable, team-building, soft, forgiving type.”^[89] This causes decisions, which arise from common considerations and not from single resolutions. Women are more able to admit their failures and learn from them.^[90] But they are also very perfectionism and do not want to be hard or bad. They want to be liked by others.^[91] 98 % of female executives describe their leadership qualities with terms such as collaborative, flexible, inclusive and participative and only a small percentage also describes their leadership qualities as assertive, decisive and strong.^[92]

Rosener (1990) wrote in an article ‘Ways women lead’ that women have an interactive style, which is typical for female leaders.

“The women leaders made frequent reference to their efforts to encourage participation and share power and information … In describing nearly every aspect of management, … [women] trying to make people feel part of the organization[!]. They try to instill[!] this group identity in a variety of ways, including encouraging others to have a say in almost every aspect of work … To facilitate inclusion, they create mechanisms that get people to participate and they use a conversational style that sends signals inviting people to get involved.”^[93]

2.2.2 Differences between Female and Male Leadership

Ibarra/Obodaru (2009),^[94] Schaufler (2000), Bass (1981) and many other scientists described that there is no difference between female or male leadership styles.^[95] Some researches argued that seemingly different male and female styles are an illusion because these are only reflections of the typically different roles that men and women occupy.^[96] Eagly/Carli (2003 a) also are of the opinion that different roles may foster different styles, e.g. if more women are in human resource management and more men in line management apparent sex differences might really be role differences.^[97] Eagly/Carli (2007 a) describe the difference between female and male leadership as “… many women lead with behaviours that is tinged with culturally feminine qualities. But male and female leaders differ only in some respects and some circumstances and, on the whole, do not differ by much.”^[98]

Nemat ^[99] has the approach that there is a difference between female or male leadership style,^[100] and she also said that this is the reason why mixed gender teams are more successful.^[101] Friedel-Howe (2003) found out in her examination of the efficiency of female leaders, female leadership is more efficient and has positive effects on their employees. So if a difference between female and male leadership style exists, then it is in favour of women.^[102]

Women are more able to work in teams; they are more tolerant, grittier, tougher, more flexible, demonstrate strong ability in conflict management, show empathy as a strength and so on, compared to men.^[103] “Women are rated as more honest, intelligent, hardworking, compassionate, outgoing, and creative, as well as equally ambitious when compared to men.”^[104] Women also take fewer risks than men.^[105] Female leaders share more information than men do. One reason for this is that women see themselves at the centre of an organisation rather than at the top of it.^[106] Thus women do not need self-affirmation, such as men do.^[107]

Bierach/Thorborg (2006) characterised that female leaders are more interested in listening to all points of view and deciding afterwards to make the best possible decision, no matter which opinion they had before. Male leaders tended to hold on to their personnel convictions. So women look for consent by decision-making, men keep to domination.^[108]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 1: Differences between Female and Male Leaders Compared Employees

(Based on: Henn (2012), p. 120.)

Henn (2012) found out that female leaders in comparison to female employees have more leadership motivation, flexibility, team orientation, self-confidence and design motivation, in this order. Male leaders compared to male employees have also a higher leadership motivation, but they have more enforcement, self-confidence, design motivation and resilience, in this order, cf. Table 1. This different behaviour between women and men is also evidence that they also practice different leadership styles.^[109]

But women also have to set up with different expectations, which face a dilemma. Stereotypes^[110] define that female gender needs to be communal and the leadership roles need to be agentic. Communal women are expected to be helpful and warm, affectionate, friendly, kind and sympathetic and not be overly assertive or dominant. Women also do not promote or very prominently display their accomplishments or successes and they do not attempt to influence others. In contrast to the female stereotypic communal style, the agentic leader, which is stereotypic male, is expected to be direct and assertive, aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, exhibit confidence and competence, and influence others.^[111] So women are in a double bind. If the female leaders are highly communal, they may be criticised by not being agentic enough. But if they are highly agentic, they may be criticised for lacking communication.^[112] Eagly/Carli (2007 b) found out that “’successful female managers’ [characterised as] more deceitful, pushy, selfish and abrasive than ‘successful male managers’. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, people suspect that such highly effective women must not be very likable or nice.”^[113] A female leader describes this situation as “I think that there is a real penalty for a woman who behave like men. The men don’t like her and the women don’t either.”^[114]

Women and men appear differently although they are using the same leadership styles. For example women who adopt an assertive and directive leadership style, which is male stereotypical, are evaluated more negatively than men who adopted this style.^[115] Male leaders may show their warm, feminine side without penalty, but female leaders who show their strong and masculine side are resented.^[116] Also when women defend their turf, they are vilified. They were labelled ‘control freaks’; when men do the same way, they were called passionate.^[117]

Thus Eagly/Wood/Johannesen-Schmidt (2004) write, “… male managers, more than female managers, are expected to be self-confident, assertive, firm and analytical.”^[118] They also describe that people in more powerful roles behave a more powerful leadership style than people in less powerful roles.^[119] This is a reason why men believe that they are more dominant, controlling and assertive and women believe that they are more subordinate and cooperative.^[120]

Gender norms often direct female leaders in interpersonally oriented leadership styles and male leaders in task-oriented leadership styles.^[121] But leaders’ jobs usually require both styles, interpersonal and task concerns.^[122] In their meta-analysis of leadership style studies Eagly/Carli (2007 a) expose that women and men have equal task orientation but women have slightly more interpersonal orientation than men.^[123] And female leaders are more confronted with resistance of acceptance by colleagues and employees.^[124]

Women lead more democratically, participative and collaboratively than men.^[125] Referring to previously named different leadership styles in Chapter 2.2 , women lead somewhat more transformational than men, especially by giving support and encouragement to subordinates. Female leaders are also more engaged in rewarding behaviours, which is one aspect of transactional leadership. In transactional leadership styles as related to active and passive management-by-exception, men exceeded women and are more likely than women to be laissez-faire leaders, who take little responsibility for managing.^[126] Summarising those women have generally more effective leadership styles than men. Men, more than women, have styles that are only somewhat effective or that actually hinder effectiveness.^[127]

Assig/Beck (2001) divides female leadership skills, in contrast to male leadership skills into four categories. The first is female leaders can manage modern management requirements better. Women have better management skills than men.^[128] Secondly, female leaders have higher leadership competence than men. Women are more team orientated and highly interested. They are interested in feedback from colleagues and subordinates to reflect their behaviour. They are dealing more honestly and more openly with colleagues and subordinates. Women live their role model function.^[129] The third aspect is the distance to power. Female leaders have a distance to power, which reflects in their less importance of self-affirmation, compared to men.^[130] They waste less energy for getting more power or keeping their power. Power is an important factor for female leaders, especially to promote their targets, but power is not getting self-purpose.^[131] Women do not boast with their successes.^[132] Women are less vain when they are in power than men.^[133] So they refuse male striving for power. Women want to take responsibility and they want to make decisions, they espouse and they are committed.^[134] Finally, female operated organisations are more successful. On average female led companies are more successful than male led companies in the same branch.^[135]

3 Theoretical Examination of the Influences of Female Leadership on the Employer Brand

After describing the fundamentals of EB and female leadership, also compared to male leadership, these two points are going to bring together the facts of the effect a female leadership has on the employer by the model of Teufer (1999).^[136]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 3: Dimensions of Employer Image Related to Female Leaders

(Based on: Teufer (1999), p. 186.)

Only three dimensions of five will be examined, CI, HR policy and recruiting. In some characteristics a female leadership has no influences, these two are the branch image and the location image. Thus the model of the dimensions of EI is going to be determined as shown in Figure 3.

3.1 Influences on Corporate Image

3.1.1 Economic Power

The EB is consistent with the product and CB, cf. Figure 4.^[137] Besides the similarities there are also two key differences. The first is, the EB refers to employment and characterises the company as an employer. The second is, the EB addresses towards internal and external audiences, in contrary to product and CB, which is primarily directed to an external audience.^[138] When the brand awareness rises, e.g. through higher turnover, customers begin to develop positive identification with the brand. This means the more positively the customers perceive the brand, the higher the customer identifies with the product.^[139]

Assig/Beck (2001) describe that female operated companies reached above-average profits, the companies grew twice as fast as an average one and these companies were twice as profitable as male operated companies.^[140] A reason for these successful companies could be that women more often use transformational leadership styles. This leadership style means that the employees are more motivated and they are more satisfied.^[141] The correlation between the quality of the leadership and the company’s success has been proved by various empirical studies.^[142] According to Backhaus/Tikoo (2004) “… satisfied employees tend to have higher performance levels … and provide higher levels of customer satisfaction.”^[143] The employees are also motivated because they can identify with the brand.^[144]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 4: Influence between Corporate Brand, Product and Employer Brand

(Based on: Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 503.)

A further reason for the high economic power of female operated companies could be that they attach great importance to customer loyalty management, (cf. Figure 5).^[145] Women also understand how to deal with customers and clients better.^[146]

Another indication for the economic power of female operated companies is that women are more often chosen for leadership in precarious situations, e.g. when a company becomes imbalanced. One possibility might be that women can deal with crisis better.^[147] A Gallup Poll results of the question “Do you think that this country would be governed better or worse if more women were in political office?” was that 57 % chose “better” as an answer.^[148] This result is especially interesting against the background that researches have indicated that the image of a successful manager has higher characteristics of a typical man than those of a typical woman^[149] and men are generally perceived as more competent than women.^[150] A further approach for the economic power of female led companies might be the assumption that they have less risky behaviour than men and thus they are more sustainable in their leading style and their acting.^[151]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 5: Importance of the Tools in Corporate Governance – Female Leaders in Relation to Decision-makers of Medium Sized Enterprises (Based on: VdU (2013), p. 8.)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 2: Conclusion Economic Power

3.1.2 Awareness

The awareness of a company as an employer depends on the company’s product and services^[152] and also on the reputation.^[153] High brand awareness promotes confidence in that brand.^[154] The reputation can be affected by the employee’s satisfaction. So if a company treats their employees well, it strengthens the EI. If a company treats their employees badly, it weakens the EI.

Female leaders appreciate a climate where the employees feel well and everybody is contented.^[155] Regarding the transformational leadership style, which is more distinctive for female leaders, the working environment is more confident and appreciative. The employees are less restricted in what they do and so the employees are more motivated, are more productive and loyal to their employer. With such a mind-set the employees talk positively about their employer and their reputation is better.^[156]

Sometimes the fact that a woman operates a company can also increase its awareness, mostly when she operates a company in a male dominated field, these women are called ‘token woman’.^[157] A good example in this case is the world’s biggest machine tool producer Trumpf GmbH + Co. KG^[158]. Nicola Leibinger-Kammüller leads Trumpf. She is a graduated literary scholar and since 2005 the leader of the family owned company with 9,000 employees. It was a big surprise that Nicola Leibinger-Kammüller became the leader of Trumpf GmbH + Co. KG. When her father Berthold Leibinger stepped down he decided that his oldest daughter should become the leader and not his son or his son-in-law, both work on the company’s management team and both are engineers. Berthold Leibinger decided to put someone in the leading position who is able to lead the company and he decided that his oldest daughter was the best choice. This change in company’s leadership has a strong influence on the company’s awareness. Many media reported this leading change and wrote that a woman now operates a company in a male dominated branch. So the awareness rises, which shows by the many articles that were released by the media.^[159]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 3: Conclusion Awareness

3.1.3 Corporate Culture

Women, more often than men, use the transformational leadership style.^[160] There are three attributes, which women more strongly pronounced. These are idealised influence, inspirational motivation and individualised consideration. This predicates that female leaders, more than male leaders, manifested attributes, which motivated their subordinates to feel respect and pride because of the association with them. Furthermore this showed optimism and excitement about future goals and tried to develop and mentor subordinates and attend to their individual needs. Moreover female leaders more often reward their subordinates for good performance.^[161]

A leader’s behaviour can affect the workplace. Positive effects make the workplace more pleasant and can encourage employees to cope with the frustrating or unpleasant aspects of their jobs. But vice versa negative effects reduce satisfaction and can result in resentful and incorporate employees.^[162] Therefore the more the culture supports quality of work life; the more likely the culture will increase organisational commitment.^[163] As shown in Figure 5 women attribute more importance in employee’s motivation and so the employees are more willing to engage.^[164]

By leading in a transformational leadership style there is more often a learning culture,^[165] e.g. mistakes are not catastrophes, they are rather chances.^[166] Furthermore female leaders spend more time on communication. They talk more to their managers and to their subordinates,^[167] which also creates a good environment. And women more appreciate a good environment where everybody feels comfortable.^[168] The working climate of female leadership is more open for new ideas, critical reflection and commitment.^[169]

Reasoning through this knowledge that women convey more values with their transformational leadership style, they create a more comfortable environment. Therefore female leaders have a good organisational culture, which also feeds back to the EB. And these EB feedback increase the EB loyalty and contributes to increasing employee productivity, which also affects the success of a company.^[170]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 4: Conclusion Corporate Culture

3.2 Influences on Human Resource Policy

3.2.1 Type of Work

The formal characteristics of work are bureaucratic versus creative processes. Female leaders prefer more creative than bureaucratic processes.^[171] Gilligan (1996) describes it as follows, men see the world more impersonally by systems of logic and laws and women see the world more as a construct of relationships than as a construct of systems and regulations.^[172] By a creative leadership style the employees have more possibilities to actively participate because they are not obliged to work to rule. Female leaders include subordinates in decision-making processes; they talk more intensely and more frequently to their managers and subordinates.^[173] Contrary points of view are going to be discussed. New opinions and creative points of view are only uttered, if the working climate is one of acceptance and trust.^[174]

The social characteristic referred to teamwork versus single man work. Women have a lot of team spirit.^[175] Macha (1998) defines female leadership as “… a circular team-based network structure.”^[176] Based on these data, the assumption can be made that teamwork is a basic component in female led companies. For evaluating the EI teamwork is an important factor.^[177] So the team working character of female leadership strengthens the EB.

Women are more likely to hand over responsibility. This can be concluded by the more cooperative leadership style as well as involving subordinates by searching for consensus.^[178] Decisions are going to be made in a common process. Trustworthiness in responsibility is the highest principle of all.^[179] Requirement for such an attitude is trustworthiness of the leader, which is set by an example of the leader and responded to by their subordinates.^[180]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 5: Conclusion Type of Work

3.2.2 Conditions of Employment

Female operated companies attach high importance to professional development of their employees in the company. According to a current study of VdU ^[181] (Verband deutscher Unternehmerinnen (germ.) = association of German businesswomen), which examined a poll of businesswomen among other things about corporate governance. In this study 65 % of the interviewed businesswomen were for professional development. With this measure they promoted employees loyalty in the company (cf. Figure 6).^[182]

Through the circumstances put on high value of professional development the career opportunities in female led companies is higher too. According to the VdU poll 38 % of the interviewed businesswomen train adolescents and 65 % make use of professional development in the company.^[183] They keep talented employees in the company by ensuring career opportunities.^[184] These are crucial facts for strengthening the EB.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 6: Usage of Measurements for Qualifying and Keeping Professionals from the View of Female Leaders

(Based on: VdU (2013), p. 9.)

As probably seen from Figure 6 benefits in form of additional payment, company car etc. is not that important for female leaders. They prefer other forms of incentives, e.g. a further training or an in-company day-care centre for children.^[185] Female leaders also put more emphasis on a work-life-balance as well as professional development, which should not imply that female leaders are not paying adequately, but the monetary focus is not in the foreground.^[186]

In female led companies the recreational and family time is more distinctively understood. One reason is that women, especially mothers, are often not willing to pay the price of a carrier at the expense of a family. In case of a research of Helgesen (1991) a female leader advised their subordinates not to come to the office at weekends, because they have a family at home.^[187] The importance of recreational and family time for female leaders is also support by the current study of VdU.^[188]

Women, who lead a company, attach much value on the workplace design, e.g. when Mindy Grossmann became CEO of HSN^[189] she had rubbish bins installed, gave her employees one day off to clear up their workplaces. After that she had the buildings cleaned and painted white. And finally she bought new office chairs for all employees. This was an easy way to show her appreciation to the employees. Women emphasise the need to have a nice workplace design,^[190] which also applies to a good working climate, where the employees feel well.^[191]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 6: Conclusion Conditions of Employment

3.3 Influences on Recruiting

3.3.1 Recruiting Process

An important effect of female leadership on the recruiting process is that they recruit employees who fit into the team. This is an implication of the more team-orientated character of women.^[192] Furthermore women include more members of the team in the recruiting process who the applicant should work for, to see, if the applicant fits into the team.^[193] So women look for consent by decision-making.^[194] Also the method of selection in a female operated company is more a consensus than a strict one-man decision.^[195]

According to Dobner (1997) women, more often than men, have to organise the kids, household and many other things. So her approach is that women are well organised.^[196] Female leaders take a break to reflect and structure their work.^[197] If this is transferred to the recruiting process the acceptance of those female operated companies puts more empathise on a good organisation of the recruiting day and also of the pre-info and arrival organisation. Additionally women attach importance on the well being of others.^[198] This is another indicator that female operated companies attempt to organise a smooth process. Due to the fact that female leaders are very flexible the assumption of a fast changing concept or the adapting of a procedure to optimise the process is also possible.^[199]

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 7: Conclusion Recruiting Process

3.3.2 Potential Colleagues

Women are more open and more direct in their style. So they also talk more openly about their expectations.^[200] This characteristic gives a more credible picture of the company, which also strengthens the employee’s loyalty to the company, reduces the risk of early termination and they are less willing to change the company.^[201] This creates a higher trustworthiness of the interviewer and therefore of the EB, too.

If the interview is also held by an employee the trustworthiness is higher.^[202] And if the employees communicate the spirit of the companies culture the chance to be the employer of choice rises.

Women more often hold unstructured interviews, which are preferred more than structured interviews.^[203] The reason for the unstructured interview is because they trust their gut feeling and because they are more creative than bureaucratic, so they find out what they want to know about the applicant and react respectively, just as they need and not following a given guideline.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 8: Conclusion Potential Colleagues

3.4 Interim Conclusion

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 9: Interim Conclusion

4 Practical Examination of the Influences of Female Leadership on the Employer Brand

4.1 Overview of Study

4.1.1 Methods and Procedure of Research

To check the findings of Chapter 3 a qualitative empirical market research will be carried out. This research will be done by expert interviews. Expert interviews aim to get the expert’s knowledge from a specialised topic, which makes the interviewed person into an expert.^[204] This expert does not talk for his person but rather represents a group in his function.^[205]

Seven expert interviews were held for this work, cf. Table 10. These experts were chosen by branch, all women are (co-)leaders of companies, who are in typically male dominated branches. In these cases the female leadership style, compared to male leadership style, is better to figure out than in female dominated branches. Most interviews were held personally with the women mostly in their company, in two cases the interviews were held telephonically.

After presenting the interview-guideline in Chapter 4.1.2 a best practice case of a female led company will be shown in Chapter 4.2 . Afterwards further results of the research will be presented in Chapter 4.3 .

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 10: Overview of Expert Interviews

4.1.2 Presentation of Interview Guideline

The basis for the interview-guideline^[206] are the approaches in Chapter 3 and also further questions for the management implication in Chapter 0. The guideline is an important assistance to ensure all required aspects are asked, which supports the orientation and structure in the interview.

A guideline supported open interview is a proven survey tool for an expert interview.^[207] The objective of the expert interview is not to interrogate the expert, but rather to create a familiar environment,^[208] which should conduct a normal conversation. The interviewer should use his competence to get the expert to reveal his entire knowledge.^[209]

The formulation of the questioning guideline is not binding for the interviewer. But the interviewer should take care that at the end of the interview all questions are responded. Additional questions from the interviewer are also possible, if they are necessary for completing the questions.^[210]

[...]

---

^[1] Cf. Anonymous (2013 a), w.p.

^[2] Cf. Anonymous (2011 a), w.p. The female quota in small and medium sized enterprises (SME) is higher as in big companies. The female quota in SME is about 18.9 %, in big companies with total assets of more than one billion euro the quota is about 13.9 % and in DAX-companies the quota of female leaders is about ten per cent; cf. Anonymous (2011 b), w.p.

^[3] Cf. Anonymous (2013 b), w.p.

^[4] Cf. Anonymous (2013 b), w.p.

^[5] Cf. Anonymous (2013 b), w.p.; Anonymous (2013 c), w.p. Klusmann edit a book about daughters who succeed their father’s company; cf. Klusmann (2008).

^[6] Cf. Wagner (2013), p. 6; Hänzi (2013), p. 17; Mölders/Quaquebeke (2011), p. 44 f.; Ibarra/Carter/Silva (2010), p. 82 f.

^[7] Cf. Assig/Beck (2011), p. 20; Bierach (2002), p. 171. The descriptions of men and women in this work refer to a large group of men and women, but this does not apply to all men and women.

^[8] Cf. Henn (2009), p. 56; Anonymous (2011 c), p. 78; Bernard/Schlaffer (1989), p. 95.

^[9] The terms branch image and location image will not be further discussed, as on this point leaders do not have any influence.

^[10] Cf. Stotz/Wedel (2009), p. 5; Geißler (2007), p. 136; Smedley (2007), p. 12; Suff (2006), p. 45; Wiese (2005), p. 25.

^[11] Cf. Beck (2012), p. 34; Andratschke/Regier/Huber (2009), p. 5; Homburg/Krohmer (2009), p. 601; Pepels (2009), p. 51; Meffert/Burmann/Kirchgeorg (2008) p. 358; Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 502; Kotler/Armstrong/Saunders (2002), p. 540.

^[12] Cf. Andratschke/Regier/Huber (2009), p. 5; Mrozek (2009), p. 25; Stotz/Wedel (2009), p. 5; Trost (2009), p. 14; Barrow/Mosley (2005), p. 58 f.; Bergstrom/Blumenthal/Crothers (2002), p. 134.

^[13] Cf. Stotz/Wedel (2009), p. 5; Esch (2012), p. 24; Burmann/Meffert/Koers (2005), p. 7; Keller (2003), p. 3 f.

^[14] Cf. Meffert/Bierwirth (2005), p. 147; Furkel (2012), p. 7 interview with Stock-Homburg; Andratschke/Regier/Huber (2009), p. 5; Schuhmacher/Geschwill (2009), p. 39; Gaddam (2008), p. 45.

^[15] Cf. Carney/Gedajlovic/Sur (2011), p. 487.

^[16] Cf. Müller/Fauth/Straatmann (2011), p. 22; Moroko/Uncles (2009), p. 181 f.; Stotz/Wedel (2009), p. 5; Petkovic (2008), p. 71; Lievens/Hoye/Ansel (2007), p. 48; Mosley (2007), p. 130; Throne/Pellant (2007), p. 34; Suff (2006), p. 45; Wiese (2005), p. 24.

^[17] Cf. Hanke/Hübner (2010), p. 38.

^[18] Ambler/Barrow (1996), p. 8.

^[19] Cf. Teufer (1999), p. 186; Wagner/Deppe (2010) describe similar approaches of dimensions; cf. Wagner/Deppe (2010), p. 35.

^[20] Haselgruber/Brück (2008) also added soft skills as carrier, learning and development opportunities, flexible working conditions and values; cf. Haselgruber/Brück (2008), p. 35.

^[21] Cf. Becker/Krämer/Staffel (2010), p. 53; Teufer (1999), p. 145; Rastetter (1996), p. 169; Süß (1996), p. 106. 21 % of the interviewed academics in Georg/Rüsen (2011) study said that this is an important factor. It was ranked on sixth position of 14; cf. Georg/Rüsen (2011), p. 12 f.

^[22] Cf. Petkovic (2008), p. 105; Keller (1993), p. 3.

^[23] Cf. Cachelin/Bodderas/Maas (2009), p. 23; Luderer/Frosch (2008), p. 43; Moroko/Uncles (2008), p. 164; Petkovic (2008), p. 78 f.; Knox/Freeman (2006), p. 698; Teufer (1999), p. 144.

^[24] Cf. Anonymous (2013 d), w.p.; Schmidt (2012), p. 110 ff.; Bach/Sterner (2011), p. 62; Becker/Krämer/Staffel (2010), p. 53; Teufer (1999), p. 144; Schwertfeger (1998), p. 76; Schwertfeger (1997), p. 82; Schwertfeger (1996), p. 94; Schwertfeger (1995), p. 91 f.

^[25] Cf. Furkel (2012), p. 6 interview with Stock-Homburg; Chen (2011), p. 441; Ruf (2011), p. 56; Teufer (1999), p. 144; Schwertfeger (1998), 76.

^[26] Cf. Schmitt-Lerchner (2007), p. 67.

^[27] Cf. Cachelin/Bodderas/Maas (2009), p. 23; Fietz/Worschech (2009), p. 8; Teufer (1999), p. 146.

^[28] Linguistically behaviour reflects in type of stories, jokes, myths and anecdotes. Non-linguistically behaviour turns out rites, interactions and ceremonies; cf. Teufer (1999), p. 145.

^[29] Cf. Büdenbender/Strutz (2011), p. 284 f.; Leitl (2010), p. 44; Berthel/Becker (2010), p. 672 f.; Wunderer (2009), p. 154; Gaddam (2008), p. 48; Wunderer/Dick (2007), p. 196; Teufer (1999), p. 145; Sackmann (1990), p. 153 ff.; Schwab/Rynes/Aldag (1987), p. 158; Bleicher (1986), p. 85 ff.

^[30] Cf. Leitl/Sackmann (2010), p. 39 ff.; Grubendorfer (2010), p. 18 f.; Teufer (1999), p. 146. Leibinger (2002), former CEO of Trumpf GmbH & Co. KG, describes his corporate values that every employee should develop his personality in the company; cf. Leibinger (2002), p. 10.

^[31] Cf. Becker/Krämer/Staffel (2010), p. 53; Teufer (1999), p. 148 f. According to Georg/Rüsen (2011) teamwork and good working climate is the second most important influence factor for evaluating an employer; cf. Georg/Rüsen (2011), p. 12 f.

^[32] Cf. Güntürkün/Haumann/Koch (2012), p. 42; Arachchige/Robertson (2011), p. 34; Cachelin/Bodderas/Maas (2009), p. 23; Böhlich (2008), p. 7; Petkovic (2008), p. 33; Ramm/Laier (2002), p. 26; Teufer (1999), p. 151. Georg/Rüsen (2011) describe study that 18 % of young academics find that professional development is a relevant determinant by choosing an employer and 37 % of the interviewed young academics answered that good career opportunities are the most important influence factor for the employer choice; cf. Georg/Rüsen (2011), p. 12 f. Böckenhold/Homburg (1990) get a similar result, they found out that carrier opportunities are more important for industrial engineering students than job security; cf. Böckenhold/Homburg (1990), p. 1165 ff. Cf. also Leibinger (2002) who said that his employees should have the possibility to professional development for unfold his skills; cf. Leibinger (2002), p. 11.

^[33] Cf. Teufer (1999), p. 149.

^[34] Wiltinger (1997), p. 67; cf. also Petkovic (2008), p. 33. Georg/Rüsen (2011) found out that salary and further benefits with 21 % are on fifth position of ranking for influence factor for employer choice; cf. Georg/Rüsen (2011), p. 12 f. Batten & Company (2010) found out by surveying decision-maker in EB management that the salary has a high importance, but the importance does not rise; cf. Batten & Company (2010), p. 20.

^[35] Cf. Becker/Krämer/Staffel (2010), p. 53; Petkovic (2008), p. 33; Wiltinger (1997), p. 67.

^[36] Cf. Büdenbender/Strutz (2011), p. 110; Teufer (1999), p. 149. According to App/Büttgen/Pröpster (2012) workplace health management become more important for choice of employer; cf. App/Büttgen/Pröpster (2012), p. 16.

^[37] Cf. Ramm/Laier (2002), p. 29; Teufer (1999), p. 150; Süß (1996), p. 107 f.

^[38] Cf. Leibinger (2002), p. 11.

^[39] Teufer named this factor feel-good factor, for a better understanding it is redefining in recruiting; cf. Teufer (1999), p. 152.

^[40] Cf. Eberz/Baum/Kabst (2012), p. 6 f.; Eilert (2011), p. 3; Bach/Sterner (2009), p. 61; Nerdinger/Blickle/Schaper (2008), p. 231 ff.; Teufer (1999), p. 152.

^[41] Cf. Nerdinger (1994), p. 23.

^[42] Cf. Eberz/Baum/Kabst (2012), p. 21; Steinle/Thies (2008), p. 30; Knox/Freeman (2006), p. 698; Teufer (1999), p. 153.

^[43] Cf. Schuler/Moser (1993), p. 51; Mell (1993), p. 304 ff.

^[44] Cf. Schmitt-Lechner (2007), p. 68; Teufer (1999), p. 153; Mell (1993), p. 304 ff.

^[45] Cf. Eberz/Baum/Kabst (2012), p. 9; Aldering (2008), p. 91; Teufer (1999), p. 154.

^[46] Cf. Teufer (1999), p. 155.

^[47] Cf. Köchling/Körner (1996), p. 34.

^[48] Cf. Eberz/Baum/Kabst (2012), p. 8; Dornhöfer/Martin (2008), p. 23.

^[49] Cf. Luderer/Frosch (2008), p. 44; Fournier (1998), p. 345.

^[50] If this characteristic fit, the so called ‘similar-to-me effect’ arises. This is an effect, which describes employer who hiring one’s own image. It can be expected that applicants acting just the same; cf. Rastetter (1996), p. 292.

^[51] Also known as ‘clone-syndrome’ or ‘homosocial-reproduction’; cf. Rastetter (1996), p. 292. Cf. also similarity-attraction-theory; cf. Bruhn/Schoenmüller/Schäfer (2012), p. 605; Lorenz (2009), p. 149; Smith (1998), p. 7.

^[52] Some companies also have programs such as ‘refer a friend’, in this case the employees advertise new applicants for the company. These applicants often fit very well to the company because the employees mind better for soft skills and knowledge of the applicants; cf. Berger (2011), p. 49 ff.

^[53] Cf. Rastetter (1999), p. 20 ff.; Rastetter (1996), p. 306; Schuler/Moser (1993), p. 57. As opposed to this Gmür (1997) describes that only one out of three said that unstructured interviews have a high validity; cf. Gmür (1997), p. 3.

^[54] Just like a nice and welcoming interview room; cf. Knapp (2010), p. 132.

^[55] Cf. Teufer (1999), p. 157.

^[56] It is necessary to convey a true image of the company. Frequently grounds for early dismissal are too high promises of the company; cf. Müller/Fauth/Straatmann (2011), p. 22; Luderer/Frosch (2008), p. 44; Aldering (2008), p. 91.

^[57] Cf. Wangnick (2008), p. 78; Freimuth/Elfers (1991) founded out that company’s representatives are more trustworthy if they are working for just short time in the company; cf. Freimuth/Elfers (1991), p. 892.

^[58] Cf. Teufer (1999), p. 158.

^[59] Cf. Kirchgeorg/Günther (2006), p. 41; Teufer (1999), p. 146 f.

^[60] Cf. Petkovic (2008), p. 79.

^[61] In contrast to Teufer (1999) Georg/Rüsen (2011) found out that a secure job is currently less important. Only eight per cent of the interviewed academics said that a secure job is an important influential factor for choosing an employer, thus this was the twelfth ranking of 14 (on the 13th ranking there is corporate social responsibility/corporate ethics with seven per cent and on 14th ranking is high reputation with two per cent), this was a study from 2008-2010. In 2006-2007 there was a similar study in which 17 % of the interviewed young academics said that a secure job is an important influential factor. With 17 % the job security was on the eleventh ranking, which was the last ranking. So there is a trend that job security became a less important factor for choosing an employer; cf. Georg/Rüsen (2011), p. 12 ff. Batten & Company (2010) reach a similar conclusion that job security becomes of less importance; cf. Batten & Company (2010), p. 21. Job security seems less important for choosing an employer, but it is an important factor for job satisfaction and job involvement; cf. Arnold/Staffelbach (2012), p. 308. However Haselgruber/Brück (2008) described that job security is an important point for German employees; cf. Haselgruber/Brück (2008), p. 37.

^[62] Cf. Kreklau (1974), p. 238 f.

^[63] Cf. Teufer (1999), p. 147; Süß (1996), p. 103 f.

^[64] Cf. Petkovic (2008), p. 81.

^[65] Cf. Teufer (1999), p. 147; Süß (1996), p. 104 f.; Freimuth (1989), 44 f.

^[66] Cf. Süß (1996), p. 105; Seyfried (1993), p. 216.

^[67] Cf. Zimmermann/Haen (2012), p. 14.

^[68] Cf. Petkovic (2008), p. 81.

^[69] Cf. Teufer (1999), p. 146. According to Georg/Rüsen (2011) the location of an employer is not that crucial for young academics. Only nine per cent of the interviewed persons found the location as a relevant factor; cf. Georg/Rüsen (2011), p. 12 f.

^[70] Baumgarten (1977), p. 9.

^[71] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 28; Büdenbender/Strutz (2011), p. 112; Drucker (1995), p. 15. However Wunderer (2009) describes that it is unrealistic to perform the whole leadership role through one person – the leader. The approach of Margerison/McCann (1985) gives an alternative. It spreads the leadership role onto several team members. This model promises a relief of the leader and more efficient results through targeted use and developing of specific talents in the team; cf. Margerison/McCann (1985) p. 1 ff. Another approach comes from Hill (2008). She called it ‘Leading from behind’ and means that a good leader is similar to a shepherd who stands behind his herd. He lets the most skilful sheep proceed and the other sheep follow them. Thus the sheep do not notice they were lead from behind; cf. Hill (2008), p. 83.

^[72] Cf. Berthel/Becker (2010), p. 228; Büdenbender/Strutz (2011), p. 11.

^[73] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 28 f.

^[74] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 29 ff.; Regnet (2009), p. 37 ff.; Gebert (2002), p. 19 f.; Senge (1996), p. 282. The necessary characteristics and optimal combination of these aspects depending on the individual task; cf. Henn (2012), p. 29.

^[75] Cf. Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 128.

^[76] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 70; Longanathan/Krishnan (2010), p. 57; Wunderer (2009), p. 242; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 128; Eagly/Carli (2007 b), p. 67; Eagly/Carli (2007 c), p. 83; Yukl (2006), p. 249 f.; Groves (2005), p. 30 f.; Eagly (2003), p. 129; Burke/Collins (2001), p. 245; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 787; Engen/Willemsen (2000), p. 8; Hartog/Muijen/Koopman (1997), p. 20; Bycio/Allen/Hackett (1995), p. 468; Kuhnert/Lewis (1987), p. 648 f.; Bass (1985 a), p. 31 ff.; Bass (1985 b), p. 14 ff.; Burns (1978), p. 141 ff.

^[77] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 70; Longanathan/Krishnan (2010), p. 57; Wunderer (2009), p. 241; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 128; Eagly/Carli (2007 b), p. 67; Eagly/Carli (2007 c), p. 83; Eagly (2003), p. 129; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 787; Engen/Willemsen (2000), p. 8; Hartog/Muijen/Koopman (1997), p. 20; Kuhnert/Lewis (1987), p. 648 f.; Bass (1985 a), p. 27 ff.; Bass (1985 b), p. 11 ff.; Burns (1978), p. 257 ff.

^[78] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 71; Berthel/Becker (2010), p. 164 f.; Eagly (2003), p. 129; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 787.

^[79] Cf. Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 128 f.; Eagly/Carli (2007 b), p. 67; Eagly/Carli (2007 c), p. 83; Tucker/Russell (2004), p. 103; Eagly (2003), p. 129; Burke/Collins (2001), p. 246; Avolio/Bass/Jung (1999), p. 444.

^[80] Cf. Iber-Schade (1988), p. 99 f.; cf. also Henn (2009), p. 58; Monga (2002), p. 37; Engen/Willemsen (2000), p. 6; Eagly/Johnson (1990), p. 235.

^[81] Cf. Iber-Schade (1988), p. 99 f.; cf. also Bialdiga (2008), p. 197; Frenzel/Sottong/Müller (2001), p. 14.

^[82] Assig (2002), p. 13; cf. also Henn (2009), p. 59.

^[83] Cf. Betz (2013), p. 91; cf. also Anonyma (2013), p. 41; Engen/Willemsen (2000), p. 6.

^[84] Cf. Schwalbe (2002), p. 19.

^[85] Cf. Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 a), p. 67; Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 b), p. 70.

^[86] Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 119; cf. also Ibarra (2011), p. 48; Ancona/Malone/Orlikowski (2007), p. 92 f; Wajcman (1998), p. 57; Rosener (1995), p. 10; Rosener (1990), p. 120.

^[87] Cf. Loden (1988), p. 70 f.

^[88] Cf. Anonyma (2013), p. 82; Krell (2008), p. 323; Bischoff (2005), p. 265; Helgesen (1991), p. 191; Rosener (1990), p. 123 f.

^[89] Manuel/Shefte/Swiss (1999), p. 8.

^[90] Cf. Bierach/Thorborg (2006), p. 184; Bischof-Köhler (1990), p. 26; Iber-Schade (1988), p. 99 f.

^[91] Cf. Bierach (2002), p. 171; Bernard/Schlaffer (1989), p. 159 ff.

^[92] Cf. Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 122 f.

^[93] Rosener (1990), p. 120.

^[94] Ibarra/Obodaru do not have the opinion, that women and men have different leadership styles. They say that some studies found more interpersonally oriented and participative leadership at female leaders but this is not valid for hierarchies with only few women; cf. Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 a), p. 68 f.; Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 b), p. 77 f.

^[95] Cf. Simon (2013), p. 30; Niederstadt/Engeser (2012), p. 116; Schaufler (2000), p. 17; Friedel-Howe (1990), p. 7; Bass (1981), p. 499; Nivea/Gutek (1981), p. 91; Kanter (1977), p. 199. Neuberger (2002) criticised the methods of the empirical studies, which proof differences between female and male leadership style; cf. Neuberger (2002), p. 788; cf. also Anonymous (2013 e), p. 16 f. A reason why older studies could not find differences in leadership styles between women and man are because only few women were leaders and they do not differ from men. But now more women are in leading positions and so first studies prove differences in their leadership style; cf. Carli/Eagly (2001), p. 629; Engen/Willemsen (2000), p. 5; Eagly/Karau/Miner (1994), p. 138; Neubauer (1990), p. 30. From a biological point of view, according to Bischof-Köhler (1993), there is no competition between female and male. Normally there is a more or less distinctive dominance of male to female; cf. Bischof-Köhler (1993), p. 261.

^[96] Cf. Emmerik/Wendt/Euwema (2010), p. 900; Engen/Leeden/Willemsen (2001), p. 585.

^[97] Cf. Eagly/Carli (2003 a), p. 121 f.; Sczesny (2003), p. 135; Eagly/Johnson (1990), p. 234 f.

^[98] Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 119.

^[99] Claudia Nemat board member of Deutsche Telekom since October 2011; cf. Nemat (2013).

^[100] Nemat interviewed by Plehwe (2011) follows up the opinion of Krell (2008), p. 323; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), Sczesny (2003), Bierach (2002), Engen/Willemsen (2000), Macha (1998), Autenrieth/Chemnitzer/Domsch (1993), Helgesen (1991), Eagly/Johnson (1990), Rosener (1990), Loden (1988) and Werner/Bernadoni (1987) considers that a difference between female and male leadership style exists; cf. Plehwe (2011), p. 201; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 102; Sczesny (2003), p. 142; Bierach (2002), p. 174; Engen/Willemsen (2000), p. 18; Macha (1998), p. 12; Autenrieth/Chemnitzer/Domsch (1993), p. 141 ff.; Helgesen (1991), p. 29 ff.; Eagly/Johnson (1990), p. 242; Rosener (1990), p. 120 ff.; Loden (1988), p. 70 ff.; Bernadoni/Werner (1987), p. 76 f.

^[101] Cf. Henn (2013), p. 99; Plehwe (2011), p. 201; Woolley/Malone (2011), p. 10; Haderthauer (2009), p. 17; Henn (2009), p. 56; Krishnan/Park (2005), p. 1713.

^[102] Cf. Zenger/Folkman (2012), w.p.; Pratch (2011), w.p.; Friedel-Howe (2003), p. 549; cf. also Henn (2012), p. 70; Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 a), p. 64; Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 b), p. 68; Krell (2008), p. 323; Bierach/Thorborg (2006), p. 184; Eagly (2003), p. 129 f.; Bierach (2002), p. 170.

^[103] Cf. Baldoni (2013), w.p.; Simon (2013), p. 28.

^[104] Stroope/Hagemann (2011), p. 51; cf. also Ludeman/Erlandson (2004), p. 61.

^[105] Cf. Bernard/Schlaffer (1989), p. 95.

^[106] Cf. Bierach (2002), p. 174; Helgesen (1991), p. 39; Rosener (1990), p. 122 ff.

^[107] Cf. Iber-Schade (1988), p. 99 f.

^[108] Cf. Bierach/Thorborg (2006), p. 184; cf. also Beard (2013), w.p.; Carli (2001), p. 732; Eagly/Wood (1991), p. 301.

^[109] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 120 f.

^[110] “Gender stereotypes are the assignment of personality traits as impression of social norms.” Domsch/Macke/Schöne (1996), p. 35; cf. also Spreemann (2000), p. 15; Alfermann (1992), p. 302 f.

^[111] Cf. Bruckmüller/Branscombe (2011), p. 17; Mölders/Quaquebeke (2011), p. 42 f.; Pratch (2011), w.p.; Emmerik/Wendt/Euwema (2010), p. 900; Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 a), p. 68; Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 b), p. 72; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 102; Eagly/Carli (2007 b) p. 66; Eagly/Carli (2007 c), p. 80 f.; Abele (2003), p. 162; Eagly (2003), p. 124 f.; Steffens/Mehl (2003), p. 174; Wänke/Bless/Wortberg (2003), p. 188; Prentice/Carranza (2002), p. 269 f.; Boldry/Wood (2001), p. 690; Carli (2001), p. 732 f.; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 783; Engen/Leeden/Willemsen (2001), p. 582; Heilman (2001), p. 658; Yoder (2001), p. 817; Engen/Willemsen (2000), p. 8 f.; Spreemann (2000), p. 16; Wajcman (1998), p. 66; Dobner (1997), p. 15; Domsch/Macke/Schöne (1996), p. 36; Eagly/Mladinic (1994), p. 23; Eagly/Karau (1991), p. 686; Eagly/Johnson (1990), p. 236; Neubauer (1990), p. 30; Bernard/Schlaffer (1989), p. 160 ff.; Matlin (1993), p. 252 f.; Rustemeyer/Thrien (1989), p. 108; Powell/Butterfield (1984), p. 477 f.; Eagly (1985), p. 15 f.; Schein (1973), p. 100.

^[112] Cf. Mölders/Quaquebeke (2011), p. 46; Freisinger/Endres (2010), w.p.; Layne (2013), p. 188; Ibarra/Carter/Silva (2010), p. 84 f.; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 102; Eagly/Carli (2007 b) p. 66; Eagly/Carli (2007 c), p. 80 f.; Eagly (2003), p. 124; Sczesny (2003), p. 135; Carli (2001), p. 732; Rudman/Glick (2001), p. 744; Krumpholz (1996), p. 184; Eagly/Karau (1991), p. 686.

^[113] Eagly/Carli (2007 b), p. 66; cf. also Steffens/Mehl (2003), p. 174; Wajcman (1998), p. 61.

^[114] Manuel/Shefte/Swiss (1999), p. 8; cf. also Wagner (2013), p. 8.

^[115] Cf. Cooper (2013), w.p.; Henn (2012), p. 71; Niederstadt/Engeser (2012), p. 116; Mölders/Quaquebeke (2011), p. 46; Stroope/Hagemann (2011), p. 52; Harburg (2010), w.p.; Köppel/Leber (2010), p. 30; Hannover/Kessels (2003), p. 201; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 790; Eagly/Makhijani/Klonsky (1992), p. 13; Eagly/Wood/Johannesen-Schmidt (2004), p. 278; Rosen/Jerdee (1973), p. 47. In contrast Dobbins/Cardy/Truxillo (1988) found out that female leaders with non-traditional stereotypes were evaluated more positive than female leaders with traditional stereotypes; cf. Dobbins/Cardy/Truxillo (1988), p. 551. Prentice/Carranza (2002) wrote, “… women who are strong and sensible, competent and effective should receive very favorable [!] reactions, so long as they remain caring, modest, and well-groomed.” Prentice/Carranza (2002), p. 280.

^[116] Cf. Cornils/Rastetter (2012), p. 167; Krell (2012), p. 22; Rastetter (2011), p. 181; Wippermann (2010), p. 68 f.; Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 b), p. 72; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 133; Eagly (2003), p. 127; Prentice/Carranza (2002), p. 280; Carli (2001), p. 726; Eagly/Makhijani/Klonsky (1992), p. 16.

^[117] Cf. Cornils/Rastetter (2012), p. 167; Mölders/Quaquebeke (2011), p. 46; Meyerson/Fletcher (2000), p. 129; Wajcman (1998), p. 61.

^[118] Eagly/Wood/Johannesen-Schmidt (2004), p. 274; cf. also Carli (2001), p. 736.

^[119] This is an implication of more men in powerful leadership position than women.

^[120] Cf. Ibarra/Obodaru (2009 b), p. 72; Eagly/Wood/Johannesen-Schmidt (2004), p. 276; Engen/Leeden/Willem sen (2001), p. 582; Frenzel/Sottong/Müller (2001), p. 5; Macha (2000), p. 203; Eagly/Johnson (1990), p. 236; Loden (1988), p. 176 ff.; Helgesen (1991), p. 215 ff.

^[121] Cf. Sczesny (2003), p. 134.

^[122] Cf. Callahan/Hasler/Tolson (2005), p. 515.

^[123] Cf. Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 124; Carli (2001), p. 736; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 788; Engen/Leeden/Willemsen (2001), p. 582; Frenzel/Sottong/Müller (2001), p. 8; Eagly/Johnson (1990), p. 235 f.

^[124] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 70.

^[125] Cf. Mölders/Quaquebeke (2011), p. 43; Emmerik/Wendt/Euwema (2010), p. 897; Bialdiga (2008), p. 197; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 126; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 788 f.; Engen/Leeden/Willemsen (2001), p. 582; Eagly/Karau/Miner (1994), p. 137; Eagly/Wood (1991), p. 307; Eagly/Johnson (1990), p. 247.

^[126] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 71; Emmerik/Wendt/Euwema (2010), p. 897; Longanathan/Krishnan (2010), p. 60; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 129 f.; Eagly/Carli (2007 b), p. 67; Eagly/Carli (2007 c), p. 83; Walumbwa/Wu/Ojode (2004), p. 126; Eagly (2003), p. 129; Burke/Collins (2001), p. 250; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 791 f.; Engen/Leeden/Willemsen (2001), p. 582 ff.; Frenzel/Sottong/Müller (2001), p. 12; Engen/Willemsen (2000), p. 19.

^[127] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 71; Eagly/Carli (2007 a), p. 130; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt/Engen (2003), p. 578; Bierach (2002), p. 170; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 791.

^[128] Cf. Assig/Beck (2001), p. 14 f.

^[129] Cf. Assig/Beck (2001), p. 16 ff.

^[130] Cf. Macha (2000), p. 182 ff.; Schaeffer-Hegel (1998), p. 97; Iber-Schade (1988), p. 99 f.

^[131] Cf. Assig/Beck (2001), p. 19.

^[132] Cf. Bernard/Schlaffer (1989), p. 164; Bierach (2002), p. 169 f.

^[133] Cf. Schaeffer-Hegel (1998), p. 97.

^[134] Cf. Assig/Beck (2001), p. 19 f.

^[135] Cf. Assig/Beck (2001), p. 20 f.; cf. also Anonymous (2013 f), w.p. In contrast cf. Ryan/Haslam (2005), p. 82.

^[136] Cf. Teufer (1999), p. 186.

^[137] Cf. Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 503; Süß (1996), p. 85 ff.

^[138] Cf. Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 503.

^[139] Cf. Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 506.

^[140] Cf. Assig/Beck (2011), p. 20; cf. also Anonymous (2013 f), w.p.; Bierach (2002), p. 171. Another reason for the success of female operated companies, especially in male dominated branch, can also be that these women who get in leadership position and enforce men are really good managers; cf. Bierach (2002), p. 173. Adler founds out that a strong correlation between companies profit and the number of female senior executives exists; cf. Anonymous (2001), p. 30. Muhtar Kent, chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Co., says, “When women are placed in leadership roles, brands get better and morale gets better.” Cf. Anonymous (2013 g), w.p.

^[141] Cf. Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 510; Humphreys/Einstein (2004), p. 62.

^[142] Cf. Wittmann (1998), p. 265.

^[143] Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 510.

^[144] Cf. Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 506.

^[145] Cf. VdU (2013), p. 8.

^[146] Cf. Cornils/Rastetter (2012), p. 157; Assig/Beck (2011), p. 20; Bierach (2002), p. 171.

^[147] Cf. Mölders/Quaquebeke (2011), p. 42; Ibarra/Hansen (2009), w.p. Helgesen/Johnson describe that women were more sustainable than men and thus they could better handle crises than men; cf. Helgesen/Johnson (2012), p. 60. Another approach is that transformational leaders may convert crises into developmental challenges; cf. Harland/Harrison/Jones (2005), p. 5.

^[148] Cf. Carli/Eagly (2001), p. 630.

^[149] Cf. Cornils/Rastetter (2012), p. 167; Henn (2012), p. 82; Sczesny (2003), p. 134; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 791; Spreemann (2000), p. 33; Wajcman (1998), p. 55; Rastetter (1994), p. 262; Weinert (1990), p. 39; Heilman/Block/Simon (1989), p. 935. Bierach (2002) describe that male leaders are the better strategists and predominate analysts, which are basic requirements for leaders; cf. Bierach (2002), p. 170.

^[150] Cf. Biernat/Fuegen (2001), p. 710; Carli/Eagly (2001), p. 632 f.; Ridgeway (2001), p. 638; Schein/Mueller/Lituchy (1996), p. 34.

^[151] Cf. Bernard/Schlaffer (1989), p. 95.

^[152] Cf. Schmidt (2012), p. 110 ff.; Bach/Sterner (2011), p. 62; Becker/Krämer/Staffel (2010), p. 53; Teufer (1999), p. 144; Schwertfeger (1998), p. 76; Schwertfeger (1997), p. 82; Schwertfeger (1996), p. 94; Schwertfeger (1995), p. 91 f.

^[153] Cf. Schmitt-Lerchner (2007), p. 67.

^[154] Cf. Petkovic (2008), p. 106.

^[155] Cf. Anonymous (2013 h), w.p.; Boikat (2013), p. 84; Herkenrath (2012), p. 196; Anonymous (2011 d), p. 10; Wajcman (1998), p. 67; Dobner (1997), p. 19. Wajcman (1998) also describes “men are better able to put up with a hostile, aggressive atmosphere which is often a feature of business.” Wajcman (1998), p. 67.

^[156] Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 508.

^[157] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 81; Domsch/Macke/Schöne (1996), p. 30.

^[158] Cf. www.de.trumpf.com.

^[159] Cf. Brinkschulte/Spieker (2013), w.p.; Leibinger-Kammüller (2013), w.p.; Leo (2012), w.p.; Anonymous (2011 e), w.p.; Beise/Dostert (2011), w.p.; Gillmann (2011), w.p.; Deckstein/Schäfer (2010), w.p.; Späth (2010), w.p.; Bialdiga (2008), p. 193 ff.; Zehle (2006), w.p.

^[160] Cf. Burke/Collins (2001), p. 250.

^[161] Cf. Anonymous (2013 g), w.p.; Eagly/Johannesen-Schmidt (2001), p. 791.

^[162] Cf. Howell/Costley (2006), p. 25 f.

^[163] Cf. Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 509.

^[164] Cf. VdU (2013), p. 8.

^[165] Cf. Wunderer/Küpers (2003), p. 459; Macha (2000), p. 205.

^[166] Cf. Wunderer/Küpers (2003), p. 459.

^[167] Cf. Barton/Grant/Horn (2013), p. 38; Iber-Schade (1988), p. 99 f.

^[168] Cf. Boikat (2013), p. 84; Herkenrath (2012), p. 196; Anonymous (2011 d), p. 10.

^[169] Cf. Assig (2002), p. 13.

^[170] Cf. Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 505; Wittmann (1998), p. 264.

^[171] Cf. Loden (1988), p. 77.

^[172] Cf. Gilligan (1996), p. 30 f.

^[173] Cf. Chapter 2.2.1.

^[174] Cf. Macha (2000), p. 204; Iber-Schade (1988), p. 99 f.

^[175] Cf. Iber-Schade (1988), p. 99 f.

^[176] Macha (1998), p. 12; cf. also Bierach (2002), p. 174; Loden (1988), p. 128; Helgesen (1991), p. 53.

^[177] Cf. Georg/Rüsen (2011), p. 12 f.

^[178] Macha (2000) describes it as leading by responsibility; cf. Macha (2000), p. 205; cf. also Bialdiga (2008), p. 197. Helgesen/Johnson (2012) also confirm that women are more cooperative than men; cf. Helgesen/Johnson (2012), p. 98.

^[179] Cf. Späth (2011), w.p.

^[180] Cf. Boikat (2013), p. 84; Macha (2000), p. 204.

^[181] Cf. www.vdu.de.

^[182] Cf. VdU (2013), p. 9.

^[183] Cf. VdU (2013), p. 9; Späth (2010), w.p.

^[184] Cf. VdU (2013), p. 4.

^[185] Cf. Anonymous (2013 i), w.p.

^[186] Cf. VdU (2013), p. 9; Helgesen/Johnson (2012), p. 96 f.

^[187] Cf. Helgesen/Johnson (2012), p. 99; Helgesen (1991), p. 35. Opposed to this, male leaders often willingly pay the price of a career by sacrificing their family; cf. Helgeson/Johnson (2012), p. 99; Helgesen (1991), p. 29; Asplund (1988), p. 53.

^[188] Cf. Ignatius (2013 a), p. 96; Ignatius (2013 b), w.p.; Ignatius (2013 c), w.p.; VdU (2013), p. 5; Beise/Dostert (2011), w.p.; Gillmann (2011), w.p.

^[189] Cf. www.hsn.com.

^[190] Cf. Grossman (2012), p. 96 f.

^[191] Cf. Boikat (2013), p. 84; Herkenrath (2012), p. 196; Anonymous (2011 d), p. 10.

^[192] Cf. Iber-Schade (1988), p. 99 f.; cf. also Henn (2009), p. 58; Monga (2002), p. 37; Engen/Willemsen (2000), p. 6; Eagly/Johnson (1990), p. 235.

^[193] Cf. Bierach (2002), p. 174; Helgesen (1991), p. 39; Rosener (1990), p. 122 ff.

^[194] Cf. Carli (2011), p. 732; Bierach/Thorberg (2006), p. 184; Macha (2000), p. 204; Eagly/Wood (1991), p. 301.

^[195] Cf. Beard (2013), w.p.; Bierach/Thorborg (2006), p. 184; Carli (2001), p. 732; Eagly/Wood (1991), p. 301.

^[196] Cf. Dobner (1997), p. 20 f.; cf. also Wajcman (1998), p. 68.

^[197] Cf. Macha (1998), p. 12.

^[198] Cf. Boikat (2013), p. 84; Herkenrath (2012), p. 196; Anonymous (2011 d), p. 10; Dobner (1997), p. 19.

^[199] Cf. Henn (2012), p. 120.

^[200] Cf. Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 507.

^[201] Cf. Backhaus/Tikoo (2004), p. 508 f.

^[202] Cf. Wangnick (2008), p. 78; Freimuth/Elfers (1991), p. 892.

^[203] Cf. Anonyma (2013), p. 53; Krell (2008), p. 320; Rastetter (1999), p. 20 ff.; Dobner (1997), p. 19; Rastetter (1996), p. 306; Schuler/Moser (1993), p. 57; Ogger (1992), p. 255.

^[204] Cf. Naskrent (2010), p. 113; Pfadenhauer (2009), p. 452; Meuser/Nagel (1991), p. 443.

^[205] Cf. Mayer (2013), p. 38.

^[206] Cf. Appendix 1.

^[207] Cf. Naskrent (2010), p. 113; Meuser/Nagel (1991), p. 443.

^[208] Cf. Pfadenhauer (2009), p. 453.

^[209] Cf. Naskrent (2010), p. 113; Pfadenhauer (2009), p. 454 f.

^[210] Cf. Gläser/Laudel (2010), p. 42.