"For the Article provided :

Theoretical implications Despite the idea, popular in the mainstream and business press, that women may be better 21st- century leaders than men because they are generally more cooperative and more relational, academic evidence about this so-called female advantage in leadership is mixed (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014; Vecchio, 2003). Similarly, in this study, the data provide no evidence for uniform differences in cohesion, cooperative learning, and participative communication between teams led by women and those led by men. However, this study shows that context plays an important moderating role in the relationship between leader gender and the quality of team relationships and interactions. An important innovation in this study is the identification of team coordination requirements as central contingencies for the emergence of a female leadership advantage as it relates to team outcomes. Teams may be especially well positioned to benefit from female leadership to achieve cohesion, cooperative learning, and participative communication when team coordination requirements are higher, such as when teams are more functionally diverse, larger, or geographically dispersed. The findings from this study support this argument, with some nuances that deserve further consideration. As functional diversity increases, teams led by women report more cohesion (but not more cooperative learning or participative communication) compared with teams led by men. As team size increases, female-led teams report more cohesion, cooperative learning, and participative learning as compared with similar teams led by men. And, among geographically dispersed teams, those led by women report more cooperative learning and participative communication (but not more cohesion) than those led by men. One conjecture for these nuanced results is that the extent and quality of coordination requirements are not the same for functionally diverse teams as they are for large or even geographically dispersed teams: presumably, a large team faces different coordination challenges than a functionally diverse team. A second conjecture is that team leaders receive training for effectively managing some types of teams (e.g., functionally diverse teams and geographically dispersed teams) but not others (e.g., large teams). If this were the case, one would expect to see fewer and weaker gender leader differences in team outcomes in situations for which both men and women have received training. Both conjectures suggest areas of investigation for future studies. As an example, future studies may want to test the relationships I propose using a more fine-grained measure of team coordination requirements. As another WHEN IS FEMALE LEADERSHIP AN ADVANTAGE? 1167 Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1153–1175 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/job example, a random control group study design could help ascertain whether team leadership training reduces any leader gender differences in team outcomes. Future research may also seek to identify other factors that influence team coordination requirements and that, therefore, might also exacerbate (or mitigate) leader gender influences. For instance, joint venture teams and firms experiencing mergers and acquisitions would appear to require much coordination. A second innovation in this study is that it extends the debate on the female advantage in leadership to the quality of the relationship between team members and their team and to team norms, an approach that reduces the introduction of bias in the evaluation of a female advantage in leadership. While this study centered on the relationship between leader gender and cohesion, cooperative learning, and participative communication, other research suggests that cooperative and participative team norms may facilitate team performance (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2002; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Savelsbergh, Gevers, van der Heijden, & Poell, 2012). Cooperative learning appears to be a critical mechanism for integrating different perspectives and disparate information (Van de Ven & Polley, 1992), which might explain why studies have shown it to be positively associated with team performance and innovation (Mathieu et al., 2000; Savelsbergh et al., 2012). For example, in a study exploring the role of demographic heterogeneity in predicting cooperative norms on work teams, Chatman and Flynn (2001) found cooperative norms to mediate the relationship between team diversity and team performance. Participative communication appears to be central in the effective functioning of innovation teams (Anderson & West, 1998; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010; Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2002; Nambisan, 2002), perhaps because, as Woolley (2010) has shown, collective intelligence is more likely to emerge when conversations are more evenly distributed. As another example, in a study of 43 cross-functional product development teams, collaborative (rather than contentious) communication around disagreements led to markedly higher innovativeness (Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001). In contrast, the evidence around the relationship between cohesion and team performance is inconclusive, perhaps because cohesion has the potential to “amplify both functional and dysfunctional team behavior” (Pescosolido & Saavedra, 2012: 748). Cohesion is central in helping to reduce members’ uncertainty and fears around being able to overcome differences among team members (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Judith, 2005). Yet, cohesion also has the potential to impair teams’ decision quality (Mullen, Anthony, Salas, & Driskell, 1994). Numerous meta-analyses that have examined the relationship of cohesionwith performance (e.g., Beal, Cohen, Burke,&McLendon, 2003; Carron, 2002; Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Mullen & Copper, 1994) fail to offer convergent results (Castaño, Watts, & Tekleab, 2013). Therefore, as a logical extension of this study, future research may want to explore to what extent and under what conditions the cohesion, cooperative learning, and participative communication that female leaders foster on teams with higher coordination requirements may (or may not) help improve team performance. Study limitations and future research In this study, I evaluate and contextualize the existence of a female advantage in team leadership. While the results from the analyses provide robust evidence that team functional diversity, size, and geographic dispersion moderate, the relationships between leader gender and both cohesion and interaction norms, the study has a few limitations. One limitation is the absence of specific measures of relational leadership behaviors. This limitation largely reflects the invisibility of and lack of language to describe relational practices in work environments that continue to elevate heroic leadership (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Fletcher, 2004; Fletcher & Kaeufer, 2002; Ryan & Haslam, 2007; Uhl-Bien, 2006). However, as summarized in this paper, a large body of work on gender differences in relational orientation, personality traits, emotion recognition and regulation, empathy, and leadership styles indirectly supports my contention that in a team environment, female leaders are more likely than male leaders to mutually empower team members (Eagly & Johnson, 1990) and create an environment where “positive outcomes of relational interactions can be realized” (Fletcher, 1998: 169). Nevertheless, future research should endeavor to operationalize relational leadership practices so that they can be accounted for regardless of whether they are performed by men or women. An additional measurement limitation in the study stems from the decision, for several study measures, 1168 C. POST Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1153–1175 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/job to use subsets of items from established scales in response to survey length constraints imposed by organizations that volunteered their innovation teams to participate in the study. While separate post-hoc analyses (available upon request from the author) demonstrate high correlations between the reduced and the intact scales, there is still a risk that reduced scales inadequately capture the full range of attitudes and behaviors associated with the constructs. There is also the possibility that leader gender masks other important differences among teams in this study. Because this study was part of a larger research project on diversity and teams, I examined correlations between leader gender and a number of other variables not included in the analyses (e.g., response rate, attitudes toward diversity). I determined that, other than what is described in this study, teams led by women do not differ from those led by men in any substantive way. However, I cannot rule out an alternate explanation to the one advanced in this paper for the leader-gender differences among teams with higher coordination requirements. Namely, that selection biases may influence the extent to which relational women (more so than relational men) become leaders of teams with higher coordination requirements. For example, women appear to be called upon more frequently than men in crisis situations (Ryan & Haslam, 2005) and in times of poor performance (Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, & Bongiorno, 2011). Similarly, at the team level, Van Vugt and Spisak (2008) documented that threats to intra-group relations create preferences for female leaders over men leaders. Another limitation of this study is its reliance on cross-sectional data. Future research should ascertain causality between leader gender and the outcomes of interest in this study, for example, by comparing longitudinal changes in cohesion, cooperative learning, and participative communication after a change in leadership that corresponds to a change in the gender of the leader. The HLM analyses and intraclass correlations indicate non-trivial inter- organizational differences among teams in cohesion and cooperative learning. Future studies should, therefore, also explore what firm-level considerations may enhance or mitigate gender differences in leadership behaviors, thereby further contributing to the contingency approach in the debate around a female advantage in leadership. For example, the potential role of organizational climate in enhancing or mitigating the female advantage in leadership may warrant further study. Practical implications The findings from this study hold several practical implications. For leaders and for those involved in leadership development, the findings suggest the potential importance of cultivating multiple leadership styles and of adapting one’s style as a function of teams’ coordination requirements. For organizations, the findings suggest that the potential negative effects of functional diversity (Cronin & Weingart, 2007; Keller, 2001; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999), team size (Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Sundstrom, De Meuse, & Futrell, 1990) and geographic dispersion (Hinds & Bailey, 2003; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006) on team outcomes (e.g., team cohesion and team interaction norms) may be more likely to be mitigated by female rather than by male leaders, presumably because women, more than men, exercise relational leadership practices that stimulate high-quality relationships, bonding, and connectivity among members (Carmeli et al., 2009). In light of these findings, organizations may find it tempting to assign women to lead teams that are more functionally diverse and have higher task coordinative complexity. However, given the growing reliance on cross-functional teams to get work done and given the increasing interdependence of organizational actors within and across firm boundaries, such an approach may not be sustainable. A more viable recommendation is for organizations to name relational skills as an area of competence, to develop not only the relational skills of both male and female managers but also their relational adaptability and to reward managers for exercising relational skills when the context requires it (Fletcher, 1999). Overall, this study contributes to the debate on the female advantage in leadership in two important ways. First, it suggests that any female leadership advantage for teams may be contingent on teams’ coordination requirements (e.g., their functional diversity, size, and whether or not members are geographically dispersed). And second, the study results suggest that gender differences in leadershipmay manifest themselves in the quality of the relationships between team members and their team and in team interaction norms. The study shows that when coordination requirements are high, teams led by women exhibit more cohesion, cooperative learning, and participative communication than those led WHEN IS FEMALE LEADERSHIP AN ADVANTAGE? 1169 Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1153–1175 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/job by men. In particular, female leadership is more positively associated with cohesion on more functionally diverse and larger teams. Female leadership is more positively associated with cooperative learning and participative communication on larger and geographically dispersed teams. The results of this study call for more research on boundary conditions to the influence of leader gender on teamoutcomes, on the substance and role of female leadership on complex and diverse teams and, ultimately, on the potential mediating role of the quality of the relationships between team members (e.g., cohesion) and of team interaction norms in the relationship between leader gender and team performance. Acknowledgements This study was supported with funding from the National Science Foundation, grant no. 0852672. I am indebted to Kris Byron, Nancy DiTomaso, Alice Eagly, Joyce Fletcher, Karen Jehn, Gary Powell, and Susan Vinnicombe for the advice and feedback on earlier drafts of this work. Additionally, I am extremely grateful to Ray Noe and three anonymous reviewers for invaluable feedback throughout the review process. Author biography Corinne Post is an Associate Professor of Management at Lehigh University, College of Business and Economics, where she teaches organizational behavior and human resource management. Her research interests include the persistence of inequality in career progressions based on socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, and age) and the complex and contradictory effects of group diversity on group performance. Her work is published in journals including Academy of Management Journal¸ Journal of Applied Psychology, Administrative Science Quarterly, Annual Review of Sociology, Group & Organization Management, Human Relations, Journal of Business Ethics, and Business & Society. References Adams, R. B., & Funk, P. (2012). Beyond the glass ceiling: does gender matter? Management Science, 58, 219–235. Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12, 215–234. Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. R., & Pearce, C. L. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: a 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 94–107. Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495–516. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258. Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press. Bart, C., & McQueen, G. (2013). Why women make better decisions. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 8, 93–99. Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004. Biemann, T., & Kearney, E. (2010). Size does matter: How varying group sizes in a sample affect the most common measures of group diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 582–599. Birenbaum, A., & Sagarin, E. (1976). Norms and human behavior. New York: Praeger. Blau, F. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 1170 C. POST Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1153–1175 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/job Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: a conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69, 479–504. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K.-K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213–266). New York: Oxford University Press. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this" We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83. Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: the integration of trust and leader– member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 227–250. Burke, C. S., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2003). The role of shared cognition in enabling shared leadership and team adaptability. In C. L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 103–122). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307. Butterfield, D. A., & Grinnell, J. P. (1999). "Re-viewing" gender, leadership, and managerial behavior. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 223–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452. Carmeli, A., Ben-Hador, B., Waldman, D. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2009). How leaders cultivate social capital and nurture employee vigor: implications for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1553–1561. Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: the group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244–266. Carron, A. V. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: a meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 168–188. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217–1234. Castaño, N., Watts, T., & Tekleab, A. G. (2013). A reexamination of the cohesion–performance relationship meta-analyses: a comprehensive approach. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17, 207. Cavallo, K., & Brienza, D. (2006). Emotional competence and leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 2. Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 956–974. Conlin, M. (2003). The new gender gap: from kindergarten to grad school, boys are becoming the second sex, Business Week. Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32, 761–773. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1154–1191. Cundiff, N. L., & Komarraju, M. (2008). Gender differences in ethnocultural empathy and attitudes toward men and women in authority. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 5–15. Dimberg, U., & Lundquist, L.-O. (1990). Gender differences in facial reactions to facial expressions. Biological Psychology, 30, 151–159. Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: from" field of forces" to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7. Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. (2006). The impact of emergent leader’s emotionally competent behavior on team trust, communication, engagement, and effectiveness. Research on Emotion in Organizations, 2, 25–55. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities. In T. Eckes, & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwam, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797. Eagly, A. H.,& Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. WHEN IS FEMALE LEADERSHIP AN ADVANTAGE? 1171 Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1153–1175 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/job Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–434. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 1–12. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85, 63–71. Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658. Elsesser, K. M., & Lever, J. (2011). Does gender bias against female leaders persist? Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations, 64, 1555–1578. Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science, 18, 613–630. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456. Fletcher, J. K. (1998). Relational practice: a feminist reconstruction of work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7, 163–186. Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing acts: gender, power, and relational practices at work. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Fletcher, J. K., & Kaeufer, K. (2002). Shared leadership: paradox and possibility. In C. L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 21–47). Thousand Oacks, CA: Sage Publications. Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: an essay on gender, power, and transformational change. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 647–661. Fondas, N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: management qualities in contemporary writings. Academy of Management Review, 22, 257–282. Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24, 489–505. Fukushima, H., & Hiraki, K. (2006). Perceiving an opponent’s loss: gender-related differences in the medial-frontal negativity. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 1, 149–157. Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there "his" and "hers" types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Pscyhology, 77, 642–655. Gajendran, R. S., & Joshi, A. (2012). Innovation in globally distributed teams: the role of LMX, communication frequency, and member influence on team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1252–1261. Gerzema, J., & D’Antonio, M. (2013). The Athena doctrine: how women (and the men who think like them) will rule the future. San Francisco: Joseey-Bass. Grant, J. (1988). Women as managers: what can they offer to organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 56–63. Griffith, J. (1988). Measurement of group cohesion in US Army units. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 149–171. Groves, K. S. (2005). Gender differences in social and emotional skills and charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 30–46. Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228. Heffernan, M. (2002). The female CEO ca. 2002. Fast Company, 61, 58–66. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14, 615–632. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. Holt, J. L., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 165–196. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: an integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. Hu, L.-T. H., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive metaanalysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Judith, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: from input-process-outcome models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. 1172 C. POST Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1153–1175 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/job Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Science, 34, 351–384. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815. Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (2002). Cultures that support product innovation processes. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 42–54. Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (2006). Collaboration in cross-functional product innovation teams. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 12, 1–25. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Anderson, D. (1983). Social interdependence and classroom climate. The Journal of Psychology, 114, 135–142. Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board: the role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 20, 240–252. Kanter, R. M., & Zolner, J. P. (1986). What the ’new’ coaches can teach managers. Management Review, 75, 10–11. Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 547–555. Kim, M. S., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A. M., Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. J. (1996). Individual-vs. Culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: effects on preferred conversational styles. Communications Monographs, 63, 29–49. Kirkman, B., Li, N., & Porter, C. (2014). Toward a model of work team altruism. Academy of Management Review, 39, 541–565. Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3. Klotz, F. (2011). Why women make better leaders, Forbes. Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161. LaVine, L. (2014). The case for women on boards, FastCompany.com: http://www.fastcompany.com/3041604/strong-femalelead/ the-case-for-women-on-boards: FastCompany. Accessed on January 30, 2015 Liden, R., & Antonakis, J. (2009). Considering context in psychological leadership research. Human Relations, 62, 1587–1605. Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854. Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: a review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259–309. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793. Luxen, M. F. (2005). Gender differences in dominance and affiliation during a demanding interaction. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 139, 331–347. Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: a gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 387–404. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283. McInerney-Lacombe, N., Bilimoria, D., & Salipante, P. F. (2008). Championing the discussion of tough issues: how women corporate directors contribute to board deliberations. In S. Vinnicombe, V. Singh, R. J. Burke, D. Bilimoria, & M. Huse (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: international research and practice (pp. 123–139). Cheltenham: Edward Edgar. Montoya, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Lockwood, N. S. (2011). 3D collaborative virtual environments: exploring the link between collaborative behaviors and team performance. Decision Sciences, 42, 451–476. Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189–204. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210. Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27, 392–413. Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: a metaanalysis of contextual moderators. Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: the effects of team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and team size. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 293–310. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. WHEN IS FEMALE LEADERSHIP AN ADVANTAGE? 1173 Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1153–1175 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/job Pescosolido, A. T., & Saavedra, R. (2012). Cohesion and sports teams: a review. Small Group Research, 43, 744–758. Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: how colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 679–692. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2003). Probing interactions in multiple linear regression, latent curve analysis, and hierarchical linear modeling: Interactive calculation tools for establishing simple intercepts, simple slopes, and regions of significance [Computer software]. Available from http://quantpsy.org Purvanova, R. K. (2013). The role of feeling known for team member outcomes in project teams. Small Group Research, 44, 298–332. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2000). HLM 5: hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Richardson, D. R., Green, L. R., & Lago, T. S. (1998). The relationship between perspective taking and non-aggressive responding in the face of an attack. Journal of Personality, 66, 235–256. Rispens, S., Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2011). Not so bad after all: how relational closeness buffers the association between relationship conflict and helpful and deviant group behaviors. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 4, 277–296. Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, 119–125. Rosette, A. S., & Tost, L. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 221–235. Ryan, M., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: exploring dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 549–572. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16, 81–90. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis–think female: the glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 470–484. Savelsbergh, C., Gevers, J. M. P., van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Poell, R. F. (2012). Team role stress: relationships with team learning and performance in project teams. Group & Organization Management, 37, 67–100. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sharpe, R. (2000). As leaders, women rule; http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_47/b3708145.htm; October 28, 2003. Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349–356. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, 132–157. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120. Taggar, S., & Ellis, R. (2007). The role of leaders in shaping formal team norms. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 105–120. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow. Taylor, S. N., & Hood, J. N. (2011). It may not be what you think: gender differences in predicting emotional and social competence. Human Relations, 64, 627–652. Tzabbar, D., & Vestal, A. (In press). Bridging the social chasm in geographically distributed R&D teams: the moderating effects of relational strength and status asymmetry on the novelty of team innovation. Organization Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.2015.0969 Published Online: April 3, 2015. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654–676. Van de Ven, A. H., & Polley, D. (1992). Learning while innovating. Organization Science, 3, 92. van Emmerik, H., Gardner, W. L., Wendt, H., & Fischer, D. (2010). Associations of culture and personality with McClelland’s motives: a cross-cultural study of managers in 24 countries. Group & Organization Management, 35, 329–367. Van Vugt, M., & Spisak, B. R. (2008). Sex differences in the emergence of leadership during competitions within and between groups. Psychological Science, 19, 854–858. Vecchio, R. P. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 643–671. Vecchio, R. P. (2003). In search of gender advantage. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 835–850. Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152–173. 1174 C. POST Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1153–1175 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/job White, J., Mcmillen, M. C., & Baker, A. C. (2001). Challenging traditional models: toward an inclusive model of group development. Journal of Management Inquiry, 10, 40–57. Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2007). Perceived dissimilarity and perspective taking within work teams. Group & Organization Management, 32, 569–597. Woolley, A. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686–688. Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387–399. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2002). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483. Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2012). Are women better leaders than men?, Harvard business review blog, Vol. 2014. http://blogs. hbr.org/2012/03/a-study-in-leadership-women-do/. Accessed on November 15, 2014 WHEN IS FEMALE LEADERSHIP AN ADVANTAGE? 1175 Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1153–1175 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/job