Assignment

MLSX 5380: Mini-Lecture for Week 2—Gender and Leadership

Dr. Witherspoon

Studies of women as leaders began to increase in the latter half of the 20th century, as women entered college, and the workplace, in greater numbers. Most of the early studies focused solely on Anglo women, although some included Hispanic women and “lumped them” into their findings on Anglo women. It was, generally, in the last decade of the 20th century that we begin to see studies about African-American women leaders. Studies of Hispanic/Latina and Native American women leaders have begun to emerge since 2000.

The new numbers. Citing a comprehensive survey of women in senior leadership positions, Deborah Rhode (2017) writes that women hold fewer than 1/5 of such positions across both public and private sectors. The 2018 mid-term elections changed some of the numbers of women in Congress, with 96 women winning races to be in the U. S. House of Representatives and 11 women winning U. S. senatorial elections. Nine women won gubernatorial races. Before fall, 2018, the nation ranked 97th in the world for women’s representation in political office. In academia, women constitute a majority of college graduates but only about 25% of full professors and university presidents. Women are also about half of the law school graduates but only 18 percent of full partners in major law firms. In non-profit organizations, women are ¾ of those in staff positions, but are only 1/5 of the leaders of large organizations. Women are only 4% of Fortune 500 chief executive officers; yet they are now 1/3 of all MBA graduates. Prof. Rhode observes that with current rates of change, it will take a century for women to reach leadership parity in these sites of leadership. (cite the studies here)

The labyrinth vs. the glass ceiling. Dr. Alice Eagly, a professor of psychology, has conducted research on gender and leadership for about two decades. In a 2007 book, Through the Labyrinth,she and Dr. Linda Carli made a case for changing the metaphor on what stops women from moving upward in an organization. (Most of Eagly’s work has been in corporate organizations.) They call the barrier a “labyrinth” instead of a “glass ceiling.” There are several problems with the notion of “glass ceiling,” according to Eagly and Carli. For instance, the term implies that there is a presence of an absolute barrier at a specific high level in organizations and communicates that there is this sole, single barrier, ignoring the complexity and variety of obstacles to women (Eagly and Carli, 2007, p. 7). A labyrinth has many pathways to the desired end or goal. And, it has many barriers, twists and turns, that emerge along the way. Some barriers are visible and apparent…others are hidden. Most surveys of women in the workplace find that there is considerable optimism that women have made great progress in dealing with issues in the workplace that may negatively affect their advancement. In newer industries, like high-tech companies, women generally have found great opportunities for advancement, because advancement is based on qualifications, experience, and expertise, etc. Yet there are still barriers to women who wish to have a career AND a family…in some organizations, and careers, the time for advancing on a fast track comes at the “best” age for starting a family. In universities, many women worry about earning tenure at the same time they have young children, and have less time to publish their research. Young attorneys face the same type of issue, as they try to become law firm partners at the same range of age as that for child-bearing and raising. This is only one challenge. Others include office politics guided by people who may believe women are not tough enough, strategic enough, or sufficiently available for meetings/interactions with clients on week-ends and evenings if they are married. However, women do navigate labyrinths at work to reach their goals…because those goals may be different. Some women may seek an executive position; others may seek a position that includes world travel; still others may pursue a position that will lead to a career move in a different company or corporation. Not all goals are the same; not all labyrinths are the same.

Qualities of women leaders. As I’ll discuss later in this lecture, women and men leaders have more in common than stereotypes allow. After at least three decades, we know that, generally, women leaders appear to be collegial, collaborative, democratic, follower-focused, and interested in bringing people together to develop solutions to problems. Of course, not all women share these characteristics. And some men may exhibit these characteristics as well. As communicators, women leaders are generally described as good listeners who ask for input from others, include others in meetings and conferences, and seek compliance from organizational members using altruistic, rather than punishment-based, strategies (e.g. requests, rewards). For a number of years, some studies showed that women may use “tentative speech.” In other words, they might offer a suggestion at a meeting with words wrapped around it. “I’ve been thinking about a possible solution…I don’t know if it will work, but I think it might be helpful, and we might want to try it.” A male at the meeting might say: “here’s my idea and I think it’s a good one.” Even in present-day organizations, I still talk with women who say that they float an idea and suggest it may work, but a man at the same meeting will offer an idea succinctly, clearly and with conviction. When the group endorses his idea, a woman may wonder why her idea, basically the same one, wasn’t acknowledged. It was because it became lost in verbiage and perhaps nonverbal expressions communicated uncertainty. Of course, as women gain experience, expertise, and seniority in organizations, they are more confident, less tentative, and more knowledgeable about how to be an assertive communicator in the conduct of leadership.

Effective behavioral strategies for women. In addition to the development of the “labyrinth” metaphor, Eagly and Carli have contributed to the study of gender and leadership by suggesting two major principles for navigating the labyrinth. One principle is to blend agency with communion: use instrumental behaviors to move the task, the team, and the organization forward, yet also create opportunities for collaboration, participative decision-making, collegially-developed decisions and solutions, and a sense of community among diverse constituents. The second principle is a recommendation to build social capital, by creating and sustaining relationships and networks that will develop, implement, and support new solutions to problems, new goals, and the development of constituents’ personal and professional goals. The notion of “balance” is imbedded in these principles. Early studies of gender and leadership found that men were predominantly task-related at work and women were people-focused. These findings were a bit simplistic. We know that it is important to exhibit agency at work, to take action that accomplishes organizational tasks, and balance that with attention to the people who create productivity. Building social capital is a long-term investment in people, but also fosters the fulfillment of organizational AND individual goals.

Do women and men really differ as leaders? As women and men have worked together in organizations, for-profit, non-profit, governmental, educational, etc., they learn from each other…ways of doing their work and ways of leading. Initial studies emphasized that women leaders were nurturing, men focused on task accomplishment. However, some women are task-oriented and some men are nurturing. And men and women can be both.

What is missing here? Early studies of men and women leaders, particularly in the workplace, rarely mentioned the ethnicities of their subjects. In corporations, most of them were Anglo because that’s who most of the employees were and that’s who virtually all the supervisors and executives were. It is only when women of color began studying women leaders that we began to be better informed about women leaders…that they may differ because they come from different cultural backgrounds due to race or ethnicity. Happily, studies of gender and leadership improved with the realization that not all women are alike, that it is important to study Hispanic women, African American women, Native American women, women with different sexual orientations, women from different nations, women with physical disabilities (to name some categories) as leaders. (Also, the study of gender and leadership benefited from increased numbers of African American, Hispanic, Asian American and Native American women scholars.) An important phenomenon occurred: the notion of “intersectionality.” That is, the recognition that women leaders are affected by their race and ethnicity and myriad other factors. Just like men, women are complex individuals, as leaders as well as human beings.

References

Eagly, A. E. and Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Rhode, D. L. (2017). Women and Leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.