Leadership styles and corporate social responsibility management: Analysis from a gender perspective

• Date: 01 April 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12139
• Published date: 01 April 2017

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Leadership styles and corporate social responsibility

management: Analysis from a gender perspective

Maria del Mar Alonso-Almeida

1

|

Jordi Perramon

2

|

Llorenc Bagur-Femenias

2

1

Universidad Aut

onoma de Madrid, Madrid,

Spain

2

Barcelona School of Management,

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

Correspondence

Jordi Perramon, School of Management,

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Plaça de la

Mercè, 10, 08002 Barcelona, Spain.

Email: jordi.perramon@upf.edu

Abstract

Companies’perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have been only partially analyzed

from an individual perspective that focuses on personal characteristics and professional back-

grounds. However,a gap exists in the research on managerleadership styles and CSR perceptions

from a gender perspective. Therefore, this article analyzes differences in attitudes toward various

dimensions of CSR by focusing on the leadership styles—transformational, dominance, and dual

perspectives—of male and female managers in Spain. A total of 391 respondents in top manage-

ment positions in Spainwere surveyed. The findings revealed similarities and differences between

genders with respect to leadership styles and CSR perceptions by dimension using a univariate

analysis. A causalmodel that employed structural equationmodeling was also estimated. Thefind-

ings suggest that for transformational and dual leadership styles, Spanish women may be more

adaptable and effective at pursuing company sustainability than Spanish men. However, domi-

nance leadership was found to be the worst leadership style for deploying a CSR strategy. A

number of conclusions for business management can be drawn, and some directions for future

research are provided.

1

|

INTRODUCTION

The last global economicand financial crisis has resulted in an increase

in volatility and has presented challenges for running organizations. In

this context, managerial leadership is decisive in changing the business

model from a financial perspective to a sustainable management model

(Veríssimo & Lacerda, 2015). The introduction of social and environ-

mentally responsible objectives by a manager facilitates the long-term

sustainable development of a business by balancing stakeholders’

demands and the company’s long-term survival, and consequently has

a positive effect on customers and society (Fuente, García-S

anchez, &

Lozano, 2017).

Since its conceptualization, more than three decades ago, corpo-

rate social responsibility (CSR) has been a primary topic of research in

the field of management(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). However, research-

ers have argued that a distinct imbalance exists in terms of research

development. Although corporate behavior has been extensively ana-

lyzed, studies of individual approaches to this issue are scarce (Alonso-

Almeida, Perramon,& Bagur, 2015).

In the context of business management in CSR, previous research

has focused on two main issues. First, studies have analyzed the role

of boards and the characteristics of these boards, such as their com-

position, the number and type of directors, and the influence of

boards on CSR development (see Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Jamali,

Safieddine, & Daouk, 2007). Another area of research has examined

perceptions of CSR based on the personal characteristics of manag-

ers, such as gender (Arlow, 1991; Bloodgood, Turnley, & Mudrack,

2008; Brijlal, 2011; Burton & Hegarty, 1999; Elias, 2004; Huang,

2013; Kahreh, Babania, Tive, & Mirmehdi, 2014; Kraft & Singhapakdi,

1995; Luthar & Karri, 2005; Malone, 2006; Mintz, 1996; Ng & Burke,

2010; Prasad, Marlow, & Hattwick, 1998), age (Bloodgood et al.,

2008; Burton & Hegarty, 1999; Elias, 2004; Lämsä, Vehkapera,

Puttonen, & Pesonen, 2008; Luthar & Karri, 2005; Malone, 2006;

Mintz, 1996; Ng & Burke, 2010; Prasad et al., 1998), and race and

nationality (Arlow, 1991; Brijlal, 2011; Kraft & Singhapakdi, 1995;

Wong, Long, & Elankumaran, 2010). Other personal background fac-

tors that have been analyzed include college major (Arlow, 1991;

Brijlal, 2011; Kraft & Singhapakdi, 1995; Luthar & Karri, 2005), educa-

tional level (Alonso-Almeida, Casani, & Rodriguez-Pomeda, 2015;

Huang, 2013; Lämsä et al., 2008), professional experience (Alonso-

Almeida, Perramon et al., 2015; Bloodgood et al., 2008; Elias, 2004;

Lämsä et al., 2008; Luthar & Karri, 2005; Malone, 2006; Mintz, 1996;

Ng & Burke, 2010; Prasad et al., 1998), and community involvement

(Casani Fern

andez et al., 2015).

BusinessEthics: A Eur Rev. 2017;26:147–161 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer V

C2017 JohnWiley & Sons Ltd

|

147

Received:1 December 2015

|

Revised: 28 October2016

|

Accepted:31 October 2016

DOI 10.1111/beer.12139