Exploring the paradox of gender preferred leadership in Kenya: a GLOBE study on gender egalitarianism and women in leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore gender gaps, values and practices in a Sub-Saharan African (SSA) country, specifically to identify gender inequality in Kenyan leadership and propose suggestions for advancing gender equity. Design/methodology/approach This Kenya study replicated the research design of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness Project for gathering country data. It sampled middle and upper management in the commercial sector (finance and agriculture) and added the civic sectors of health care and education, using quantitative research (267 managers in over 100 organizations) and qualitative research design (30 interviewees from 23 organizations). Findings Gender had no apparent effect on leadership attributes nor on preferred modes of leadership. Statistical and thematic analysis revealed conflicting values and behaviours regarding gender equality and leadership. A high cultural dimension score on practices reflects a traditional leadership approach for male dominance, referred to as the Bwana Kubwa model. However, a high value score for gender equality reflects a more contemporary perspective, identified as the Inspirational Idealist. The gender gap presents a cultural paradox and a leadership constraint. Research limitations/implications The Inspirational Idealist model advances African leadership theory as it identifies a preferred value-based paradigm of effective performance-based leadership. This is contrary to the prevalent patriarchal practices of the Bwana Kubwa (Big Boss) model, which reflects biased gendered preference. Practical implications Male and female leaders need to challenge the status quo and align leadership practices with the articulated cultural values expressed as an Inspirational Idealist model. It has considerable relevance to advancing African leadership theory and informing culturally relevant policies and contextualized practices focused on gender equity in leadership. Originality/value This research on practices and values pertaining to gender equality of Kenyan managers is the first in-depth managerial leadership study of any SSA country. It is unique in that it broadened the scope of study to include professional sectors, gender, age and ethnicity variables.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".