Leadership Styles among Genders of Retail Managers

Themes that affect leadership have long aroused the interest of the academic community, especially regarding the categorization of the diverse forms of exercising this position and the impacts of these differences on the organizational environment. In this perspective, the interfering elements in the formation of the leader's style profile are also relevant, as the workforce is increasingly heterogeneous in terms of race, ethnicity, gender and other culturally diverse groups. However, segmentation of leadership styles is still observed exclusively by gender, which may give rise to spaces for the practice of prejudices and discrimination. In view of this, this work aims to identify the significant differences of styles of leadership between genders in the retail trade. To do so, a quantitative approach was carried out with a sample of 100 managers, male and female, self-reported by the participants, using the MLQ questionnaire from Bass, corroborated widely in several countries and populations. Data were treated using descriptive frequency statistics, as well as the Cronbach Alpha tests for reliability analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis for validity, and the T-Test for independent samples. The results indicate that the female gender has greater presence of the transformational leadership trait and the additional factors (extra effort, efficacy and satisfaction); and the transactional leadership styles and Laissez-Faire did not present significant difference of presence between the genders. Finally, this research demonstrates that there is evidence that scale is appropriate for different organizational cultures.

leadership and gender (Bass,1996;Hanashiro et. al There are significant studies on gender leadership, whereby some authors have inferred that women are provoking a considerable and considerable influence as a workforce in organizations. Consequently, the cadre of female employees in organizations, especially in leadership positions, is growing. However, these women still present low insertion in positions considered strategic in large organizations (Oikawa, Almeida, &Durigon, 2018).
According to the National Household Sample Survey in 2015, 63% of the management and management positions were occupied by men out of a population of 4.7 million professionals (IBGE, 2015). Noting that the highest-ranking positions in the business are mostly occupied by male leaders, as well as the difficulties encountered by women in taking strategic positions in organizations. It was decided to check the following question: what are the differences in leadership styles between the genders, at the management level, in the management of organizations, specifically in the retail trade of accessories, footwear and clothing located in Porto Velho? Thus, this study set out to identify the significant differences of styles of leadership between genders in the retail.
Although studies on the relationship between leadership and gender remain, this article applies to the business context of the retail trade of accessories, footwear and clothing, as well as to include people with cultures different from those contemplated in the most recurrent studies, since the locus chosen is the Amazon region. In this sense, according to Raptopoulos (2017), the perceived link between constructs and leadership styles is sensitive to economic contexts and the occurrence of crises. Thus, these relations can be observed under several parameters of analysis, so that the constructs already evaluated under the international context, for example, can not be summarily admitted to the Brazilian reality. From this perspective it is pointed out that the present research proposes to contribute with the scientific production as it observes population of its own social and cultural context.
For that, a research was conducted with a quantitative approach with a sample of 100 managers, contemplating the feminine and masculine genera. It is emphasized that when the authors use the terms man and woman in this work, they will be reporting, respectively, the masculine and feminine gender. This work is divided into five sections. This section is dedicated to the introduction that contextualizes the theme of the research, then exposing the problem investigated, the purpose and structure of the study. In the second section it contemplates the theoretical foundation of the theme. The third section presents the methodological treatments of the research. Therefore, explain the results and the discussions. Finally, the conclusions are set out.

II.
THEORETICAL REVIEW This compartment identifies the conceptual parameters that define leadership themes, as well as the concepts of transactional, transformational and laissezfaire leadership, as well as the definition of leadership and gender as a social conception and the art of leading people. Burns (1978) points to the process of leadership as the performance of leaders by driving followers along the path of daily action; here they enter variables such as the attempts, the goals that represent the values and the motivations, the needs, pretensions and the perspectives involving leader and led. Such a conceptualization advances in the view of Kouzes and Posner (1997), that links the leadership to the art of instigating others so that they want to fight for shared desires. Likewise, Yukl (2002) defines leadership as a process by which other employees are influenced to understand what needs to be done and how to be done in order to achieve shared goals.
Leadership style reveals how the leader exercises his or her office and responsibilities in organizations, being qualified (or categorized) according to a set of behaviors that represent it (Bass, 1990;Yukl, 2002). Approaches to transformational leadership were initially undertaken by Burns (1978), and later by Bass (1985); the former preceded and motivated the transformational theory, and can be pointed out as a phase; the second, has entered the research on the two theories, indicating that the transactional is divergent from the transformational, but that complement each other. Burns (1978) points out that the basic characteristic of transactional theory is the perceived effort of leaders of the peculiar needs of their followers, with the aim of rewarding them for perfecting the tasks performed by them. That is, founded on the exchange between leader and leader. The achievement of objectives, determined by the leader, brings benefits to the leaders, and may be of political, economic or psychological content, ie, the leader encourages the exchange of a benefit for the good performance of his follower (Burns,1978;Bass, 1985;Kirkbride, 2006;Khanin, 2007;Cunha, 2008). The transactional priority is the link between performance and reward, therefore, the authors affirm that transactional leadership is very common in organizations (Jung & Avolio, 1999), that is, it indicates the essential and sustaining link between the interests individual, group and organizational (Rezende et al., 2014).

Transactional Theory
According to Avolio, (1994, 2004), transactional leadership is immediately linked to reinforcement by contingency, since the leaders are motivated by commitments made by the leaders and the rewards offered, and moreover, they are corrected in their attitudes through feedback threats, or corrective attitudes. For these authors, the forms of behavior management in this situation are: contingent reward, active management by exception and passive management by exception. The first one reveals that leaders have a duty to point out or consult their leaders on the tasks to be performed in exchange for tacit or clear rewards. The second is how leaders monitor their followers in ways that can correct team dysfunctions. Finally, there is passive management by exception, which highlights how leaders passively wait for the failures of the leaders and then correct them via critical feedback or warnings, which is directly related to Laissez-faire leadership.
Survey in Versiani and CavalhoNeto (2017) highlights the characteristics that a transactional leader should have, such as: mastering the exchange articulation, as well as how to negotiate it to achieve the achievement of its objectives; understand the needs of followers; have the capacity to motivate them through exchange; effort to meet the agreed; and resourcefulness when communicating; Also, it is necessary that there be the interest on the part of the leader to make exchange, that is, the link between performance and reward.
It is worth emphasizing that transactional leadership can be ineffective when the leader does not have the reputation or resources to meet the needs of his followers. Consequently, transactional leaders who live up to expectations acquire the image of being people who recognize and reward subordinates. However, those who misrepresent this reward process discredit their reputation and are likely to find it difficult to be perceived as efficient transactional leaders (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Burns (1978) indicates the theory of transformational leadership as one that is likely to create leaders among the surrounding individuals. That is, in developing leaders, standards of morality, maturity, and motivation also rise in the institutional locus. For the author, the transformational leader instigates the leaders to overcome their own limitations, boosting their selfdevelopment, involving them in a context of change. According to Bass (1985), this style of leadership also seeks to raise team awareness by stimulating individual development, further delineating individual and institutional yearnings.

Transformational Theory
In addition to Burns (1978), Bass and Avolio (1990), Khanin (2007) and Versiani and Carvalho Neto (2017) join in affirming that the transformational leader is the one who retains the ability to assist the leader to carry out his tasks with more perfection, through complementary characteristics such as trust, charisma and motivation, achieving an organizational environment more conducive to the development of the professional career. In addition, this leader, when necessary, results in intrinsic and extrinsic changes to the organization through the implementation of a vision of the future that can induce reliability and translate pretensions and safety to followers Day et al., 2014). This change agent is designed to transform the entity for which he or she is responsible and shows firmness to this, since he knows how to deal with reluctance, as well as to take positions, take risks and face reality (Cavazotte, Moreno, & Bernardo, 2013). This leader sees diversion as an opportunity for learning, and they do so because of uncertainty and complexity, presenting themselves as visionaries (Tichy&Devanna, 1986). Bass (1990) and Oliveira et al. (2015) understand that followers transcend their peculiar propensities for the good of the group, organization, or society, targeting long-term growth and development. This style of leadership, the transformational one, is based on four basic elements: inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, charisma or idealized influence and individualized consideration. The first provides challenges and commitment of followers to shared endeavors; the second, encourages the conception of vision, critical study and evaluation of situations, implementation of parameters and formulation of creative results; charisma or idealized influence provide high levels of emulation, producing vision and trust; Finally, individualized consideration is based on the treatment of followers as individuals, through their capacity building, development and orientation, in search of their flowering (Bass, 1990).

Laissez-Faire and the Multifactorial Leadership Questionnaire
The Laissez-Faire (LF) leadership, according to Bass (1990), refers to a form of non-leadership, in view that this type of individual abdicates from his hierarchy by avoiding decisions or position. It is characterized by the absence of goal-setting and task oversight, as it omits its responsibilities and authority. In this case, leaders avoid the exercise of leadership, that is, they abstain from the role of leader.
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), developed by Bass and Avolio (1991) and updated by Avolio and Bass (2004), is a scientifically validated tool used by researchers to measure both efficiency of leadership in the institutional environment (Northouse, 2010). This instrument aims at empirically measuring the existenceof attributes of transactional andtransformational leadership, as well as the influence of onestyle on the other, or even the lack of leadership behaviors, laissez-faire. In addition to these factors, Gonçalves (2008) indicates that the MLQ allows the analysis of other categories (leadership results) such as: Extra Effort, Efficacy and Leader Satisfaction, these categories being detailed in Table 1.
In this perspective, the mentioned instrument contemplates five key variables to measure transactionalleadership:the element regarding idealized influence is segregated in the approaches of attribute and behavior, it also considers intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and, finally, inspirational leadership. In addition, it provides three other aspects for the evaluation of transactional leadership: consider contingent reward, active exception management, and passive exception management. From another perspective, it aggregates the laissez-faire leadership assessment, as well as other points that allow the critical examination of the exercise of leadership, such as extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction (Santos, 2005;Bastos, 2013). In light of the above, Table 1 summarizes the differences between leadership styles.

Inspirational Moti vati on
It expresses its high expectations, employs symbols to focus efforts, as well as determining, in a simple way, the priority objectives. The leader builds the vision of the future, causing his or her leaders to overcome themselves, is motivating and creates a favorable scenario for change.

IntellectualStimulation
It provides rationality, intelligence and careful problem solving. The leader probes the status quo, beliefs traditions, drives new ways and perspectives to get things done and stimulates creativity.

Indivi dual Consideration
It gives attention to the leader in the form of the individuality of its peculiarities, advising and guiding them. That is, it prizes your particular needs, abilities and desires, listens carefully and is a strong communicator.

Transactional ContingencyReward
The leader knows how to negotiate the exchange of rewards for commitment as well as reward for good results. It makes your expectations clear and makes good deals for everyone.

Management by exception (active)
Seeks and investigates dysfunctions, taking the necessary disciplinary attitudes. This leader profile looks closely at any adversity and can monitor problems in advance.

Management by exception (passive)
It only interferes when the established standards are not achieved. The leader does not intervene until the moment the misfortune becomes serious and brought to his attention. It avoidsunnecessarychanges.

Laissez-faire
The manager escapes from his duties and is not present when his team needs him. This manager avoids helping the team and is inert decision making, allowing others to do it, but giving little direction to it.

Extra Effort
It is understood that the leader is able to achieve a superior performance than expected; the leader's expectations are exceeded by his subordinates.

The effectiveness
It is observed when the leaders feel represented by the leader next to the superior hierarchies, or when the team performs well.

Satisfaction
Indicates whether the leader's attitude leads to a productive environment, as well as examines the team's satisfaction with the leader's leadership style Source: Adapted from Bass (1990), Gonçalves (2008) and Bastos (2013).

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)
[

Leadership and Gender
It is necessary, initially, to show that there is a difference between the concepts of sex (male / female) and gender (male / female). For Giddens (2005), on the one hand, the term sex is generally considered as a physical construction and designates the genetic and anatomical-physiological characteristics of humans. On the other, gender is a concept of the Social Sciences, which emerged in the 1970s, related to the social construction of sex. That is, the concept of gender goes beyond the question of the biological sex of the individual.
Borges-Andrade and Pilati (2001) argue that gender can be perceived as the way in which the collectivity concatenates and assigns values and norms and, consequently, constructs the sexual distinctions and hierarchies, delineating what would be feminine and masculine roles, predicting that such concepts are permeated by social relations, discourses, organizations, doctrines and their own distinctive symbols. Scott (1989) defines gender as a constituent component of social interactions based on perceived differences between the sexes.
Regarding the historical context, according to Carrieri et al. (2013), in the early 19th century, the presence of women in the labor market was still restricted to weavers, dependent on male supervision. Although women have gained increasing space in the labor market over the years, gradually moving away from the image associated with domestic work ( For Charness and Gneezy (2012) men and women react differently to situations involving risk and doubt because of the feelings that affect the evaluation of results differently for each gender. Since Bass, Avolio and Atwater (1996) already indicated some divergence between the female and male leadership, since women tend to develop the transformational style to a greater extent than men. Kark (2004) reveals that, while transactional leadership points to male typified activities such as goal setting and reward trading processes, transformational leadership emphasizes the development and empowerment of leaders and the emotional link between them and their leaders. are more in line with the female leadership style. Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and Van Engen (2003) already indicated that women are more conducive to transformational leadership. On the other hand, men, for these authors, tend more to exhibit the punitive element of transactional leadership, as well as the style of laissez-faire.
According to Bass, Avolio, and Atwater (1996), contingent reward leadership is primarily task oriented and is therefore more likely to be observed among male leaders. On the other hand, for these same authors, women tend to be more intellectually stimulating than male leaders. In light of this, the reason for this stimulation is due to female leadership being more willing and confident in their intuition and adopting nontraditional approaches to problem solving, and using less rigid guidelines and standard operating procedures. His style of problem solving has represented a further balance between the analytical and intuitive forms of problem solving that is reflected in the intellectually stimulating leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1993). In addition, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation were expected to increase levels of trust, respect, and esteem, typically associated with charisma.
On average, male leaders are expected to exhibit more management leadership styles by active exception than women, given their orientation to perform tasks. However, it is not clear how women were perceived in terms of active versus passive and or laissez-faire leadership. Although they are generally considered in the literature to be less task-oriented than their male counterparts (Bass, 1990), they are also described as more participatory and collaborative -these being considered a management characteristic by active exception. Concisely, Bass, Avolio and Atwater (1996) did not find in their studies differences between men and women in the dimension of the laissez-faire leadership style. As for the Additional Factors for Analysis (Leadership Outcomes) category, Bass, Avolio, and Atwater (1996) indicated that female leaders would be indicated in the surveys as more effective, satisfying, and exerting more extra effort than male leaders. That is, they were perceived as more effective and their followers were more satisfied with their leadership. It should be noted that studies in Hanashiro (2005), Santos (2005), Bastos (2013) did not find significant differences in any of the hypotheses raised between the male and female genders. In this line, Table 2 mirrors the hypotheses that will be studied by the authors in this work.

III. METHODOLOGY
This research adopted the quantitative method for the approach to the problem and, for purposes, it is descriptive. Regarding the procedure, a survey was carried out which, according to Creswell (2010), denotes a quantitative or numerical description of trends, opinions or attitudes of a population, being studied a sample of this population. Based on the results of the sample, the researcher generalizes or makes affirmations about the population. It was decided to carry out a quantitative research due to the indication of the systematic review in Fonseca, Porto and Borges -Andrade (2015) that pointed out a lag in terms of leadership studies using the quantitative method in Brazil, while internationally it already presents a significant number of since the beginning of the 20th century.
The universe of data collected for this research was obtained from managers of companies in the retail trade of accessories, footwear and clothing located in Porto Velha -Rondônia, and the questionnaire was applied, mostly, to managers working in small companies. In this research, non-probabilistic sampling was used for convenience, in which the elements of the population were chosen for ease of access (Creswell, 2010).
The structured questionnaire applied through surveymonkey.com.br, specialized in online surveys and access link disclosure, was used as a data collection tool.
The multifactor leardership questionnaires (MLQ) questionnaire was applied to measure leadership style and gender, at managerial level, in the management of organizations, specifically in the retail trade of accessories, footwear and clothing. Since its inception, this instrument has been revalidated in several countries and in different contexts. It has 45 assertions, using a 5point Likert scale, graduated as follows: never, rarely, sometimes, often and often. In addition to objective assertions, there were nine more questions about sociodemographic data.
A total of 143 questionnaires were applied, of which 102 returned answered, however, 2 were discarded from the results because they presented clearly corrupted answers, making up 100 component responses of the object of analysis of this research. In addition to the electronic questionnaire, a physical questionnaire was also applied through face-to-face contact with some respondents. It is worth mentioning that in this research, the study of social groups is based on the perception of differentiation between genders -female and male -based on the self-declaration of the respondents. Table 3 shows the organization of the relationship between the collection instruments chosen in this research and the constructs and categories that guide the questions submitted to the investigation of the perception of the selected sample.

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS)
[  Source: Prepared by the authors.
We used techniques described in the literature to validate both the questionnaire and the possible differentiation of the groups (Hair et al., 2005;Costa, 2011). For the author, validation of the questionnaire is an indispensable part of the measurement process, focusing on the data as a way of generating "measures" that clarify the nature and specificities of the phenomenon initially observed, so poorly elaborated measurement can impact on errors in generation of knowledge, making it inconsistent. In this way, the Cronbach's Alpha technique was used to analyze the reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the validation of the instrument through the verification of the adherence of the items to the proposed constructs. To analyze the similarities an d differences between the genders, the T-Test was used for Independent samples. We used the software: IBM SPSS version 24. The sample for the application of the MLQ scale was composed by 100 individuals. Figure 1 shows the flow of interaction between the collection instruments used in this research, the methodological approach choices and the statistical tests considered more adequate by the researchers.   Table 1 shows the sociodemographic data of the respondents. It can be noticed that the total number of male respondents (54%) and female (46%), with a predominance of people aged between 18 and 29 years (39%), followed by the age group between 30 and 39 years old (35%), 40-49 years (19%) and over 50 years (7%). In order to check the reliability of the scale and to verify the correlation between the items of the construct, the most accepted method among the researchers was used, that is, using the Cronbach alpha coefficient with the help of the SPSS software. Reliability can be defined in how much the scale is constant in its results, consisting in analyzing the absence of random  /dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.5.9.7  ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O) errors present in the same. Regarding the Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA), it consists on a procedure of reduction of variables, from the aggregation of a certain set of items. Conceptually, both exploratory and confirmatory factorial analysis consist in procedures with similar aims. There is, however, a central difference: in the first case, no factorial structure has been defined a priori, and the collection of variable sets is left free, while in the second case the factorial structure is predefined, the hypothesis of adherence of the set of items to the factor (s) (Costa, 2011). Table 2 shows the reliability of the constructs. The result for the "transformational leadership" construct presented an alpha of 0.783, considered a regular reliability (Costa, 2011), with factorial loads of items ranging from 0.123-0.631, showing that some items presented low adherence to the factor; The "transactional leadership" construct presented an alpha of 0.646, considered a regular reliability (Costa, 2011), with factorial loads of items ranging from 0.276-0.666, demonstrating that some items presented low adherence to the factor.The laissez-faire leadership construct had an alpha of 0.608, considered a regular reliability (Costa, 2011), with factorial loads of items ranging from 0.368-0.790, indicating that some items had low adherence to the factor. The construct '' additional factors for analysis '' (leadership results) presented an alpha of 0.922, considered an optimal reliability (Costa, 2011), with factorial loads of items ranging from 0.457-0.779, indicating good adherence of items to factor.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
To identify which constructs have significant gender differences, we will analyze the mean values of the perceptions of male and female leaders in relation to their leaders. Graph 1 shows the results obtained.

Graph 1 -Leaders' perceptions of leadership styles
Source: Prepared by the authors.
It can be seen that, at the level of Transformational Leadership, both female and male respondents registered a higher frequency at level 4 "many times". That is to say, they both perceive the behavior of a style of Transformational Leadership in their leadership, however, as presented in Table 3, significantly, this style shows greater behavior in women. Regarding Transactional Leadership, it is understood that the mean of the responses of women and men are also at  /dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.5.9.7  ISSN: 2349-6495(P) | 2456-1908(O) level 4 "many times", however, this study found no significant difference between them. Regarding the Laissez-Faire Leadership, although the perception of women has higher mean values (M = 1.92) than men (M = 1.76), this is practically the same, with no statistically significant differences. Regarding the additional factors for analysis (leadership results), the mean values were higher in the perception of the female respondents (M = 4.45). And although the masculine gender has registered a higher frequency in level 4 "many times", it is explicit in the light of Table 3 that women have greater results in the leadership of their collaborators. To verify the means and significance of the difference between leadership styles, the outputs of the -T Test for independent samples will be observed in Table 3.  Kark (2004). It is noteworthy that the transformational approach proposes the position of leader from his capacity to behave as a transforming agent, from whom one expects the practice of vital skills for the optimal exercise of leadership; as an example, consider the competence to articulate interests preserving the empathic relationship between the stakeholders in the context of conflicts of purposes and needs (Bass, 1990;Avolio et al. 1991;Carvalho Neto et al. 2012). Added to this ability are those abilities related to the commitment and capacity for transformation, incitement to selfmotivation, including in the construction of the environment that fosters empathy and affection that are common in creative modeling in innovative organizations.
Regarding the transactional leadership construct and the laissez-faire leadership, these did not present statistically significant differences between the genders. Thus the transactional leadership outcome did not corroborate that of Bass, Avolio and Atwater (1996) Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and Van Engen, (2003) and Kark (2004). While the result of the laissez-faire leadership corroborated the study by Bass, Avolio and Atwater (1996), Hanashiro (2005) and Bastos (2013).
Finally, the construct Additional Factors for Analysis (leadership results) indicated a higher mean for the female gender (4,450) when compared to the male (4,127), with a bilateral statistical significance of 0.005, agreeing with Bass, Avolio and Atwater (1996) . It was noticed, that the female gender had high index for extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction as leader. This implies that women at managerial level have the ability to lead others to do more than expected and are able to represent their subordinates to the highest levels in the institutional hierarchy. In addition, they are satisfied with the management positions and, "as far as possible", try to create a suitable and pleasant work environment for their teams.
It is worth noting that if female leaders are characterized as more transformative and transformational leadership results in a better performance of followers and organization (Bass & Avolio, 1993), it can be inferred that many organizations may be belittling the full potential of women in his work force (Bass & Avolio, 1994). However, this connection was not examined in the present study and, at the moment, it is only known that male and female leadership styles were perceived differently.
In order to understand which categories have had the greatest expression in leadership styles, the average values of the male and female leaders' mensurations will be analyzed in relation to their leaders. Graph 2 shows the results obtained: Graph 2 shows that there are differences between the perception of male and female respondents, which are more evident in some categories. It is found that women refer more frequently to categories IC -Individual consideration; IS -Intellectual stimulation; MI -Motivational inspiration; PEM -Passive exception management; GEA -Active exception Management; CR -Contingent Reward; SAT -Satisfaction; EF -Efficacy; and EE -Extra effort. Men have higher values in the remaining categories: II -Idealized influence; and LF-Laissez-faire. We can now see the categories that have stood out.
To verify the means and significance of the difference between the categories of leadership styles, the T-Test outputs for independent samples will be observed in Table 4. communicating relevant information to leaders as a way to provide continuous feedback. As for the motivational Inspirational category, leaders act to inspire people around them, providing meaningful references to organizational activities and goals, and challenging the day to day lives of their followers. The spirit of individual enhancement and team feeling are awakened. Enthusiasm and optimism are encouraged in the way the leader acts, which encourages followers to glimpse attractive and achievable future scenarios on their own merits. The Satisfaction category indicated a higher average for the female gender (4,434) compared to the male (3,944), with a statistical significance of 0.000. Likewise, the Extra Effort category indicated a higher average for the female gender (4,389) when compared to the male category (4,001), with a statistical significance of 0.004. Consequently, the satisfaction and extra effort categories were critical for the Additional Factors for Analysis (leadership results) construct to indicate a higher average for the female gender. It should be noted that women with leadership positions stand out because they are charismatic and efficient in resolving conflicts by consensus, as well as encouraging their employees to participate more effectively in decision making (Bass & Avolio, 1993). This style elevates the performance of the leader, in view that the latter, because of his motivation, is more productive and satisfied, which may explain the higher leadership result found in the female gender in this work (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

V. CONCLUSION
The main objective of this research was to identify the significant differences in gender leadership styles in the retail trade through the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) scale of Avolio and Bass (2004). Thus, as the main empirical contribution, we test the hypotheses that were raised in the specialized literature regarding gender leadership styles.
This study corroborated the use of the MLQ scale as an instrument to measure leadership styles. Therefore, it is possible to use it in vocational tests and also as a contracting criterion, according to the characteristics required for the position. In this way, MLQ is an important tool to characterize individuals and groups. The analyzes suggest that the scale used has demonstrated evidence of its validity to measure leadership styles in different cultures and socioeconomic environments.
In sum, it is concluded that (1) the female gender has a greater characteristic of transformational leadership than the male gender; (2) the transactional leadership construct has no difference in leadership between genders; (3) the laissez-faire leadership construct shows no difference in leadership style between the genders; (4) For the Additional Factors for Analys is, the female gender has higher characteristics of this style than the male gender. However, for the Transformational Leadership construct to present a significant difference between genders, specifically showing a higher average for the feminine, the categories Individualized Consideration and Motivational Inspiration were predominant for this difference. Consequently, the satisfaction and extra effort categories were critical for the Additional Factors for Analysis (leadership results) construct to indicate a higher average for the female gender.
From the 45 initial items, it is suggested to exclude 3 items, because they presented low factor loads or, if they were excluded, could increase the reliability. For the "transformational leadership" factor it is suggested to exclude the item " I talk about my most important beliefs and values". For the "transactional leadership" factor it is suggested to exclude the item "I provide assistance to others in return for their efforts." For the "laissez-faire leadership" factor it is suggested to exclude the item "I am late to answer urgent questions". For the factor "Additional factors for analysis" it was not suggested to exclude items because all presented good reliability. The constructs can change their meaning ov er the years, due to the breakdown of paradigms and behavioral changes of societies (Costa, 2011).
Finally, as suggestions for future studies, it is proposed to conduct comparisons of leadership styles between private and public institutions, as well as with a more significant sample. However, this research demonstrates that there is evidence that scale is appropriate for different organizational cultures.