Discussion 1,2,3 and Assignment 1

DiversityORGL8790Chapter1-4.docx

Home >Education homework help >Discussion 1,2,3 and Assignment 1

1 Leadership for the 21st Century

Notable Quote: On 21st Century Leadership

“Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (Rost, 1991, p. 102).

“Besides practical needs, there are important reasons to examine the impact of culture on leadership” (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002, p. 3).

Vignette on “How to Become a Great Leader”

… But today’s crises never completely mirror yesterday’s, and it would be better in the first place to build leaders who can prevent crises before they arise. In my view, a great leader is inspiring, uplifting, a uniter of differences, and someone who brings out the best in human aspirations. I named this model “the soul of leadership” and set out to see if leaders with a soul could be trained. Knowing that business, politics, and the military are not spiritual enterprises, I didn’t formulate the training along “soft” or idealistic lines. Instead, I used a “hard” criterion: what groups actually need. If you aspire to be a great leader, the first requirement is that you look and listen so that you can find out the true needs that a situation demands to be fulfilled. (Chopra, 2013, p. 1)

Leadership today is more important than ever as the 21st century brings about rapid and significant change in society and our institutions and challenges the way in which we do business and function in organizational settings. Our future will be different from what our reality is today. Our skills and how we practice them in the future are likely to be unknown to us today. We need to prepare our citizens to serve as leaders during times of uncertainty and equip them with skills that we may not even know exist if they are to be relevant and effective as leaders. What kind of leaders do we prepare and train our citizens to become? The psychology of leadership should add to our understanding of who become our leaders, what the process of communication and exchange is between leaders and their members, how leaders and members develop shared outcomes, and what the nature of the organizations in which leadership occurs is. Answers to these questions will, in turn, have implications for how we select our leaders, how leaders access leadership roles, and how leaders exercise leadership once in these roles.

Schwartz (2010) talks about how humanity has entered three great transformations. The first occurred when human beings moved from a survival strategy of hunting and gathering to a state of civilization based on agriculture. The second began with the Industrial Revolution of the mid-20th century. We are now on the cusp of the third Great Transformation—the revolutionary advance of science and technology. This has also been coined the Digital Age, a time in which the world about us is changing rapidly because of advances in technology, communication, and mobility. Schwartz summarizes how we are seeing dramatic increases in life, new patterns of human migration, a consortium of nations bound together by their common need for lawful collaboration as well as groups able to unleash terror and disruption to the rest of the world.

Changing Population Demographics: Multicultural Perspectives

While nations were presumably homogenous in the racial and ethnic make-up of their populations during the 20th century, researchers could construct profiles of national character and identity. The United States has been no different in creating the image of an American; although uniquely known as a “land of immigrants,” it led the movement toward diversity. It is ironic that its main symbol of the “American dream” as a “land of equal opportunity” ignores its history of having nearly obliterated its indigenous population, the American Indians, enslaved the Black American population, and promoted a melting pot myth based on the expectation of conformity by new immigrants to a White and Westernized image of being American. During the 19th century, the United States saw the end to slavery but not to segregation based on race and gender. Following WWII in the 20th century, the look inward within the United States promoted racial and gender equality in the workforce. With a growing non-White racial and ethnic minority population, demands for attention to diversity escalated. Predictions were that by the year 2050, shifting population demographics would result in non-White racial/ethnic groups becoming 50% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Hence, an attention to diversity was considered good business, quality services, and ethical practice. Questions of equity and representation, typified by the Civil Rights and Women’s movements of the 1960s, framed the debate.

Now in the 21st century, diversity has given way to globalism. The growth of multinational organizations mirrors the increasing diversity of the U.S. population and communities—challenging our notions of effective management strategies while diverse individuals also seek and gain access to leadership roles. We now see our world, our institutions, our communities, and countries throughout the world facing changing population demographics and becoming increasingly more global and diverse. Many countries globally are now more heterogeneous due to ease of migration, changing economic conditions, and the growth of multinational organizations. Ethnic minority groups in the United States and globally share a common experience of oppression and discrimination; they increasingly demand equality and access to society’s resources. Women dare to challenge the masculinized social norm in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Although many societies have evolved to promote greater gender equality, gender access to “simple” things, such as an education or what a woman wears, still gives rise to violence against women.

Malala Yousafzai, a 15-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl, was shot in the head and neck in an assassination attempt by a Taliban gunman while on a school bus in October 2012 because she was campaigning for girls’ education (Ellis, 2013). Since the age of 11, using a pseudonym, she had been writing a blog for the BBC. She has been hailed as an inspiration for her bravery, and will receive the Tipperary International Peace Award. Other women have been gang raped, burned with acid, or beaten for daring to drive in the 21st century. The world now responds with indignation, unlike earlier centuries where women were burned at the stake like Joan of Arc for heresy at the age of 19 and the “witches” of Salem where no one dared to protest. In these contexts, cultural norms and beliefs are so strong about gender role expectations they have led to discrimination and violence.

Countries face intergroup conflicts because of the historical dominance of one or more groups. Civil wars, intergroup tension, and violence arise because of religious, ethnic, or racial differences. Power and privilege are associated with those from dominant groups while prevailing culture norms

Changing Demographics and Ethnic Distributions

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2050, the U.S. population will reach more than 600 million, about 47% larger than in the year 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The primary ethnic minority groups—namely, Latinas and Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders—will constitute over 50% of the population. About 57% of the population younger than age 18 and 34% older than age 65 will be ethnic minorities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The demographic profile based on the 2010 census indicates that during the past decade (2000), the growth rate of Latinos was eight times faster than that of Whites. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders also had a rapid growth rate in part because of immigration from Southeast Asia and China. For Latinos, increased immigration and high birth rates explain the population increase. Projections for the year 2020 suggest that Latinos will be the largest ethnic group, second only to White Americans, and followed by African Americans.

Currently, Latinos and Latinas number 51 million persons, about 16% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013), and comprise a diversity of races and countries of origin (e.g., Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Colombia, Argentina). The largest groups of Latinos and Latinas are Mexican Americans (63%); next are Puerto Ricans (9%), followed by Cubans (4%). Collective countries from Central America (8%) and South Americans (6%) represent higher percentages than Puerto Rico and Cuba though.

The estimates indicate that African Americans number about 35 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Among them are notable group differences in terms of socioeconomic levels, urban or rural areas, and within-group cultural variation. Much of the psychological treatment of African Americans has focused on the relation of social conditions, such as poverty and unemployment, to adverse health and mental health outcomes (Rodríguez, Allen, Frongillo, & Chandra, 1999). However, a growing number of African American scholars have demonstrated the need for more examination of cultural strengths such as communalism (Mattis & Jagers, 2001), spirituality, and an interpersonal orientation (emphasis on group over individual) (Randolph & Banks, 1993).

Asian Americans number 14,674,252 and Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians number 540,013 in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). There are 32 different cultural groups with distinct ethnic or national identities and different religions, histories, languages, and traditions that are included within the category of Asian American. The most numerous Asian groups in the United States are Filipinos, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Asian Indians. As with other immigrants, Asian immigrants have migrated to the United States for political and economic reasons and face the stresses of acculturation, racism, and language barriers.

On the basis of the 2010 census, the U.S. Census Bureau (2013) declared that 2,932,248 citizens are American Indians and Alaska Natives—an 18% difference from the 2000 census, when the figure was 2,475,956. The 2010 count represents less than one tenth of 1% of the total U.S. population of 308,745,538. On the basis of the 1960 census, the Census Bureau reported that 552,000 residents of the United States were American Indians (in 1960, the Census Bureau did not include an Alaska Native category, so this figure may be an undercount). Thus, between 1960 and 2010, the American Indian population apparently grew by over 400%. This rapid population increase is staggering and strains credulity, because such rates of increase are almost unheard of in the field of demography. One explanation for the increase may be that many more individuals chose to identify with their American Indian heritage in 2010 than did so in 1960 and 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

Considering the increasing ethnic and cultural diversity occurring in the United States, attention should be given to the growing Muslim population. According to a recent survey, Muslims represent about 2% of the U.S. populations. A 2011 study conducted by the Pew Foundation found that the majority of Muslims are African Americans, Arabs, and Asians and that overall Muslims come from 77 different countries (Pew Research Center, 2011). The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect information on one’s religious affiliation or preferences; hence, the census tallies on the Muslim populations are estimates. Muslims are immigrant populations and thus their cultural backgrounds contribute to the growing diversity in the United States.

Although there is overlap with the Muslim population, there are also growing numbers of immigrants from Arab speaking countries. According to the Arab American Institute (AAI), countries of origin for Arab Americans include 21 different groups with distinct ethnic or national identities, histories, languages, and traditions; these include the following: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria. In 2008, there were 3,500,000 Arab Americans, accounting for 1.14% of the American population. The largest subgroup is by far the Lebanese Americans, with 501,907, nearly a third of the Arab American population, followed by Egyptians and Syrians.

In the 2000 and 2010 census, individuals had the option of marking more than one “race” category and so were able to declare identification with more than one group. For example, whereas less than 3% of the total U.S. population chose to do so, more than 5,220,579 individuals who chose to mark multiple categories marked “American Indian and Alaska Native” along with one or more others. The “race alone or in combination” count is much higher than the “race alone” counts of 2,932,248 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The discrepancy raises the question about which count is more accurate or representative of the “true” Indian population, 2,932,248 or 5,220,579.

Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders listed more “race alone or in combination” (55.9%) than any other race group. American Indians and Alaska Natives followed with 43.8%, Asian were 15.3%, Black or African American were at 74%, and White was at 3.2% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

People with mixed ethnic backgrounds present interesting ethnic identity cases because they have at least two ethnic groups from which to claim and negotiate an ethnic declaration. Based on extensive interviews with people of mixed ethnic background, the clinical psychologist Maria P. Root (1992) identified four basic reasons why a multiethnic person would choose to identify with a particular group regardless of how others may view them. Root maintains that: “(1) One enhances his or her sense of security by understanding a distinct part of his or her ethnic heritage; (2) parental influences stimulated by the encouragement of grandparents promote identity, thereby granting permission to the offspring to make a choice; (3) racism and prejudice associated with certain groups lead to sharing experiences with family, thereby assisting the individual to develop psychological skills and defenses to protect himself or herself (the shared experiences help build self-confidence and create the sense that one can cope with the negative elements often associated with the group); and (4) gender alignment between parents and children may exert influence on ethnic and racial socialization particularly when they have good relationships and are mutually held in esteem” (p. 15). Use of the new multiracial item created contentious debates and

Table 1.1 Management Environment Transitions From the 20th Century to the 21st Century
20th Century	21st Century
1. High percentage of manufacturing industries	1. High percentage of service industries
2. Emphasis on functional expertise	2. Emphasis on management processes
3. Domestic market	3. Foreign markets & cultures
4. Legitimate authority in hierarchical organizational structure	4. Virtual team & network organizational structures
5. Clearly defined operating procedures	5. Fluid & reactive operating procedures
6. Well-defined industry boundaries	6. Ill-defined industry boundaries
7. Fairly constant market	7. Turbulent market
8. Bricks & mortar	8. Virtual offices
9. Communication slow & unreliable	9. Communication instantaneous & continuous
10. Technology growth emerging	10. Technology growth exponential
11. Many employees with similar responsibilities & skills	11. Many employees with unique responsibilities & skills

Source. From Harvey, M.G., & Buckley, M.R. (2002). Assessing the “conventional wisdoms”of management for the 21st century organization. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 368–378.

As both studies show, leadership for the 21st century means an ability to lead in an increasing global and diverse society; amidst rapid scientific and social change, in a sustainable environment given climate change, population growth and migration and natural resources; and within a digital age of rapid information dissemination. Leaders must address increased diversity in their institutions and communities, increasing change, complexity, and interdependence. Leaders will need to be flexible, continuous and lifelong learners, and recognize differences in the values and assumptions held among diverse groups. They will need to be collaborative, share leadership, and learn collective styles of leadership. They will need to be critical thinkers, global leaders, and adaptive in their leadership styles. While this is new in many Western countries, it has been noted to be indigenous in many “developing countries” or non-Western countries.

There is a need for leadership and organizational theories that transcend cultures to understand what works and what does not work in different cultural settings (Triandis, 1993). Furthermore, a focus on cross-cultural issues can help researchers uncover new relationships by forcing investigators to include a much broader range of variables often not considered in contemporary leadership theories, such as the importance of religion, ethnic background, history, and political systems (Dorfman, 1996).

The importance of context in the 21st century leads us to reexamine our concepts of leadership. We need to ask new questions, create new paradigms, and identify new dimensions to expand our thinking about how leadership is perceived, enacted, and appraised. Paradigms need to be inclusive and diverse to consider the perspectives of those not typically in the positions of leadership, or defining the theories of leadership, and of all members who participate, shape, and influence the enactment of leadership within the broader social and organizational contexts in which leadership is embedded. Diversity leadership puts our focus on “who our leaders are” and “what they bring” from their lived experiences and dimensions of identity to the exercise of leadership.

We see global and diverse as related, but not interchangeable, terms. Diverse leadership is defined as different and varied, including the social identities of leaders as well as the types of leadership related to group differences of citizens within countries. Its use in psychology has often been associated with issues of disparate power, privilege, and equity among different groups within a country or culture. Subgroups within a country or culture with less privilege and power, who are often in the minority, share the common experience of oppression and inequity as well as a common affinity as members of a social group different from the mainstream or dominant group. Hence, a diverse perspective involves looking at differences between these social groups.

Global leadership, on the other hand, is defined as worldwide, international, and intercultural; it includes cross-cultural differences between societies and countries. While power, privilege, and equity may apply, its use has been associated with an examination of differences based on economic, political, and cultural forces worldwide and across governmental entities. A global perspective involves looking beyond geographic boundaries of one’s country.

We move from defining leadership to examining the purpose of leadership. Allen et al. (2010) define it to be as follows: (1) Create a supportive environment where people can thrive, grow, and live in peace with one another; (2) promote harmony with nature and thereby provide sustainability for future generations; (3) create communities of reciprocal care and shared responsibility—one where every person matters and each person’s welfare and dignity is respected and supported; the senior author adds: (4) use a difference paradigm to promote inclusiveness.

Summary

Leadership today is more important than ever as the 21st century brings about rapid and significant change in society and our institutions and challenges the way in which we do business and function in organizational settings. Changing population demographics, both locally and globally, suggest that our models of leadership and cadre of leaders need to be less ethnocentric and more diverse if we are to be successful in responding to these rapid changes and leadership needs. And yet, researchers of leadership and their resultant models seldom incorporate diversity into their formulations. Moreover, the ranks of leadership remain narrow; despite the growing numbers of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in the workforce, they remain significantly underrepresented in the ranks of leadership throughout most industry sectors. As we witness global changes in world leadership and a shift to a digital age that is postindustrial, redefining leadership to be global and diverse is essential. This should lead the way to identifying competencies and new paradigms for diversity leadership.

2 Dimensions of Diversity

Notable Quote: On Being Extraordinary!

As one Asian American female leader who is an Army colonel said, “As a minority, you have to do extraordinary things to get to where you are; White men just have to be ordinary.”

On Being Female!

“As Deputy Commissioner and a lawyer, I worked with the mob. You had to be tough. As a woman, if I was soft, I was seen as weak; if I was tough, then I was a bitch. Men get away with it.” (Asian American female leader)

Vignette: On Microaggression and Privilege

I was talking with a “prominent” White male at a cocktail reception. We were joined by a second White male who interrupts us, ignoring me to begin a conversation of his own. Recognizing this slight, the “prominent” White male introduces us. I soon leave this conversation to join another group. The second White male again joins my conversation and is asked by the other parties if he knows me. His response was: “Of course I do, she knows [1st prominent White male].” I gained instant credibility by my association with the first “prominent” White male although I was totally marginalized by his interruption and making me invisible in the first encounter. (Senior author, Asian American female leader)

Chapter 1 examined the changing contexts of today’s leadership and our need to redefine leadership amidst the global and diverse environment of the 21st century. The inclusion of diversity into our understanding of leadership is central to this book using a difference framework. In this chapter, we merge the concepts and the literature in diversity and leadership. Attention to diversity is about valuing differences and inclusion of all groups. Attention to diversity, however, is not simply about representation of diverse leaders in the ranks of leadership. It is not simply about under-representation or affirmative action. Attention to diversity means paradigm shifts in our theories of leadership to be inclusive of all who may lead; it means incorporating how dimensions of diversity shape our understanding of leadership. It means attention to the perception and expectations of diverse leaders by members and to the interactive and reciprocal process between leaders and members who shape access, exercise, and appraisal of leadership.

Ultimately, diversity leadership is about what diverse leaders contribute to the exercise of leadership and about the diversity of contexts and members in which their leadership is embedded. Although leadership theories have evolved and reflect changing social contexts, they remain silent on issues of equity, diversity, and social justice. Diversity leadership is about how differences and inclusion are reflected in the paradigms used to define leadership and evaluate its effectiveness.

Culture and Ethnicity in Leadership

Having a paradigm of diversity leadership enables leaders to develop culturally competent models for 21st century leadership that are characterized by new social contexts, rapid technological change, emerging global concerns, and changing population demographics. Many studies have pointed to the centrality of culture in affecting leader and follower behavior (Gertsner & Day, 1994; Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Triandis, 1995; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998); most of these studies examine cross-cultural differences and variation across national origin and cultures. There is often a presumption of cultural homogeneity within countries and among its leaders and members. Many leadership and cross-cultural studies are designed to eliminate heterogeneity.

The study of cultural values (Hofstede, 2001) and cultural variation in worldviews (Sowell, 1994; Sue, 1978) can provide insight into the challenges leaders face in new and changing contexts of contemporary times. This is what remains stable across contexts and carries over into leadership contexts. Worldviews are the overall perspectives from which one sees and interprets the world. They include a collection of beliefs or value orientations about life and the universe and give meaning to life’s purposes. Cultures have been found to vary in the patterns of relationships that are valued, encouraged, and appropriated to construct daily social interactions (Triandis, 1995). Five dimensions of worldviews, as described below, have been identified to define much of human activity, and in turn, what leaders do:

· Human Nature—Are people basically evil or are they basically good? Are they born with a Tabula Rasa or a mixture of good and evil? This influences how leaders view what they must do to lead. Do they need to prohibit or prevent the dark side from emerging or do they simply need to guide it?

· Relationship of People to the Environment—Are people subject to the forces of nature? Are life’s goals to be in harmony with nature or to overcome the forces of nature? This influences social rules and organization structures that define such things as land ownership, property rights. What does progress mean? Do leaders approach change with a “conquer and destroy” mentality, or do they work on being in harmony with nature?

· Nature of Human Activity—Is human activity defined by one’s Being or Doing? This will influence how leaders motivate their members? Do leaders base their solutions on who people are or what people must do? Or is human activity focused on where people are headed, such as Being-in-Becoming?

· Nature of Interpersonal Relationships—Are our social and leadership relationships lineal (hierarchical) or collateral (egalitarian) based? Are they individual or collective based? This will influence whether leaders emphasize the individual or group in defining incentives and whether they come from a position of authority or peer in their communications.

· Time Sense—Do people run their lives based on the past, present, or future? Do they respect history, live for the moment, or worry about the future? Is their sense of time fluid or fixed? This can influence how leaders schedule meetings, whether they emphasize being on time for meetings, and how planning occurs.

Different cultures and societies show different profiles in their worldviews with distinct profiles between Western and Eastern societies typically emerging; however, diversity remains among subgroups and individuals. In particular, the dimension of Individualism versus Collectivism has often aligned with Democratic versus Communist political regimes and with Western versus Eastern countries, respectively. Becoming versus Doing has also distinguished Eastern versus Western views of human activity; the notion of being includes that of “staying with” or being attuned to oneself. An emphasis on Being as a worldview is reflected as: “It’s enough to just ‘ be.’” It’s not necessary to accomplish great things in life to feel your life has been worthwhile. An emphasis on Becoming as a worldview is reflected as follows: “The main purpose for being placed on this earth is for one’s own inner development.” An emphasis on Doing as a worldview

Table 2.1 Reframing Current Theories of Leadership
Theory	Dilemma	Reframing for Diversity Leadership
Trait	Focuses on who leaders are. Has failed to identify a universal set of traits that distinguishes leaders. Ethnocentric; not inclusive; traits are based on those already in positions of leadership and may be biased against those groups who have had poor access to leadership roles.	Shift to leader identity intersecting with dimensions of social identities
Situational	Focuses on where leaders do it. Application of directive and supportive dimensions across different contexts/situations. Fiedler’s leader-match contingency theory uses the Least Preferred Coworker Measure, is potentially harmful in not attending to unconscious biases associated with dimensions of diversity, for example, race.	Adaptability of leaders across diverse contexts; bicultural and cognitive flexibility as a function of acculturation
Leadership Style	Focuses on what leaders do. Transformational leadership has become favored in the 21st century; however, varying definitions that include charisma as a trait favor more Western and masculinized notions of leadership.	Expand these notions of what leaders do to include non-Western perspectives
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)	Focus on the interaction between leaders and members. Leadership is cocreated in groups. Runs counter to principles of fairness and justice because it emphasizes building exchanges with in-group members as those who would most contribute to the organization’s goal. Principles would exclude and disadvantage minority and historically oppressed members as out-groups; privileges the in-group and viewed as unfair and discriminatory by out-groups.	Build a DLMOX framework that includes diverse leaders and members interacting within the context of their organizations and lived experiences

A paradigm for Diversity Leadership should be set in a context of 21st century postindustrial society. It should refer to culture as a central focus and include subgroup variation with attention to how dimensions of diversity influence access, exercise, and the appraisal of leadership. These dimensions include the social identities of leaders and members and lived experiences associated with dominant-minority status and privileged-marginal status within society. While modifying existing theories and drawing on alternative dimensions, diversity leadership is a framework that incorporates difference and contexts along with culture.

Identifying the Gap in Diversity and Leadership

A special issue in the American Psychologist (Chin, 2010) on diversity and leadership attempts to address this gap and to identify how race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation influence access to positions of leadership and the exercise of leadership. Some of the big questions posed were as follows: What are the access barriers to leadership roles for diverse racial/ethnic individuals? How is the exercise of leadership among diverse leaders different from existing paradigms? The issue illuminated new dimensions and the potential for new paradigms for understanding leadership. Several issues emerged.

· Affirmative paradigm—Fassinger, Shullman, and Stevenson (2010) discussed the significance of identity associated with LGBT individuals and how the use of an affirmative paradigm enhances their exercise of leadership. This is an experience shared by other marginalized groups who face a persistent challenge of having to prove one’s competence.

· Intersection of dimensions of diversity—(Ayman & Korabik, 2010) discussed intrapsychic and interpsychic dimensions and worldviews as important factors related to gender and ethnicity in influencing the exercise of leadership. Increasingly, we find that the intersectionality of social identities is important to consider in how they influence leadership behaviors.

· Social and ecological contexts—Eagly and Chin (2010) discussed the social construction of gender and how this results in biased perceptions about how women can and do lead.

· Intergroup communication—Pittinsky (2010) discussed intergroup exchange and the creation of in-groups and out-groups as contextual factors, which influence the exercise of leadership.

Contexts of Leadership

Reframing current leadership theories means an attention to context—to the interaction and process between leader and members. Leaders need to be change agents in promoting affirmative paradigms, recognize how implicit leader assumptions shape leadership behaviors, and how the exercise of leadership is influenced by social identities and contexts, which vary over time and place, and across cultural values.

Research findings consistently point to the inattention to contexts of leadership or a narrow definition of contexts especially when considering diversity leadership. Lived experiences of leaders shaped by societal as well as organizational contexts influence what leaders bring to their leadership and shape the interaction between leader and members. Perceptions and expectations of leaders associated with social identities and leader prototypes held by members will also shape that exchange. These exchanges will differ, depending on whether or not social identities of leaders and members are aligned and the heterogeneity of the organization. See Chapter 7 for a full discussion of this issue.

The Culture of Organizations

Yukl (2010) talks of leaders influencing organizational culture. Leadership becomes a matter of accepting things as they are or changing the organizational culture to be what it ought to be. Expanding our examination of leadership to the social and cultural contexts in which it is embedded is essential and goes beyond an emphasis on organizational culture. Schein (2004) was among the first to define organizational culture

3 Paradigms for Diversity Leadership

Notable Quotes: “Other” Views of Leadership

Lao Tzu, Confucian scholar on leadership: “A leader is most effective when people barely know he exists. When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, his troops will feel they did it themselves.”

Native American Indian male leader about his leadership: “… And so I always believe the doors will open where I am supposed to be, in the path that the creator set for me.”

Native Hawaiian female leader on our direction for leadership: “As we connect with our ancestors to make change for future generations, our past is before us!”

Black woman leader on her being outspoken: “I’m too outspoken, I’m too loud, I’m too Black, and that’s not how we do things here … the fact that I don’t use a formal top down hierarchical kind of style; I’ve actually been told that’s inappropriate.”

Asian woman leader on integrity and leadership: “Know who you are. … Yan mo ko, bang chi gon. It means you are not looking for anybody [to give you anything], then you can act in the way your conscience tells you.”

Vignette: Images of Leaders: Have Times Changed?

While the image of a leader as the tall, White, charismatic leader operating from a command and control position of power is changing, leaders in the United States today still mirror our dominant majority. Maintaining this image, President Franklin D. Roosevelt made sure never to show his physical disability in public pictures. Yet President Barack Obama, while not a descendant of slaves or running his presidential campaign on race, was forced to confront the issue of race early on in his campaign. As our first non-White president, it is difficult to discern if the overt criticism directed toward his credibility as a leader is, in fact, covert criticism of his race. Donald Trump, leading the charge to demand that President Obama produce his birth certificate, demonstrates this incredibility that someone non-White could be a legitimate leader of the United States. The charges levied against President Obama of being in cahoots with terrorists give the message that someone non-White simply cannot be trusted.

We suggest reframing leadership to be inclusive of diversity, to be responsive to broad social contexts and systems, and to be relevant to rapid changes occurring in the 21st century. The inclusion of culture and diversity into our understanding of leadership frames how we think about our leaders, the members of and organizations in which they lead, and the exchange that occurs between leader and members. In attending to cultural variation, we can examine biases and ethnocentric viewpoints and privilege versus marginal statuses, which interact with the power, influence, and effectiveness of leaders. All these points are important because leaders are increasingly expected to manage an increasingly diverse workforce and to be responsive to the needs of a diverse customer base.

Chin (2009) suggested a new look at diversity “in our minds and in our actions”; How do leaders think about diversity among their followers and in themselves? What leadership styles or dimensions of social identities are elicited or displayed in what contexts? How do lived experiences associated with privilege and marginalized status influence access to and the exercise of leadership? How do we challenge existing notions of leadership to move toward a postindustrial, postcolonial, diverse, and global view of society and its institutions? How do we advance our approaches to leadership to be inclusive, multidimensional, and complex to ensure their relevance in a rapidly changing and diverse global society? We offer some principles of diversity to frame our attention to the values, beliefs, and biases that underlie how we perceive and shape the behaviors of leaders and recognize our tendencies toward ethnocentric bias.

New Paradigms of Leadership: DLMOX

Based on these diversity principles, we need to examine leaders, members, and the exchange that occurs between them as well as the contexts in which leadership occurs. This leads us to redefine Leader-Member Exchange theory (LMX), which is inclusive of all groups and attuned to the organizational and social contexts in which leadership occurs. Diversity by its very definition of inclusivity and difference necessitates flexibility and the ability to adapt what leaders do given the unique composition of an organization’s members, differing organizational contexts and their cultures, and the match between leader and member social identities.

These diversity principles also guide the development of leadership research. Too often, leadership theories are static rather than dynamic and interactive as if we might find stand-alone traits associated with good leadership or can identify a finite number of contexts in leadership. To be inclusive of diversity, perception and expectations of members and the exchange that occurs with leaders are as important. The interactive and reciprocal process between leaders and their followers shapes both the exercise and appraisal of effective leadership.

Leadership does not happen in isolation. Contexts of leadership matter. It is an interpersonal and a group process that is cocreated between leader and members. Social identities and lived experiences of leaders and members provide the contexts of leadership along with organization’s mission and goals. This interacts with the culture in which organizations are embedded in both time and place. These principles lead us to a new definition of Diverse Leader-Member-Organization Exchange (DLMOX) as the broad context of leadership to be discussed in Chapter 6.

Diversity Leadership Paradigms

New paradigms of diversity leadership must be parsimonious but also be multidimensional and complex and promote social justice and equity as outcomes.

Cultural Values

Attempts to arrive at universal dimensions of leadership often fail to be inclusive of indigenous values and worldviews designed outside the cultural orientation values of their creators. As suggested by implicit leadership theories, these cultural orientation values shape and are shaped by the views of their creators and need to be factored into diversity leadership paradigms. Kao, Sinha, and Wilpert (1999) discuss the indigenization of organizations in Asia, which began as an outgrowth of the overwhelming dependence on Western approaches to studying and explaining human behavior to a shift that cherishes the unique social and cultural factors influencing human behavior and their application for leadership models. This has resulted in the emergence of characteristic patterns of management and organizations that are both distinct and reflective of cultural values and philosophies.

Table 3.1 Creating New Paradigms
Dimension	Concept	Origin	Proposed
Diversity leadership	Focus on the inclusion of all groups in leadership, and the infusion of diversity principles into leadership and organizations	Cultural competence	Chin (2010)
Theory Z	Alternative to theory X and Y, theory Z focused on increasing employee loyalty to company	Japanese management	Ouchi (1981)
Servant leadership	Leader serves the people he/she leads as an end rather than the means	Civil Rights movement	Greenleaf (1977)
Daoist leadership	Dao is “actionless.” Like water, a Daoist leadership style is altruistic, modest, adaptable and flexible, clear and transparent, soft but strong—an Asian version of the Big Five personality traits common in Western theories.	Eastern perspective	Lee (2004)
Feminist leadership	Bias toward women and inequity in social status and roles making the role to leadership a “labyrinth.”	Feminist perspective	Eagly & Carli (2007) Chin, Lott, Rice, & Sanchez-Hucles (2007)
Invisible leadership	"Leading from behind” reflects the belief that good leadership means stepping back and allowing the strengths of others to emerge	Native American perspectives	Chin (2013)
Reluctant leader	Refers to the reluctance of leaders to step forward without the endorsement and encouragement of their peers and elders; it is syntonic with cultural values of modesty and community support	Ethnic minority perspectives	Chin (2013)
Relationships:	Central role of reciprocity in systems of social exchange within Asian cultures	Asian cultural values	Cheung et al. (2001)
Ren-Qing	Ren-qing involves the moral obligation to maintain a relationship important to the leader-member exchange.
QuanXi	QuanXi describes the basic dynamic in a personalized network of influence.
Performance-maintenance	Performance function includes strict observance of regulations and pressure for production as well as concern for planning and processing of work. Maintenance function is directed at group maintenance and preservation. The performance leadership function involves forming and reaching group goals, while the "maintenance" function involves preserving group social stability or relationships.	Related to task versus relationship orientation based on differences between Western and Eastern perspectives	Misumi & Peterson (1985)
Hierarchy: benevolent paternalism	Leaders exercise their leadership authoritatively but with beneficence. Noted in collectivistic cultures with high power distance.	Asian, African, and Russian cultures	Ayman & Chemers (1983)
Prophetic-caliphal leaders	The caliphal model depends on coercion and the application of authoritarian inducements. The prophetic model depends on love and free submission with a minimum use of coercion. The prophetic-caliphal model is based on two assumptions: behavioral continuity of traditional forms of behavior in Arab society that are cultural rather than hereditary, and can be modified.	Arab cultures Khadra (1990)
Implicit leadership	Social cognition similar to implicit leadership theories where leader effectiveness and influence is largely dependent on presenting an image consistent with followers’ expectations of a leader.	Cross-cultural and cultural values GLOBE studies	Dorfman (1996) Yukl (2010) House et al. (2004)
Humanistic-altruistic leadership	Has been exemplified more by religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, or Mother Teresa	Eastern perspectives
Collectivistic versus individualistic leadership	Characterized by consensus and collaboration, collectivism has been associated with collaborative leadership styles.	Dimensions of worldviews Hofstede (2001)
Egalitarianism versus hierarchical orientation	Emphasis on equality between leaders and members compared to a hierarchical orientation aligned with power distance between leader and member	Dimension of worldviews
Work-family interface	A new paradigm that operates in a gender friendly culture responsive to the family demands of women	Feminist perspective	Erkut (2001) Cheung & Halpern (2010)
Interpersonal versus task orientation	Typically dichotomized as masculine and feminine and associated with a doing versus feeling orientation	Leadership style
Cooperative versus competitive leadership	Leadership is often viewed as a competitive process based on Greco traditions compared to the Chinese traditions of leadership based on harmony and cooperation.	Greek versus Confucian philosophy Li (2013)
Shared power and empowerment	Leadership is responsive to members and associated with social justice and equity goals that shift the base of power to members	Civil Rights movement
Affirmative paradigms	Aversive racism Stereotyped threat	Racism Dovidio & Gaertner (2004); Steele (1995)
Ethical leadership	Morality and integrity of the leader together with pursuing social justice goals	Moral judgment Kilburg (2012)
Authentic leadership	Maintaining authenticity of leader identity	Leader identity
Global leadership	21st century post-industrial emphasis on innovation, technology, and rapid change	Globalism
Global teams	Emphasis on designing and maintaining effective teams that are diverse	Globalism
Asian versus Western	Asian emphasis on a holistic view, harmony and balance, valuing cooperation, collectivism, hierarchy of roles, and altruism	Eastern versus Western perspectives
	Western emphasis on a detailed view, valuing competition, individualism, egalitarianism, and assertiveness

Theory Z: From Ethnocentric to Global

Theory X maintained a cynical mistrust of the worker, while Theory Y maintained an idealistic trust of the worker proposed by McGregor (1985); these American-based theories suggested that a participative style of leadership is more effective than an authoritarian style. It was popular in the 1970s until the outsourcing of business internationally found that it did not apply to Japanese management or corporations outside the United States. This discrepancy appeared related to the greater degree of power distance (i.e., emphasis on hierarchy between manager and worker) inherent between Japanese managers and their workforce (Hofstede, 1980, cited in Pedersen, 1999). In the United States and Denmark, low power distance countries, there was a preference for a participative leadership style while high power distance countries, for example, France, Spain, and Mexico, expect and respond better to authoritative leadership style (Rodrigues, 2001, cited in Pedersen, 1999).

Ouchi (1981) proposed Theory Z, the so-called “Japanese Management” style popularized during the Asian economic boom of the 1980s, in reaction to McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. In contrast to Theory X, which stated that workers inherently dislike and avoid work and must be driven to it, and Theory Y, which stated that work is natural and can be a source of satisfaction when aimed at higher order human psychological needs, Theory Z focused on increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life with a strong focus on the well-being of the employee, both on and off the job; it was proposed that this management style tends to promote stable employment, high productivity, and high employee morale and satisfaction. Theory Z, as proposed by Ouchi, combines the best parts of both Japanese and American firms by focusing on sharing, collaboration, trust, teamwork, and inclusive decision making, which is in line with Daoistic principles of leadership.

Servant Leadership: From Privilege to Inclusive

Servant leadership is one of the more popular leadership models today. Developed by Robert K. Greenleaf (1977), the servant leader serves the people he or she leads; this implies that they (the people’s needs) are an end in themselves rather than a means to an organizational purpose or bottom line. Servant-oriented leadership was made popular with the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights era by giving priority attention to the needs of their colleagues and those they serve as humble stewards of their organization’s resources (human, financial, and physical). Servant leadership has been described as one of the ways in which President Obama is representative of the modern ethnic minority leader. His work as a community organizer embraced this leadership style early in his career; he used the community and a sense of purpose beyond himself to organize one of the most inclusive and expansive presidential campaigns in the history of the United States of America. His repeated message was about the people and his trying to reach goals for the collective good.

Servant leadership models derived from racial and ethnic minority group leaders who often held marginal status in society and organizations dominated by leaders with privilege. Getting a place at the table was a challenge, and issues of equity a goal. Dictatorial use of power in governments throughout the world especially following WWII made power bad. The 1960s Civil Rights movement followed by the Women’s Movement, Peace Movement, and Gay Pride Movement led to a push for the sharing of power and empowerment and inclusion of communities as the goal of leadership.

Daoist Leadership: Promoting Different Worldviews and Cultural Values

The Daoist model of wu-wei, often translated as “nonaction” or “actionlessness” approach, can be perceived to some extent as based on Theory Z. The leader observes and encourages a participative form leaving the essentials of the task to those who are in charge supporting the autonomy of the task results (E. Li, personal communication, July 2013). Daoist leadership model, introduced by Y.-T. Lee (2004), is based on Daoism philosophy as a way to understand human existence and the meaning of the universe in relation to human existence. Using water as a metaphor for leadership, a Daoist leadership style is deemed distinctive but useful. Like water, Lee posits that a Daoist leadership style is altruistic, modest, adaptable and flexible, clear and transparent, soft but strong—an Asian version of the “Big Five.” Using Asian metaphors, Lee describes leadership as like water—flexible, molds itself to the shape of its container, adaptable, humble because it is always on bottom, and powerful because it can mold mountains as it flows.

The emphasis on Daoist principles speaks most directly to a leader’s use of power and position and calls for leaders (1) to follow natural laws and the way things are and (2) to be very humanistic or humanitarian by following human laws. These emphases on humans being in harmony with nature and in harmony with each other, respectively, are the backbone of Daoism. There is an emphasis on hierarchy or a clear order of human beings (ren or human beings), earth (di or land), heaven (tian or sky), and nature (zi ran ) (Fei, 1984). It is a clear reaction to the command and control theories of an earlier era.

4 Leader Identity

Notable Quotes: On Racial/Ethnic Identity

“I’m Cablasian!” said Tiger Woods, who attained rapid fame for his exceptional golf skills especially as one of the first non-Whites to play in a White man’s game. As Caucasian-Black-Asian, he declined to allow himself to be categorized into predetermined racial categories.

On Gender Perceptions

“I think that was a pretty good job for a girl!” told to a high-powered Asian woman leader by her male superior.

On Ethnic Minority Leaders

“We’re viewed differently and I think minorities are still not as comfortable in the nonminority environments. On the one hand, I can wave my credentials, but on the other hand, there are settings in which the credentials don’t mask the fact that I’m different. … I experience the imposter syndrome.” (Asian American male leader)

“I’m a very spiritual person and sometimes I think that creates problems for my colleagues who tend to be very scientifically oriented.” (Native American Indian male leader)

Vignette: Passing for White

“One Drop”: My Father’s Hidden Life—A Story of Race and Family Secrets (Broyard, 2007) is the story of literary critic Anatole Broyard, a light-skinned Creole, who chose to pass as White to enable his family to benefit from White privilege. He kept this choice secret from his children until his death. His daughter, Bliss Broyard, found close relatives that her father had hidden from her because they were visibly African American. In the memoir, “[s]he uncovers the 250-year history of her family in America and chronicles her own evolution from a privileged WASP to a woman of mixed-race ancestry” (back cover). The Broyard family’s story is extreme but not unprecedented in which individuals live in multiple dimensions simulaneously. Intergroup relations and intragroup relations are therefore very complex across all dimensions of diversity.

Shift From Leader Traits to Leader Identity

Presumably, this leads to selection of those most suited for leadership roles. At a time when leaders were typically White, Anglo males (Euro-American), this approach appeared to reflect the goal of selecting the “best candidates.” When attention was directed to dimensions of diversity, including gender, race, and class, it results in outcomes that, in effect, exclude women and ethnic minorities. As attention to women and leadership emerged, identifying leader traits shifted to identifying differences between men and women leaders and a tendency to dichotomize traits that mirror differences between feminine and masculine styles.

How do race, ethnicity, and other dimensions of diversity in a leader influence the exercise of leadership? Trait theories of leadership largely focused on leadership traits that were presumably “universal,” failing to note cultural variation and/or gender variation in these traits. While social contexts, social constructed roles, and cultural values are known to influence the display of gender-related traits, decades of research on trait theories could not come up with a common consensus of traits associated with good and effective leadership.

A shift from leader traits to leader identity is important to the examination of diversity leadership. It moves away from traits that may be culturally specific and/or reflective of the dominant group already in positions of leadership. Leader identity, moreover, is self-defined and can be varied and complex. It is about “who leaders are.” It includes a developmental process of developing leader identity that shapes leader behavior and the perceptions and expectations of followers about their leadership. It is important to note how increased awareness enables both leader and followers to understand biases, often unconscious, and to promote behaviors that improve organizational outcomes and leader effectiveness exclusive of these biases.

The focus on leader identity as a dimension includes not only the incorporation of traits and characteristics of the leader but also an examination of who the leader is. What do leaders bring? What is the essence of the self of leaders? This includes dimensions of identity, which are multiple and intersecting and reflect a leader’s authenticity. It applies the principles of diversity discussed in Chapter 3.

There is a growing body of literature on leader authenticity and on social identities that shapes our understanding of leadership that has relevance for the examination of diversity leadership. The emphasis of authenticity is on integrity and notions of self-construals that distinguish good versus bad leaders, manipulative versus truthful leaders. However, these social identities may be more fluid across contexts among those coming from social categories whose social identities are marginalized or viewed as out-groups. Those viewed and identifying as foreigners, women, racial/ethnic minorities, LGBT, and so forth are challenged by perceptions and expectations to behave in one voice across all contexts.

Self: Who Leaders Are

How does identity development and lived experiences shape leader identity? What do leaders bring to their leadership? Is it part of one’s character or a trait? Is there a difference in the identities among diverse leaders? It is not uncommon to label men leaders as “simply leaders” versus those are “women leaders,” “Black leaders,” “gay leaders,” and so forth. Does difference make a difference? Does this bring advantages or disadvantages?

These questions boil down to our definitions of “self.” How are our definitions about “who we are” influenced by worldviews and cultural values? How does this play out in the identities of “who leaders are”?

Independent Versus Interdependent Self-Construals

Markus and Kitayama (1991) identified dimensions of self-identity reflecting the extent to which a person is engaged or disengaged from an interpersonal relationship that has shown to reflect differences between Western and Eastern leadership styles of communication. While one’s view of self is often defined as universal, Markus and Kitayama (1991) have questioned such a unitary self-construal. From a worldview perspective, they have defined independent versus interdependent self-construals where one’s definition of oneself is internal and independent of others versus a definition where one’s definition of oneself can only be vis-à-vis one’s relationships with others; for example, I am my mother’s daughter. While one’s schema of the body is anchored in time and space (philosophy), the exact content and structure of inner self may differ considerably with culture;

Independent Versus Interdependent Self-Construals

In Western cultures, there is faith in the inherent separateness of distinct persons; this is egocentric in nature where others are important as standards of reflected appraisal, or sources that can verify and affirm the inner core of the self. There is no intersection between self and other although boundaries may be closer or further. This contrasts with Eastern or non-Western cultures; there is faith in the foundational connectedness of human beings to each other; individual behavior is organized by how one perceives to be the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others in the relationship. The goal of interpersonal relationships is to fit in with relevant others, to fulfill and create obligations; while internal attributes exist, they are viewed as situation specific and self is not a bounded whole because it changes with the nature of the social context. This difference has been defined as independent versus interdependent self-construal. The Chinese synthesize this self-construal into an integrated or harmonious whole with an emphasis on Confucian interrelatedness and kindness (jen—Hsu as a Chinese virtue) as a cornerstone of interpersonal relationships. Hispanics have a similar concept of simpatico. The Thai emphasize the need to avoid disturbing others, self-effacement, and humility while Japanese have the concept of wa, which is not to disturb the harmonious ebb and flow of interpersonal relations. Tatara (personal communication, July, 2008) describes the Japanese self and identity as characterized in its language with multiple forms of I to denote the different relationships between speaker and listener. This differs from the English language where there is only a single form of I. As a result, interdependent self-construal includes amorphous as opposed to solid boundaries and diffuse as opposed to integrated sense of self.

Self-definition or self-construal in the relationship (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) influences the personal versus social self. In collectivist cultures, the relational and collective level of self-representation tends to be more salient than in individualistic cultures. The shift from personal to relational level is accompanied by increased concern with relational considerations such as fostering interpersonal harmony (e.g., Asian). It influences use of tactics with the tendency to use fewer hard tactics because it is likely to strain the relationship. It includes a preference for soft over hard targets when trying to influence in-group targets.

This has important implications for leadership that can be characterized as a relationship between the leader and members. Members have a working self-concept that involves their self-construal views, current goals, and possible selves. Leaders can affect motivation by influencing these aspects of identity. For example, independent (individual) self-construal versus interdependent (relational and collective) self-construal will dictate how the leader defines the dyadic relationship and the relative emphasis placed on such aspects as negotiation, communication, and influence.

Racial and Ethnic Identity

Identity has been a significant and influential domain of study in the multicultural literature (Phinney, 2000). One of the early pioneers in the field, Jean Phinney (1990), developed an ethnic identity development model about how non-White individuals develop a sense of their ethnicity. At about the same time, Cross (1991) put forth what he called the Nigrescence model of identity, which describes “a process of becoming Black” for racial identity development among Blacks while Helms (1993) developed a White identity development model about how Blacks and Whites develop their racial identity. While trait theory is prominent in the leadership literature, leader identity has been generally omitted in our theories and measures of leadership. The interaction of leader identity with racial, ethnic, and gender identity has the potential for theories being more inclusive of diversity; hence, we propose a shift from leadership traits to leader identity and its intersection with multiple identities embraced by diverse individuals in their exercise of leadership.

The assessment and measurement of racial and ethnic identity is complicated and filled with many problems owing in part to the fact that human beings have multiple, intertwined identities that influence one another in ways that are not fully understood. Multiple identities come in many forms. No one is solely a member of a distinct racial or ethnic group, just as no one is solely a man or a woman. All persons are members of particular age groups and have particular sexual orientations. They may have disabilities. In addition, they may follow vocations that provide them with unique role identities. The enactment and nature of an individual’s multiple identities can be influenced by an individual’s lifeways and thoughtways, which may be at variance with conventional expectations and proscriptions. A person’s multiple identities, as well as the sociocultural contexts in which these identities are enacted, must be factored into the measurement of an identity construct. However, most of the research on the measurement of identity has been limited to the abstraction of race and ethnicity at a social and psychological level of analysis; other dimensions of one’s identity are given less attention in the behavioral and social science literature (Cheung, 1991; Trimble, 2005).

Patrick Moynihan (1993) argued that identity is “a process located in the core of the individual and yet, also, in the case of his communal culture” (p. 64). It’s a powerful phenomenon that strongly influences personality,

Gender Identity

“Traditionally, men have been seen as better leaders because they have more authority, focus and drive, and because they more readily take tough, but necessary decisions such as downsizing, or firing people. But Alice Eagly shows that this masculine stereotype is outdated.” Today’s transformational leaders are required to have more teacher- or coach-like qualities; to be motivational rather than threatening; inspirational embodiments of the corporate values rather than autocratic enforcers. These qualities match women’s leadership style well. Eagly’s research on women and leadership show that women tend to be collaborative; they take colleagues’ opinions into consideration; they tend to seek what’s best in the broader context rather than competing for the ‘top dog’ position”. … “This is not to say that men do not have these qualities too,” says Professor Eagly. “However, women tend to be more transformational in their leadership style than men. Women now are more likely to be prepared for leadership challenges; they are more educated. Women in the United States account for 57% of bachelor’s degrees, 60% of master’s, and 52% of PhDs. They increasingly are contributing to household finances; 38% of wives in U.S. married couple families are employed; often the woman earns more than the man. From a broader social perspective, women advocate for more supportive societal contributions to make it possible for them to enjoy fulfilling careers—more child care facilities, more parental leave for fathers and mothers, fewer work hours—without having to miss out on opportunities for higher executive roles” (Hayes, 2012).

Eagly, Makhjani, and Klonsky (1992) found that when women leaders directly asserted their authority by acting in a directive, autocratic style, they were particularly likely to be devalued compared to male leaders. Ridgeway (2007) notes that this is status based rather than a consequence of stereotypes. Status beliefs legitimatize leadership for those from advantaged social categories; if you are male, you already have an advantage as a leader because you have status. Eagly defines this as role incongruity between being female and being a leader that produces prejudice and maintains the glass ceiling. Eagly acknowledges bias against female leaders related to the fact that there is greater overlap between attributes possessed by typical men and leaders than between typical women and leaders. Therefore, women are less likely to emerge as leaders in small groups. Positive constraints against women leaders are attributed to gender role incongruities by Eagly and Chin (2010), to differential attributions of status to gender by Ridgeway (2007), to different leadership categorization by Lord and Hall (2007); all result in women not emerging as experienced and wise while this association for men has been activated together over time leading to their categorization as leaders.

Other Dimensions of Diversity

Dimensions such as sexual orientation, religion, and disability all play a role into what constitutes part of one’s identity and who leaders are. However, there is little in the literature about other dimensions of diversity and the exercise of leadership. Several overarching principles are important in framing these dimensions from a diversity leadership perspective. One is the notion of moving away from single prototypes of leadership marked by membership in a privileged or dominant social group. Second is the issue of visible and nonvisible dimensions of identity and diversity. Third is the element of self-disclosure. Last is the degree of stigma or marginalization associated with social group membership associated with these dimensions.

Sexual orientation differs from race, ethnic, and gender identities because it is not always a visible dimension of one’s identity; consequently, it raises the issue of leader self-disclosure as an important dimension. While newer notions of leadership are less tied to proscriptive expectations of how a leader is “supposed” to look, act, or bring about change, Fassinger, Shullman, and Stevenson (2010) propose an affirmative paradigm for LGBT leadership to create more room for different types of leaders with varying styles and perspectives. With the contemporary emphasis on inclusion, collaboration, and diversity in the workplace, they suggest that identity status dimensions of LGBT leadership bring forth the effects of marginalization on leadership enactment. Stigma associated with homosexuality addresses the denigration, disrespect, and disempowering of sexual minority individuals and groups and intersects with leader identity and member perceptions of their leadership. The absence of literature in this area suggests that sexual minority people may bring different sensibilities, values, skills, and experiences to the task of leadership, thereby offering a richer perspective than when it is limited to that of more privileged groups. While self-disclosure of sexual orientation or “coming out” is a major issue for LGBT communities, there is no coverage of this in the leadership literature. Does it change perceptions of leader effectiveness? Fassinger and colleagues propose a model in which sexual orientation (particularly as captured in identity disclosure) interacts with gender orientation (including gender) and with the situation (especially group composition) to affect both the leader and the followers in a complex and dynamic process of leadership enactment. This process occurs within a context of stigma and marginalization that is relatively unique to sexual minorities, involving (a) a concealable stigma (with all the attendant complexities of perceived handling of that concealment); (b) beliefs about control over the stigmatizing characteristic; (c) oppression and discrimination that receive considerable social sanction and public approval; and (d) the fact that the stigmatized characteristic may not be known to the individual possessing it, because of the process of recognizing and accepting discredited status that occurs in the lives of most LGBT people. The model helps advance further investigation such as: Does self-disclosure influence the perception of authenticity in the leader?

Disability has also received scant attention in the leadership literature. Usually associated with weakness, it is often treated as a taboo topic for media coverage or disclosure by leaders. This reflects the underlying tendency, often unconscious, to overgeneralize the specific disability to deficits of intellect and leadership competence. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt is a good example; he went to great lengths to never be seen in public in a wheelchair because of his paralysis from polio. He usually appeared in public standing upright, while being supported on one side by an aide, one of his sons, or propping himself up using a solid lectern.

Religion and leadership has also been scant in the literature. One’s religious affiliation has generally been covert in the U.S. presidencies, presumably because there has been little diversity in the religious affiliations of U.S. presidents; almost all identify as Christian belonging to one of the Protestant denominations. The few exceptions were duly noted, with President John F. Kennedy as the only Catholic president and Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts as a Mormon, and have received considerable media attention. Attention to religion in the literature has generally addressed the broader concept of spirituality and values (Dent, Higgins, & Wharff, 2005). Research on religion and leadership is in its infancy with a focus on defining and discovering essential factors and conditions for promoting a theory of spiritual leadership within the context of the workplace.

Multiple and Intersecting Identities

Research on identity has generally concentrated on single dimensions of identity; we now know that individuals often embrace multiple and intersecting dimensions of identity related to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability (Chin, 2009; Chin & Sanchez-Hucles, 2007; Comas-Diaz & Greene, 1994; Greene, 2010). How these intersect with leader identity is an important consideration. Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) examine the multiple and intersecting dimensions of identity and their effects on leadership; they focus on the access barriers faced by women and minorities associated with stereotyped evaluations of leader performance that influence leader effectiveness.

As studies of ethnic identity from the diversity literature show, racial and ethnic groups often develop and maintain unique identities distinct from the national, mainstream, or organizational identity (Helms, 1993; Phinney, 1990). Moreover, positive ethnic identity is correlated with high self-efficacy. For example, based on Albert Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), Teresa LaFromboise and her colleagues put forth the concept of bicultural self-efficacy that refers to domain-specific estimates of people’s confidence in their ability to negotiate and cope with perceived interactions and incompatibilities in language (e.g., translation), social interaction (e.g., understanding nuances social norms), and value (e.g., weighing the merits of individualistic versus collectivistic ways of viewing the world) domains between their culture of origin and a second culture (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gorton, 1993). Conceptually, bicultural self-efficacy is important because it impacts (a) the choices that a person makes in regard to engaging in both cultures, (b) the effort an individual puts forth in engaging in both cultures, (c) how long an individual persists in engaging in both cultures in the face of obstacles, and (d) how an individual feels about engaging in both cultures. In addition, bicultural self-efficacy is important because it has the potential to reduce one’s susceptibility to stress and depression in pressing situations and strengthens resiliency to adversity. Ultimately, bicultural self-efficacy might serve to buffer the negative impact of acculturative stress on mental health.

However, these social identities may receive attributions of lesser power and status, whereas leader identities often communicate power and influence. Hence, the incongruence between social identities and prototypic leader images of the dominant group may well influence the credibility and influence a leader is likely to have; that is, Black and Asian leaders may automatically be viewed as less credible than White leaders. Moreover, we might question whether diverse leaders with strong, positive ethnic identities are likely to be more effective or hindered because they are less willing to modify their behaviors to be more like the prototypic leader. The intersection between social identities and leader identity is an important avenue for further investigation. Eagly and Carli (2007) suggest that the greater difference there is between these identities and those of the prototypic leader, the more it makes a difference. Must diverse leaders conform to the dominant prototype to attain status and credibility as a leader? How might we argue for a more affirmative paradigm to value the differences brought by multiple social identities? Does the salience of social identities vary over time and context?

Aversive Racism

Aversive racism, termed by Dovidio and Gaertner (2004), reflects unintentional or unconscious discriminatory evaluations of racial/ethnic minority individuals because of underlying anxiety about race and ethnicity. Such social perceptions and expectations also apply to women. These biases and stereotypes associated with gender and race often result in more exacting standards for women and racial/ethnic minority leaders; they also negatively influence their performance as leaders. When members hold these perceptions and act on them in their selection and expectations of leaders, they are likely to result in poorer performance appraisals or create situations of stereotyped threat. Steele (1995) found that diverse individuals might underperform in situations where they are evaluated on a domain in which they are regarded, on the basis of stereotypes, as inferior, which he termed stereotyped threat. Specifically, presenting participants with gender stereotypical portrayals of women prior to a group task caused women (but not men) to be less interested in being the group leader and more interested in being a follower (Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2005). Aversive racism and stereotyped threat both demonstrate the adverse impact of racism as part of lived experiences. Helms (1993) notes its relationship to power, which has been downplayed in recent leadership research.

Social Identities and Leadership

Leadership is inextricably tied to social group membership (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2007). Leadership is informed by the social identities that a leader brings and is informed by social categorizations that highlight individuals’ social identities as group members. These social identities and social categorizations play a role in the processes that shape perceptions and expectations about leaders. They, in turn, shape leader behaviors and leader identities.

Identity and self-concept have begun to assume center stage in behavioral research on leadership (Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999), especially as we find growing diversity in our ranks of leadership. The emphasis on a single leader prototype defining who is a good leader is diminishing.

Leader Prototypes: Based on Narrow Gender and Racial Stereotypes

Lord and Hall (2007, pp. 48–64) describe underlying scripts that guide leader behavior and leader prototypes that guide perceptions of leadership. These scripts enable people to form judgments and to categorize people and groups. Scripts of leader prototypes have developed based on leader qualities such as trust, fairness, influence, and charisma. Often, these qualities are inferred from visible characteristics such as age, race, gender, and so forth, which have constrained and excluded those in these social categories for leadership. As such, these leader prototypes have resulted in stereotypes about whether or not certain social categories are fit as leaders when, in fact, the characteristics (e.g., gender) may have little to do with leadership. Lord and Hall (2007) call for flexibility in these prototypes to allow for a more diverse image of leader prototypes.

While these cognitive scripts or prototypes serve as a shorthand way of identifying categories, their application to social categories has led to stereotypes and bias. These categories are often defined by central features (i.e., visible qualities), not by critical features (i.e., leadership qualities) that produce clear distinctions between in and out group members. For example, images of influence associated with Whiteness may preclude persons of color from being viewed as influential and, therefore, potentially effective as a leader. The role of leadership training is to enable leaders to know and expect such stereotypes. Members are perceivers who actively contribute to the leadership perception process rather than passive responders to leader characteristics. Hence, trait theories are insufficient because they do not factor in member perceptions that shape the development of leader prototypes.

Leadership categorization theory (Lord & Hall, 2007) suggests that leadership is recognized in an individual when the pattern of traits or behaviors associated with a potential leader matches a salient prototype used by perceiver; hence, it is a good fit. Leadership is often inferred from events and outcomes that result in causal attributions to potential leaders. For example, being a tall, White male is recognized and inferred by the perceiver as determining who is seen as a leader. Implicit leadership theories are often based on this category prototype matching. It is so strong that once the perceiver makes the category, category consistent information is often believed to be seen when it is not. For example, if someone fits the prototype, what they do can be erroneously attributed to have occurred. If someone is tall and White, his behaviors may be attributed to have been influential and effective when it is not.

LMX Leadership Theories Favor Dominant In-Groups

Individuals emerge as leaders because they fit with a group identity that develops over time (Hogg, 2001). As group identity becomes stronger, the group prototype plays a stronger role in determining leadership. Social identity analysis of leadership argues that leadership effectiveness depends on the psychological salience of the group to its member. This would tend to favor dominant social identities as in-groups.

In fact, research on LMX leadership theories have distinguished between personalized versus depersonalized groups. “When there is high group solidarity and members identify strongly with the group, a depersonalized style works better because the leader can treat all members as equals, and does not isolate anyone” (Hogg, Martin, & Weeden, 2003, p. 18–33). LMX leadership theories emphasize working with a subgroup of subordinates to achieve organizational goals as indicative of leader effectiveness; members of these in-groups are afforded privileges while others are marginalized and excluded. In favoring the in-group, this approach would be problematic with diversity leadership as a goal; intergroup behavior based on in-group favoritism and ethnocentrism would be dichotomized against out-group denigration and exclusion.

Leadership Identity and Social Power

According to Lord and Hall (2007), leadership, identity, and social power are dynamically intertwined in a process that unfolds as leaders and members interact and establish a status structure. Leadership perceptions and perceived social power occur through a flexible, dynamic, cognitive social process. Unlike LMX theories where prescriptions focus on preferred groups that result in unintended bias toward social out-groups, leadership categorization theory is an implicit social perception process and often operates outside of conscious awareness. The scripts and prototypes that people used to evaluate leadership and power reflect implicit sense making and offer guides to social situations; they are flexible and constructed to meet specific contextual demands. Using this approach, biases against female leaders could be explained in part by the fact that there is much greater overlap between the attributes thought to be possessed by typical men and leaders, than between typical women and leaders (Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989).

The contexts influencing the development of identity as a leader include such issues as ethnic identity and lived experiences related to oppression, cultural differences, and acculturation. In addition to the attribution of power on the basis of one’s leadership position, these social categories and contexts also shape the identities of leaders and the power to which they are accorded.

Salience of Social Identities Among Leaders

The salience of social identities among leaders will vary depending on whether or not they are members of dominant or major social groups. There are often several phenomena at play. The ascendance of those considered to be “one of us” to leadership is often conveyed with pride; this results in a reciprocal obligation for the leader to favor or accede to the needs of all groups. The question arises, as for example, with Barack Obama, the first biracial president of the United States. The salience of his skin color made it more difficult for some to claim “he is one of us” or to heighten expectations because “he is one of us.” Black members often felt that he was not responsive enough to their needs while White members feared that he was giving in too much in favoring Blacks.

By the same token, leaders whose social identities are from more marginalized groups in society often feel their social identities to be a more salient part of their leader identity. This includes being made conscious of these identities by others as well as having these identities influence how they enact their leadership. White male leaders in the United States, as you might expect, do not feel their identities of being male or White have much to do with their leadership.

Cognitive Flexibility

For those from marginalized or minority groups, their differences in social identities have contributed to a sense of cognitive flexibility—that is, being able to see different perspectives, to shift between groups, and translate between groups. This has implications for workgroup teams—a mechanism of leadership in a complex, digital age where technology and knowledge is more complex. Leaders need to assemble good working teams to be effective; this contrasts with the charismatic leadership, who by sheer force of personality, can be persuasive in mobilizing a group to act.

Leaders with bicultural racial/ethnic identities are likely to demonstrate more cognitive flexibility while also likely to be constrained by social role perceptions and expectations associated with these identities. They develop flexibility in thinking in response to a changing world (Rost, 1991); diverse individuals facing adjustment to a bicultural environment and/or racism are more likely to develop more cognitive flexibility in negotiating their world.

Leadership Qualities and Social Categorization

Social categorization is how members and followers perceive leader qualities. Four leadership qualities of influence, trust, fairness, and charisma have been consistently identified as traits associated with good leadership. Image management is how one can infer these traits from the behaviors of leaders. It has been suggested that these can be developed in leaders through coaching. Based on social categorization theories of leadership, in-group members are more likely to be influential. Hence, when women and racial/ethnic minorities feel unheard or have their comments ignored (an outcome identified in the qualitative interviews conducted by the senior author), they have to be part of the in-group to have a voice. In-group members are also more likely to be trusted. Trust works well for team performance. During Barack Obama’s campaign as the first biracial candidate to run for president, Whites feared that they could not trust Obama since he was not part of the in-group. Judgment of a leader’s fairness is also more likely to vary with whether he or she is part of the in-group or out-group. Leader who are part of the in-group are more likely to be judged more fairly. For leaders who are part of the out-group, judgments of their getting less fair treatment is deemed to be OK.

Many years of research on task versus relationship orientations suggest that it is a complex and interactive process rather than a dichotomous one. For example, when the task is clear, then a directive task oriented leadership approach works; when task is dynamic and complex, then a relationship oriented leadership approach works better. Misumi and Peterson (1985), in looking at non-Western forms of leadership, maintain that a leader who is both demanding and personally caring is most effective regardless of the task or population. This contrasts with the U.S. leadership literature, where leadership effectiveness is viewed as dependent on the interaction of leader and follower characteristics and the nature of the task (i.e., Fiedler’s contingency theory). According to Misumi, the personal attachment to the leader and obligation to the leader is what mostly motivate people to do their work. This was empirically supported in a study where 80% of Japanese workers preferred a manager with a father-like character (Hayashi, cited in Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This raises the question of how extant leader prototypes are culturally based.

Leadership as an Outcome of Social Categorization Process

Leadership categorization theory (Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991) focuses on the social cognitive processes that underlie leadership perceptions. The social identity process of a leader is often influenced by the organizational contexts in which leadership is exercised. When people identify strongly with a group (i.e., high salience), leadership effectiveness is significantly influenced by how prototypical of the group the leader is perceived to be by the members. Therefore, if a diverse leader is not prototypical of the group, can he or she lead the group? Or will he or she be viewed as ineffective when members strongly identify with the prototype. When the group is more compact and cohesive, then group prototypically becomes important if a leader is to be effective. In summary, a leader must be what members expect.

Leadership can also be viewed as an outcome of self-categorization. The process takes the form of perceiver readiness and cognitive fit; it is both comparative and normative in that once a category becomes cognitively salient and self-defining for an individual, it leads to outcomes that could include in-group favoritism, prejudice and discrimination, and stereotyping. As the group becomes more salient among the members (as members feel they belong and are cohesive), members will be more likely to relate to the leader based on the prototype rather than as unique individuals; therefore, leader-member relations become depersonalized.

When a leader can be group serving, favor the in-group, show group commitment, and be fair, he or she is viewed as a leader. Hence, for leaders who fit the prototype, their credentials are not in question, whereas for leaders who do not fit the prototype, their credentials need confirmation. This was found in the qualitative interviews among women, racial/ ethnic, and sexual orientation minorities conducted by Chin (2013) where there was consensus in their experience of “always having to prove themselves.”

High in-group prototypic leaders are often viewed as more charismatic. The salience of these prototypes paves the way for constructing a charismatic leadership personality who reflects the members’ image of themselves, facilitates the leader to member alliance; that is, the leader “becomes one of us” and attains status and credibility.

Content of Leadership Categories

Lord identified 27 characteristics that were highly prototypical of leaders. The top 10 include the following: (1) dedicated, (2) goal oriented, (3) informed, (4) charismatic, (5) decisive, (6) responsible, (7) intelligent, (8) determined, (9) organized, and (10) verbally skilled. Others include the following: masculinity, adjustment, extroversion, dominance, flexibility, experience, and social influence. They reflect characteristics that must be inferred from one’s behaviors and actions. As such, they have been associated with images of White males who have been dominant as leaders in today’s existing social and organizational structures.

Social Power and Leadership Power

Identity and social power are dynamically intertwined as group members interact and establish a status structure. The effect of group identities on leadership perception and social power is often a priori, but the direction of relationship can be reversed. While social identities that leaders bring influence how they exercise their leadership, those embraced by members and followers similarly shape perceptions and expectations of leaders and their behaviors. Moreover, they interact with the conferring of leadership power by members.

When one is perceived as a leader, bases of social power are enhanced (Lord & Hall, 2007). Leader perception and perceived social power emerges as a dynamic process that involves target, perceiver, task, and organizational context. It operates like many other implicit social perception processes; for example, spontaneous trait inference, which guides social actions but often operate outside of conscious awareness. For example, Hugo Chávez, former president of Venezuela, was a good example of how he used his social categorization as “a leader of the people” to emerge and maintain his leadership. Coming from a childhood of poverty, Chávez used this to shape his “anti-imperialist” policies and alliance with the people of Venezuela. He was a prominent adversary of the U.S. foreign policy as well as a vocal critic of U.S.-supported capitalism. Following Chavismo, his own political ideology, he focused on implementing socialist reforms in the country as a part of a social project known as the Bolivarian Revolution. His promises of widespread social and economic reforms won the trust and favor of a primarily poor and working class following. Much of his support came from his “strong man” populist image and charismatic appeal. Although he publicly used strong revolutionary rhetoric from the beginning of his presidency, the Chávez government’s initial policies were moderate, capitalist, and center-left. He was not known for holding his tongue. For example, on the discovery of the new world, he said, “Christopher Columbus was the spearhead of the biggest invasion and genocide ever seen in the history of humanity” (Ghosh, 2013). On the issue of poverty, he described the world as: “An infernal machine that produces every minute an impressive amount of poor, 26 million poor in 10 years are 2.6 million per year of new poor, this is the road, well, the road to hell” (Chavez, n.d.).

Status Characteristics and Emergence of Leadership

There are cultural presumptions about competence with higher performance expectations for those advantaged by the characteristics than for those disadvantaged by it (e.g. women, non-White) (Ridgeway, 2007). The status of the social category to which one belongs is often generalized to presumed competence among its members. Status characteristics becomes effectively salient whenever it differentiates among those in the situation (e.g., race and gender), and when it is culturally linked to the group goal, task, or setting (e.g., gender for a gender type task as in associating male and sports).

An effective leader must act flexibly and modify behavior to match task and social requirements; when there is a mismatch, for example, women and minorities, the status characteristics of their social identities result in their not automatically perceived as leaders. The nature of the task also influences status and perception of leadership. In gender-neutral tasks, men displayed