Unit 6 LDRSHP

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale OneFile: Business Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Global leadership: women leaders Author: Nancy J. Adler Date: Annual 1997 From: Management International Review(Vol. 37) Publisher: Gabler Verlag Document Type: Article Length: 9,255 words

Abstract: This article looks at the nature of global leadership and the role that women will play at the level of the world's most senior leaders, including both women presidents and prime ministers of countries and CEOs of major global companies. The article argues that global leadership theory is concerned with the interaction of people and ideas among cultures; global leadership is not merely an extension of domestic or multidomestic leadership. A definition of global leadership is developed which is intended to guide us in treating each other and our planet in a more civilized way in the 21st century than we have in the twentieth century. The experience of senior women leaders to date and the qualities often labelled as feminie qualities meet many of the challenges specified by the global leadership model. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Abstract: This article looks at the nature of global leadership and the role that women will play at the level of the world's most senior leaders, including both women presidents and prime ministers of countries and CEOs of major global companies. Key Results The article argues that global leadership theory is concerned with the interaction of people and ideas among cultures; global leadership is not merely an extension of domestic or multidomestic leadership. A definition of global leadership is developed which is intended to guide us in treating each other and our planet in a more civilized way in the 21st century than we have in the twentieth century. The experience of senior women leaders to date and the qualities often labelled as feminine qualities meet many of the challenges specified by the global leadership model.

Full Text: Global Leadership and the Twenty-first Century

In his speech accepting the Philadelphia Liberty Medal, Vaclav Havel (1994, p. A27), President of the Czech Republic, eloquently explained that:

There are good reasons for suggesting that the modern age has ended. Many

things indicate that we are going through a transitional period, when

it seems that something is on the way out and something else is

painfully being born. It is as if something were crumbling, decaying

and exhausting itself, while something else, still indistinct, were

arising from the rubble.

Havel's appreciation of the transition that the world is now experiencing is certainly important to each of us as human beings. None of us can claim that the twentieth century is exiting on an impressive note, on a note imbued with wisdom. As we ask ourselves which of the twentieth century's legacies we wish to pass on to the children of the twenty-first century, we are humbled into shameful silence. Yes we have advanced science and technology, but at the price of a world torn asunder by a polluted environment, by cities infested with social chaos and physical decay, by an increasingly skewed income distribution that condemns large proportions of the population to poverty (including people living in the world's most affluent societies), and by rampant physical violence continuing to kill people in titulary limited wars and seemingly random acts of violence. No, we do not exit the twentieth century with pride. Unless we can learn to treat each other and our planet in a more civilized way, is it not blasphemy to continue to consider ourselves a civilization (Rechtschaffen 1996)?(1)

The dynamics of the twenty-first century will not look like those of the twentieth century; to survive as a civilization, twenty-first century society must not look like the twentieth century. For a positive transition to take place, the world needs a new type of leadership.

Where will society find wise leaders to guide it toward a civilization that differs so markedly from that of the twentieth century? While many people continue to review men's historic patterns of success in search of models for twenty-first century global leadership, few have even begun to appreciate the equivalent patterns of historic and potential contributions of women leaders (Adler 1996). My personal search for leaders who are outside of traditional twentieth century paradigms has led me to review the voice that the world's women leaders are bringing to society. This article looks at the nature of global leadership and the role that women will play at the most senior levels of world leadership.

Leadership: A Long History

To lead comes from the latin verb "agere" meaning to set into motion (Jennings 1960). The Anglo-Saxon origins of the word to lead come from "laedere", meaning people on a journey (Boman/Deal 1991). Today's meaning of the word leader therefore has the sense of someone who sets ideas, people, organizations, and societies in motion; someone who takes the worlds of ideas, people, organizations, and societies on a journey. To lead such a journey requires vision, courage, and influence.

According to U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski, leadership involves "creating a state of mind in others" (Cantor/Bernay 1992, p. 59). Leaders, therefore, are "individuals who significantly influence the thoughts, behaviors, and/or feelings of others" (Gardner 1995, p. 6). Beyond strictly focusing on the role of the leader, leadership should also be thought of as interactive, as "an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes ... [reflecting] their mutual purposes" (Rost 1991, p. 102). In addition, according to Bolman and Deal (1995, p. 5), true leadership also includes a spiritual dimension:

Two images dominate [concepts of leadership]: one of the heroic champion

with extraordinary stature and vision, the other of the policy wonk,

the skilled analyst who solves pressing problems with information,

programs, and policies. Both images miss the essence of leadership.

Both emphasize the hands and heads of leaders, neglecting deeper and

more enduring elements of courage, spirit and hope.

Thus leadership must be viewed as something more than role and process - something more than the extent to which a particular leader has been influential. To fully appreciate leadership, we must also ask the ends to which a leader's behavior is directed. From this process and outcome perspective, leaders can be viewed as people whose vision, courage, and influence set ideas, people, organizations, and societies in motion toward the betterment of their organization, their community, and the world.

While comprehensive, this definition of leadership cannot be considered historically agreed-upon; indeed, no such agreed-upon definition exists. After reviewing more than 5000 published works on leadership, neither Stogdill (1974) in the 1970s nor Bass (1991) in the present decade succeeded in identifying a commonly agreed upon definition of leadership. As Bennis and Nanus (1985, p. 4) concluded:

Decades of academic analysis have given us more than 350 definitions of

leadership. Literally thousands of empirical investigations of leaders

have been conducted in the last 75 years alone, but no clear and

unequivocal understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders from

non-leaders and, perhaps more important, what distinguishes effective

leaders from ineffective leaders...

Rather than adding once again to the already over-abundant supply of leadership definitions, this article simply adds two dimensions to the historical definitions of leadership; the first is a global perspective and the second is the inclusion of women leaders and their experience in a field that has heretofore focused almost exclusively on men.(2)

Global Leaders: Global Leadership

Global leadership involves the ability to inspire and influence the thinking, attitudes, and behavior of people from around the world. Thus from a process and an outcome perspective, global leadership can be described as "a process by which members of... [the world community] are empowered to work together synergistically toward a common vision and common goals ... [resulting in an] improv[ment in] the quality of life" on and for the planet (based on Astin/Leland 1991, p. 8; Hollander 1985). Global leaders are those people who most strongly influence the process of global leadership.

Whereas there are hundreds of definitions of leadership, there are no global leadership theories. Most leadership theories, although failing to state so explicitly, are domestic theories masquerading as universal theories (Boyacigiller/ Adler 1991, 1996). Most commonly, they have described the behavior of leaders in one particular country, the United States (and, as will be discussed later, of one particular gender, men). This is particularly unfortunate for understanding global leadership since "Americans' extreme individualism combined with their highly participative managerial climate, may render U.S. management practices [including leadership] unique; that is, differentiated from the approaches in most areas of the world" (Dorfman 1996, p. 292; also see Dorfman

1991; Dorfman/Howell 1988; Hofstede 1991). Recent research on leadership supports this conclusion in finding that the United States is unique in several respects among all of the Eastern and Western cultures that have been studied (Howell et al. 1994). For example, based on 221 definitions of leadership from the twentieth century, Rost (1991) concluded that leadership has most frequently been seen as rational, management-oriented, male, technocratic, quantitative, cost-driven, hierarchical, short-term, pragmatic, and materialistic. Not surprisingly, many of these listed descriptors reflect some of the core values of American culture. For example, relative to people from most other cultures, Americans tend to have a more short-term orientation (e. g., they emphasize this quarter's results and daily reported share prices), a more materialistic orientation (e. g., forty percent of American managers still think that "the bottom line" is the criterion for corporate health, whereas in no other nation can find even thirty percent of its managers who take this view; see Hampden-Turner 1993), and a more quantitative orientation (e.g., emphasizing measurable contributions and results rather than relying on less easily quantified qualities such as success in relationship-building).(3)

Of those leadership studies and theories that are not U.S.-based, most still tend to be domestic, with the only difference from the American theories being that their cultural locus reflects the values and context of a country other than the United States; such as descriptions of Israeli leaders in Israel (e. g., Vardi 1980) or Indian leaders in India (e. g., Kakar 1971) The fundamental global leadership question is not "Do American Leadership Theories Apply Abroad?" (Hofstede 1980b), nor is it the comparative question of attempting to determine the extent to which behaviors of leaders in one culture replicate those of leaders in other cultures. Both questions frame leadership within a domestic context; the only distinction being that the former focuses on a single country (descriptive domestic theories) whereas the later focuses on multiple countries (comparative multidomestic theories) (see Boyacigiller/Adler 1991, 1996).

Global leaders, unlike domestic leaders, address people worldwide. Global leadership theory, unlike its domestic counterpart, is concerned with the interaction of people and ideas among cultures, rather than with either the efficacy of particular leadership styles within the leader's home country or with the comparison of leadership approaches among leaders from various countries -- each of whose domain is limited to issues and people within their own cultural environment. A fundamental distinction is that global leadership is neither domestic nor multidomestic; it focuses on cross-cultural interaction rather than on either single-culture description or multi- country comparison. The Secretary General of the United Nations cannot change his message for each of the U.N.'s more than 100 member states. Similarly the CEO of a global company cannot change her message for each of the countries and cultures in which her company operates. As we move toward the twenty-first century, the domain of influence of leadership is shifting from circumscribed geographies to globally encompassing geographies; from part of the world -- e. g., a nation or domestic economy -- to the whole world. Historically, such transnational leadership "... that goes beyond the nation-state and seeks to address all human beings" has been "... the most important, but rarest and most elusive, variety of leadership" (Gardner 1995, p. 20). However, the essence of such transnational leadership was captured already centuries ago by Diogenes in his assertion to his fellow Athenians, "I am not an Athenian or a Greek but a citizen of the world" (as cited in Gardner 1995, p. 51), and again much more recently by Virginia Woolf (1938), one of the twentieth century's thought leaders:

As a woman, I have no country.

As a woman, I want no country.

As a woman, the whole world is my country.

Within this emerging cross-culturally interactive context, global leaders must articulate a vision which, in and of itself, is global; that is, global leaders articulate the meaning within which others from around the world work and live. According to Britain's Anita Roddick (1991, p. 226), founder and CEO of the highly successful global firm, The Body Shop:

Leaders in the business world should aspire to be true planetary citizens.

They have global responsibilities since their decisions affect not just

the world of business, but world problems of poverty, national security

and the environment. Many, sad to say, [have] duck[ed]

these responsibilities, because their vision is material rather than moral.

Roddick's view of global leaders as "true planetary citizens" echoes Bolman and Deal's (1995, p. 5) observation that strictly emphasizing the hands and the head of leaders misses the essence of leadership by neglecting the deeper and more enduring elements of courage, spirit, and hope. The vision of a global leader, by definition, must be broader than the particular organization or country that he or she leads.

Beyond having a worthy vision, global leaders must be able to communicate their vision in a compelling manner to people from around the world. According to leadership expert Howard Gardner (1995, p. 8 et seq.), "Leaders achieve their effectiveness chiefly through the stories they relate," both by communicating the stories and by embodying them. "Nearly all leaders are eloquent in voice, " with many being "eloquent in writing as well" (Gardner 1995, p. 34). As leaders, "they do not merely have a promising story; they can [also] tell it persuasively" (Gardner 1995, p. 34).

Gardner (1995, p. 11) goes on to distinguish between leaders of a domain and leaders of a society. Leaders of a domain address an audience which "... is already sophisticated in the stories, the images, and the other embodiments of that domain. To put it simply, one is communicating with experts" -- such as when a medical doctor addresses other physicians. Leaders of a society "... must be able to address a public in terms of the commonsense and commonplace notions that an ordinary inhabitant absorbs simply by virtue of living for some years within a society" (Gardner 1995, p. 12). According to Ireland's President, Mary Robinson (as described in Pond 1996, p. 59):

A woman leader often has a distinctive approach as the country's chief

"storyteller, [personifying] a sense of nationhood and [telling] a story that

also [helps] shape people's sense of their own identity." This is leadership

by "influencing [and] inspiring" rather than by commanding.

As society goes global, the audience of a leader also goes global. What members of a global audience have in common is only that which is most fundamentally human to each individual. Global leaders, to a much greater extent than their domestic counterparts, must be able to communicate in terms of what is commonsense and commonplace for people worldwide; they therefore must communicate in the most fundamental terms of humanity. Global leaders do not enjoy the simplified reality that their domestic predecessors enjoyed of speaking primarily to people from one culture, one country, one organization, or one discipline.

Global Leaders: Women Leaders

The feminization of leaders and of leadership is a significant development in our understanding and in the governance of global political, economic, and societal structures.(4) As we approach the end of the twentieth century, the number of women in the most senior global leadership positions is increasing and, at the same time, the style of global leadership is increasingly incorporating approaches most frequently labelled as feminine. It appears that "the economic exigenc[ies] of global competition ... [are making] feminine characteristics admirable in both men and women" (Calas/Smircich 1993).

This article focuses on women with positional power, women in the most senior leadership roles in major global companies and nations. The focus goes beyond the assumption that scholarship on women leaders must limit itself to women's historically more traditional mode of influence -- that of influencing, primarily from behind the scenes, the men who hold society's most elite positions of power while the women themselves hold no positional power. See, for example, contemporary discussions of the influence on their respective presidential husbands of American first ladies, including the more than 50 books published on Hillary Rodham Clinton and the extensive literature on Eleanor Roosevelt (Goodwin 1995). While the feminist literature has tended to champion the nonhierarchical notion of broadly dispersed leadership -- that is, the empowerment of many leaders within society (see Astin/Leland 1991, among many other) -- in contrast to traditional, role-based, hierarchical, and more exclusive notions of leadership, this article attempts to bring the two notions back together. It asks what the nature of elite role leadership, as exhibited by women, will be in the organizationally flattened world of the twenty-first century.

Women Leaders: Numbers Increasing

The "feminization of an occupation or a job refers to women's disproportionate entry into a customarily male occupation" (Fondus 1997, pp. 258 based on Cohn 1985 and Reskin/Roos 1990). Thus the feminization of global leadership would be the disproportionate entry of women into the most senior political and business leadership roles in the world. Is there reason to believe that we will see the feminization of global leadership in the twenty-first century? Yes. While rarely recognized or reported in the media, one inescapable trend is that the number of the most senior global women political leaders -- presidents and prime ministers of countries -- is rapidly increasing, albeit from a negligible starting point. As shown in Figure 1, no women presidents or prime ministers came to office in the 1950s, three came to office in the 1960s, five in the 1970s, eight in the 1980s, and to date in the 1990s twenty-one have already come to office. More than half of all women who have ever served as political leaders -- 21 of 37 -- have come into office since 1990. At the current rate of increase, we would expect to have almost twice as many women become president or prime minister in this decade as have ever served before. As shown in Table 1, countries as dissimilar as Sri Lanka, Ireland, and Rwanda have had women lead them.(5)

Table 1. Global Women Leaders: A Chronology Country Name Sri Lanka (*)Sirimavo Bandaranaike India (Indira Gandhi) Israel (Golda Meir) Argentina (Maria Estela [Isabel] Martinez de Peron) Central African Rep. Elizabeth Domitien Portugal Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo Bolivia Lidia Gveiler Tejada Great Britain Margaret Thatcher Dominica Mary Eugenia Charles Iceland Vigdis Finnbogadottir Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland Yugoslavia Milka Planinc Malta Agatha Barbara Netherland-Antilles Maria Liberia-Peters The Philippines Corazon Aquino Pakistan Benazir Bhutto Lithuania Kazimiera-Danute Prunskiene Haiti Ertha Pascal-Trouillot Myanmar (Burma) Aung San Suu Kyi East Germany Sabine Bergmann-Pohl Ireland (*)Mary Robinson Nicaragua Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Bangladesh Khaleda Zia France Edith Cresson Poland Hanna Suchocka Canada Kim Campbell Burundi Sylvia Kinigi Rwanda (Agatha Uwilingiyimana) Turkey Tansu Ciller Bulgaria Reneta Indzhova Sri Lanka (*)Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga Haiti Claudette Werleigh Switzerland (*)Ruth Dreifuss Bangladesh (*)Hasina Wajed Liberia (*)Ruth Perry Ecuador Rosalia Artega Bermuda (*)Pamela Gordon Guyana (*)Janet Jagan Country Office Sri Lanka Prime Minister India Prime Minister Israel Prime Minister Argentina President Central African Rep. Prime Minister Portugal Prime Minister Bolivia Interim President Great Britain Prime Minister Dominica Prime Minister Iceland President Norway Prime Minister Yugoslavia Prime Minister Malta President Netherland-Antilles Prime Minister The Philippines President Pakistan Prime Minister Lithuania Prime Minister Haiti President Myanmar (Burma) Opposition Leader(**) East Germany President of the Parliament Ireland President Nicaragua President Bangladesh Prime Minister France Prime Minister Poland Prime Minister Canada Prime Minister Burundi Prime Minister Rwanda Prime Minister Turkey Prime Minister Bulgaria Interim Prime Minister Sri Lanka Executive President & former Prime Minister Haiti Prime Minister Switzerland State Councillor(***) Bangladesh Prime Minister Liberia Chair, Ruling Council Ecuador President Bermuda Premiere Guyana Prime Minister Country Date Sri Lanka 1960-1965; 1970-1977, 1994-(*) India 1966-1977, 1980-1984 Israel 1969-1975 Argentina 1974-1976 Central African Rep. 1975-1976 Portugal 1979 Bolivia 1979-1980 Great Britain 1979-1990 Dominica 1980-1995 Iceland 1980-1996 Norway 1981; 1986-1989; 1990-1996 Yugoslavia 1982-1986 Malta 1982-1987 Netherland-Antilles 1984; 1989-1994 The Philippines 1986-1992 Pakistan 1988-1990; 1993-1996 Lithuania 1990-1991 Haiti 1990-1991 Myanmar (Burma) 1990-(**) East Germany 1990 Ireland 1990-(*) Nicaragua 1990-1996 Bangladesh 1991-1996 France 1991 - 1992 Poland 1992-1993 Canada 1993 Burundi 1993-1994 Rwanda 1993-1994 Turkey 1993-1996 Bulgaria 1994-1995 Sri Lanka 1994-(*) Haiti 1995-1996 Switzerland 1995-(*) Bangladesh 1996-(*) Liberia 1996-(*) Ecuador 1997 Bermuda 1997-(*) Guyana 1997-(*)

() = No longer living

(*) = Currently in office

(**) = Party won 1990 election but prevented by military from taking office; Nobel Prize laureate

(***) = Switzerland governed by Council of (7) Ministers, rather than a president or prime minister

Source: Adapted from Adler, N. J. Global Women Political Leaders: An Invisible History, An Increasingly Important Future," Leadership Quarterly, 7, 1, 1996, p. 136.

[C] Nancy J. Adler 1997

Do we see similar increases in the number of women leading major world businesses as we see among women presidents and prime ministers? Whereas the pattern among global business leaders is not yet clear, initial surveys suggest that there are not very many women CEOs.(6) According to the United Nations' 1995 report, The World's Women, there are no women running the world's largest corporations (as reported in Kelly 1996, p. 21). Catalyst reports that only 2.4% of the chairmen and CEOs of Fortune 500 firms are women (Wellington 1996). Moreover, only in 1997 did Britain gain its first woman chief executive of a Financial Times (FT-SE) 100 firm, Marjorie Scardino at Pearson Plc (Pogrebin 1996).

Contrary to popular belief, however, women's scarcity in leading major corporations does not mean that they are absent as leaders of global companies. Unlike their male counterparts, most women chief executives have either created their own businesses or assumed the leadership of a family business. A disproportionate number of women have founded and are now leading entrepreneurial enterprises. According to the Small Business Administration, for example, women currently own one-third of all American businesses. These women-owned businesses in the United States employ more people than the entire Fortune 500 list of America's largest companies combined (Aburdene/Naisbitt 1992). As the list of women business leaders in Table 2 attests, the reality is that women from around the world are leading major companies. Moreover, contrary to what many people believe, these global women business leaders neither come strictly from the West nor predominantly from the West (see Adler 1997a).

[TABULAR DATA 2 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

There is, of course, a fallacy in assuming that because global women leaders are still so few in number that they are not important (Bunch 1991, pp. xi et seq.). In fact, as Charlotte Bunch (1991, p. xii), Director of the Center for Global Issues and Women's Leadership suggests, perhaps the most important question to ask is "why so little attention has been paid to the women who have become [global] leaders and why the styles of leading more often exhibited by women are particularly useful at this critical moment in history."

The Feminization of Global Leadership

In addition to increasing numbers, feminization also refers to "the spread of traits or qualities that are traditionally associated with [women] ... to ... people [and processes] not usually described that way" (Fondas 1997, p. 258 based on Douglas [1997] and Ferguson [1984]). Hence, the feminization of global leadership -- beyond strictly referring to the increasing numbers of women who are global leaders -- refers to the spread of traits and qualities generally associated with women to the process of leading organizations with worldwide influence. Whereas this certainly has not been true of traditional twentieth century leadership models which have primarily reflected American men and their norms, it appears that twenty-first century global leadership is increasingly being described in terms that neither reflect the masculine ideal nor the American ethos.

What is a feminine style of leadership? "Feminine is a word that refers to the characteristics of females" (Fondas 1997, p. 260). Many authors argue that "... there are character traits, interaction styles, and patterns of reasoning, speaking, and communicating that are culturally ascribed as feminine attributes" (Fondas 1997, p. 260). Although theorists debate whether these traits are biologically given or socially constructed, most researchers credit women "with some or all of the following qualities: empathy, helpfulness, caring, and nurturance; interpersonal sensitivity, attentiveness to and acceptance of others, responsiveness to their needs and motivations; an orientation toward the collective interest and toward integrative goals such as group cohesiveness and stability; a preference for open, egalitarian, and cooperative relationships, rather than hierarchical ones; and an interest in actualizing values and relationships of great importance to community (Belenky et al. 1986; Chodorow 1978; Dinnerstein 1976; Eisler 1987; Ferguson 1984; Gilligan 1982; Glennon 1979; Grace 1995; Hartsock 1983; Iannello 1992; Klein 1972; McMillan 1982; Miller 1976; Scott 1992; Spender 1983; Tannen 1990, 1994)" (as cited in Fondas 1997, p. 260). By contrast, as Fondas (1997, p. 260) summarizes, "traits culturally ascribed to men include an ability to be impersonal, self-interested, efficient, hierarchical, tough minded, and assertive; an interest in taking charge, control, and domination; a capacity to ignore personal, emotional considerations in order to succeed; a proclivity to rely on standardized or "objective" codes for judgment and evaluation of others; and a heroic orientation toward task accomplishment and a continual effort to act on the world and become something new ... (cf. Brod/Kaufman 1994; Gilligan 1982; Glennon 1979; Grace 1995; Kanter 1977; Seidler 1994)."

Studies focusing specifically on women managers -- as opposed to women in general or senior-level women leaders (on whom there is as yet no body of literature) -- document their "orientation toward more participative, interactional, and relational styles of leading" (Fondas 1997, p. 259 based on Helgesen 1990; Lipman-Blumen 1983; Marshall 1984; Rosener 1990). Frequently labelled as the feminine advantage (Chodorow 1978; Helgesen 1990; Rosener 1990, among others), some authors have suggested that all managers today need to incorporate a more feminine leadership style (Fondas 1997, p. 259). As Fondas (1997, p. 259) observes, these findings, "when juxtaposed against calls for companies to improve their competitiveness by transforming themselves into learning, self-managing, empowering, and continuously improving organizations -- transformations that rely upon more interactional, relational, and participative management styles -- lead some writers to conclude that ... [women] are well-suited for managerial roles in contemporary organizations and that male [managers] need to cultivate feminine leadership traits (Aburdene/Naisbitt 1992; Godfrey 1996; Grant 1988; Peters 1989)." The current implication is that both female and male leaders also need to cultivate such feminine characteristics in their styles of leadership.

However, leadership approaches that frequently have been labelled as feminine in the North American management literature -- including more cooperative, participative, interactional and relational styles -- appear to reflect male/female patterns specific to the American culture, rather than broader, universally valid patterns. Relative to American men, male managers in many other parts of the world, including in the fastest growing economies of Asia, exhibit a more supposedly feminine style that do American men. As Cambridge management scholar Charles Hampden-Turner (1993, p. 1) notes:

America's ultra-masculine corporate value system has been losing

touch progressively with the wider world. It needs a change of values,

desperately, or it will continue to under-perform, continue to lose

touch with the value systems of foreigners, which ironically are much

closer to the values in which American women are raised...

American women, who are socialized to display values antithetical

yet complementary to American men, have within their culture vitally

important cures for American economic decline.

It appears that some of the male/female cultural distinctions documented in the United States among domestic American women and men have been overgeneralized.

For example, as the economy shifts from the twentieth century's emphasis on mass production capitalism to the twenty-first century's emphasis on mass customization -- that is, from the twentieth century's machine age emphasis on huge production runs of essentially undifferentiated products to the emerging era of products and services made in short runs and in great variety -- the importance of interactional and relational styles increases. Why? Because "the future for developed economies lies in products [and services] uniquely fashioned for special persons" (Hampden-Turner 1993, p. 6). Whereas the more typically male (from a North American perspective) universalistic approach of treating everyone the same according to codified rules worked well for mass producing products such as jeans, cokes, and hamburgers sold to a mass domestic market, a more typically feminine (from a North American perspective) particular approach works best for developing products and services -- such as software -- which must be tailored to the individual client and his or her particular needs. To understand particular markets and particular clients well enough to fashion suitable products and services to their needs, one must develop deep relationships. Not surprisingly, relational skills (labelled by the anthropologists as particularism and by North Americans as typically feminine) outperform the seemingly more objective approach of following the same rules with everyone (labelled as universalism by the anthropologists and as typically male by North Americans). The distinction does not appear to be strictly male/female, but rather a difference between the approach of most American male managers and that of most other managers around the world. Results of research by Trompenaars (1993) and Hampden-Turner (1993) show that American male managers strongly prefer universalism (the less relational style), whereas executives from many very strong economies, such as Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea, emphasize more relational values which are opposite to those of their American male colleagues (Hampden-Turner 1993). As Hampden-Turner (1993, p. 6) summarizes, at the close of the twentieth century:

Most American male executives suddenly find themselves ill-suited to the

wider world, trying to codify the uncodifiable, flanked by a huge surplus

of lawyers using cumbersome rules where other nations enter trusting

relationships with subtle communications.

According to the research, American women display a relational style of communicating that is closer to the style of most non- American managers around the world than to that of most American male managers. Given American women managers' concurrence with the relational styles of their non-American colleagues, it is not surprising that, on average, American women expatriate managers outperform their American male counterparts (Adler 1994). It is not that the distinction between women and men identified in the American managerial literature is either incorrect or inconsequential, but only that it is incomplete. Without appreciating American male managers as outliers, it is impossible to begin to appreciate what men's and women's approaches can bring to global leadership in the twenty-first century.

Global Women Leaders: An Emerging Portrait

Beyond knowing that their numbers are increasing and that their approaches to leadership appear to differ from those of men, what do we know about the women who are global leaders that might help us to better plan for the twenty-first century?(7)

Diversity Defines Pattern. The dominant pattern in the women leaders' backgrounds as well as in the countries and companies that select them to lead is diversity. As highlighted in Tables 1 and 2, the 37 women political leaders and their business counterparts span the globe. They come from both the world's largest and smallest countries, the richest and poorest countries, the most socially and economically advantaged and disadvantaged countries, and from every geographical region. Countries led by women represent six of the major world religions, with four women prime ministers having led predominantly Muslim countries (see Adler 1996, 1997a).

Many people believe that female friendly countries and companies select more women leaders. They do not. Seemingly female friendly countries (for example, those that give equal rights to women) do not elect a disproportionate number of women presidents and prime ministers. Similarly, companies that select women for their most senior leadership positions are not those that implement the most female-friendly policies, such as day-care centres and flextime (Wellington 1996 as reported in Dobrzynski 1996). For example, among the 61 Fortune 500 companies employing women as chairmen, CEOs, board members, or one of the top five earners, only three are the same companies that Working Woman identified as the most favorable for women employees (Dobrzynski 1996).

The fact that the countries that elect women presidents and prime ministers or have women serving as CEOs of major companies are so diverse suggests that the overall pattern is toward selecting more women as senior leaders, rather than toward a particular group of supposedly female-friendly countries and companies (such as the Scandinavian countries, companies such as Avon Products, or organizations such as Britain's National Health Service) valuing women per se. The dominant pattern is that women are increasingly being selected to serve in senior leadership positions, not that a few countries, companies, or organizations with particularly feminine cultures are choosing to select women to lead them.

People's Aspirations: Hope, Change, and Unity. Why would countries and companies, for the first time in modern history, increasingly choose to select women for senior leadership positions? It appears that people worldwide increasingly want something that women exhibit (e. g., feminine values and behavior) and/or something that they symbolize.

Women leaders' most powerful and most attractive symbolism appears to be change. Women's assumption of the highest levels of leadership brings with it the symbolic possibility of fundamental societal and organizational change. The combination of women being outsiders at senior leadership levels previously completely controlled by men and of beating the odds to become the first woman to lead her country or company produces powerful public imagery about the possibility of broad-based societal and organizational change.

As "firsts", women assuming senior leadership positions literally bring change. When a woman is visibly chosen to become president, prime minister, or CEO when no other woman has ever held such an office and when few people thought that she would be selected, other major organizational and societal changes become believably possible. Mary Robinson's presidential acceptance speech captures the coupling of the unique event of a woman being elected Ireland's first non-male president with the possibility of national change:

I was elected by men and women of all parties and none, by many with great

moral courage who stepped out from the faded flags of Civil War and voted

for a new Ireland. And above all by the women of Ireland... who instead of

rocking the cradle rocked the system, and who came out massively to make

their mark on the ballot paper, and on a new Ireland (RDS, Dublin, 9

November 1990 as reported in Finlay 1990, p. 1).

In addition to symbolizing change, women leaders appear to symbolize unity. For example, both Nicaragua's Chamorro and the Philippines' Aquino became symbols of national unity following their husband's murders. Chamorro even claimed "to have no ideology beyond national `reconciliation'" (Benn 1995). Of Chamorro's four adult children, two are prominent Sandanistas while the other two equally prominently oppose the Sandanistas, not an unusual split in war-torn Nicaragua (Saint-Germain 1993, p. 80). Chamorro's ability to bring all the members of her family together for Sunday dinner each week achieved near legendary status in Nicaragua (Saint-Germain 1993, p. 80). As "the grieving matriarch who can still hold the family together" (Saint-Germain 1993, p. 80), Chamorro gives symbolic hope to the nation that it too can find peace based on a unity that brings together all Nicaraguans. That a national symbol for a woman leader is family unity is neither surprising nor coincidental.

Based on similar dynamics in the Philippines, former president Corazon Aquino, as widow of the slain opposition leader, was seen as the only person who could credibly unify the people of the Philippines following Benigno Aquino's death. Although Aquino was widely condemned in the press for naivete when she invited members of both her own and the opposition party into her cabinet, her choice was a conscious decision to attempt to reunify the deeply divided country.

Given that women leaders symbolize unity, it is perhaps not surprising that a woman business leader, Rebecca Mark, chief executive of Enron Development Corporation, and not a male executive, was the first person to successfully negotiate a major commercial transaction following the Middle East peace accords. Mark brought the Israelis and Jordanians together to build a natural gas power generation station.

When, as Vaclav Havel (1994, p. A27) says, the world is "going through a transitional period, when something is on the way out and something else is painfully being born", it is not surprising that people worldwide are attracted to women leaders' symbolic message of bringing change, hope, and the possibility for unity.

Driven by Vision, Not by Hierarchical Status. What brings the women themselves into the most senior levels of leadership? Most women leaders are driven by a vision, mission, or cause. They are motivated by a compelling agenda that they want to achieve, not primarily by either a desire for the hierarchical status of being president, prime minister, or CEO, or a desire for power per se. Power and the presidency are means for achieving their mission, not the mission itself.

As children, none of the women leaders dreamed about becoming her country's leader, as have so many male politicians, including

America's Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, and Britain's Michael Hesseltine. For example, Golda Meir's mission was to create the state of Israel and to ensure its survival as a Jewish state. Not only did she not dream of becoming prime minister, she rejected the position when it was initially offered to her. Similarly, Anita Roddick (1991, p. 126), CEO of the Body Shop, describes her contemporary vision as "corporate idealism." Her vision transcends traditional, narrowly defined economic goals; she is neither motivated to be a traditional CEO nor to focus singularly on maximizing either profits or shareholder wealth.

That women have not imagined, let alone dreamed about, leading a country or a major company is not surprising. For all of the women political leaders -- except Sri Lanka's current executive president, Chandrika Kumaratunga, who followed her prime minister mother Sirimavo Bandaranaike into office, and Bangladesh's Hasina Wajid -- and most of the women corporate leaders, there have been no women predecessors and therefore no women role models. What is important for twenty-first century leadership is that society, if it is to survive as a civilization, can no longer tolerate nor support the leadership of self-aggrandizement at the expense of the greater, now highly interrelated whole -- at the expense of the world's entire population and its physical, spiritual, and natural environment.

Source of Power: Broadly-based. Who supports women in becoming senior leaders'? Women leaders tend to develop and to use broadly-based popular support, rather than relying primarily on traditional, hierarchical party or structural support. This is particularly apparent among the women who become political leaders who often are not seriously considered as potential candidates by their country's main political parties. They are consequently forced to gain support directly from the people, and thus foreshadow the dynamics of leadership in an organizationally flattened world.

Mary Robinson, for example, campaigned in more small communities in Ireland than any previous presidential candidate before either her party or the opposition would take her seriously. The opposition now admits that they did not seriously consider Robinson's candidacy until it was too late to stop her (Finlay 1990). Similarly, Corazon Aquino, whose campaign and victory was labelled the People's Revolution, held more than a thousand rallies during her campaign, while incumbent Ferdinand Marcos held only thirty-four (Col 1993, p. 25). Likewise, Benazir Bhutto, who succeeded in becoming Pakistan's first woman and youngest-ever prime minister, campaigned in more communities than any politician before her. Her own party only took her seriously when more people showed up upon her return to Pakistan from exile than either they, the opposition, or the international press had ever expected (Weisman 1986; Anderson 1993).

In business, the disproportionate number of women who choose to become leaders of entrepreneurial businesses rather than attempting to climb the corporate ladder and break through the glass ceiling to senior leadership positions in established corporations echoes the same pattern of broadly-based popular support -- as opposed to traditional hierarchical support -- that women political leaders enjoy, except that the entrepreneurs' support comes from the marketplace rather than from the electorate. In both cases, the base of support is outside of the traditional power structure and therefore more representative of new and more diverse opinions and ideas. The source of support, and therefore of power, more closely reflects the flattened network of emerging twenty-first century organizations and society than it does the more centralized and limited power structure of most twentieth century organizations.

Path to Power: Lateral Transfer. How do the women leaders gain power? Rather than following the traditional path up through the hierarchy of the organization, profession, or political party, most women leaders laterally transfer into high office. For example, Gro Harlem Brundtland was a medical doctor; six years later she became Norway's first woman prime minister. Similarly, Charlotte Beers became both Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide's first woman chief executive as well as their first CEO brought in from outside of the firm (Sackley/Ibarra 1995). Marjorie Scardino, Pearson's first woman chief executive, is a double outsider. As the first American CEO brought in to lead this traditional British firm, she is a cultural outsider. In addition, because the Economist, where Scardino previously served as managing director, is only fifty percent owned by Pearson, she is an organizational outsider. The general public was so surprised by Pearson's selection of Scardino that Pearson's stock dropped initially on the announcement of her appointment (Pogrebin 1996).

Today's global organizations and society can only benefit from the dynamics of lateral transfers. The twenty-first century needs integration across geographies, sectors of society, and professions. It can no longer tolerate leaders with "chimney stack" careers that, in the past, have resulted in deep expertise in one area, organization, or country without any understanding of the context within which their particular organization or country operates. Transferring across organizations, sectors of society, and areas of the world allows leaders to develop alternative perspectives and an understanding of context that is almost impossible to acquire within a single setting. Due to the historic pattern of promoting men and failing to promote women to the most senior leadership positions from within organizations -- most often referred to as the "glass ceiling" -- women appear to have inadvertently become the prototypes of a career pattern that is needed more broadly among all twenty-first century leaders.

Global Leadership: Global Visibility. What difference does it make that a global leader is a woman? For the women who become global leaders, it is always salient that they are women. For example, the single most frequently asked question of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher (1995) was "What is it like being a woman prime minister?" (to which Thatcher generally responded that she could not answer because she had not tried the alternative).

Women are new to the most senior levels of leadership. As mentioned previously, of the 37 women presidents and prime ministers, only two -- in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka -- followed another woman into office. All the rest of the women leaders are "firsts." Because women leaders are new, they have the advantage of global visibility. Their unique status as their countries' first woman president or prime minister attracts worldwide media attention, thereby leveraging historically domestic leadership positions into ones with global visibility and the concomitant potential for worldwide influence. For example, following the election of Mary Robinson as Ireland's first woman president:

Newspapers and magazines in virtually every country in the world carried

the story ... [T]he rest of the world understood Ireland to have made a huge

leap forward ... Mary Robinson had joined a very small number of women...

who had been elected to their country's highest office. It was, quite

properly, seen as historic (Finlay 1990, p. 149 et seq.).

Similarly, President Francois Mitterrand purposely created a worldwide media event by appointing Edith Cresson as France's first woman prime minister. Likewise, in contrast to Benazir Bhutto's male predecessor who not only complained about receiving insufficient worldwide press coverage while abroad but also fired the Pakistani embassy's public relations officer when too few journalists showed up to cover his arrival in London, Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto always received extensive media coverage no matter where in the world she travelled.

Because of the worldwide media attention given to women leaders, women today are becoming global, rather than domestic, leaders as they assume roles that were primarily domestic when previously held by men. Whether by intention or consequence, the senior women leaders are at the forefront of learning how to move beyond a domestic focus to communicate on the world stage to a global audience.

Whereas many of the dynamics affecting senior women leaders are quite different from those that affect women managers (see Adler 1997a), it should be noted that international business women also receive more visibility than their male colleagues. Women expatriate managers as well as women on international business trips, for example, report being remembered more easily than their male counterparts (Adler 1994). Compared with businessmen, global business women gain access more easily to new clients, suppliers, and government officials; receive more time when meeting with international contacts; and are more frequently remembered (Adler 1994).

The Future: Global Leaders, Women Leaders

The confluence of twenty-first century business, political, and societal dynamics gives leaders a chance to create the type of world that they, and we, would like to live in. It demands, as Vaclav Havel (1994, p. A7) reflected, that leaders find "the key to insure the survival of ... [our] civilization[,] ... a civilization that is global and multicultural." The increasing number of women political and business leaders brings with it a set of experiences and perspectives that differ from those of the twentieth century's primarily male leaders. The interplay of women's and men's styles of leadership will define the contours and potential success of twenty-first century society. The risk is in encapsulating leaders, both women and men, in approaches that worked well in the twentieth century but foretell disaster for the twenty-first century. As Dr. Frene Ginwala, Speaker of the South African National Assembly, states "... the institutions that discriminate are man-shaped and must be made people-shaped. Only then will women be able to function as equals within those institutions ..." Ginwala's fundamental belief is that "women's struggle is not a struggle to transform the position of women in society but a struggle to transform society itself" (Iqtidar/Webster 1996, p. 10). Recognizing the growing number of women leaders is the first step in creating and understanding the type of global leadership that will lead to success in the twenty-first century.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Soraya Hassanali and Kirsten Martin for their research support and insight on this article.

Endnotes

(1) The opening section of this article is based on Adler's "Societal Leadership: The Wisdom of Peace" (1997b).

(2) For contemporary discussions of some of the widely read leadership theories and approaches, see Bennis 1989; Bennis/Nanus 1985; Conger 1989; Conger/Kanungo 1988; Gardner 1995; Kotter 1988; Rosen 1996, among many others.

(3) For descriptions of American societal and managerial culture contrasted with those of many other countries, see, among others, Hofstede 1980a; Kluckhohn/Strodtbeck 1961; Laurent 1983; Trompenaars 1993.

(4) Based on Fondas' (1997, p. 257) observation "that the feminization of managers and managerial work is a significant development in management thinking."

(5) The Republic of San Marino, a city-state with a population of less than 25,000 people has been led since 1243 by a consul, the Co-Captain Regent, who acts as both head of government and head of state, and is elected for a period of six months. In modern history, four women have held the position of Co-Captain Regent, Maria Lea Pedini-Angelini (1981), Glorianna Ranocchini (1984, 1989-90), Edda Ceccoli (1991-92), and Patricia Busignani (1993). Due to the small size of the country and the frequency of changing leaders, San Marino has not been included in the statistics on global women leaders.

(6) Although the results are not yet available, the author is currently involved in a major worldwide survey to identify women who head global businesses with annual revenues in excess of $ 250 million.

(7) For a more indepth discussion of the issues raised in this section, see Adler (1997a).

References

Aburdene, P./Naisbitt, J., Megatrends for Women. New York: Villard Books 1992.

Adler, N. J., Competitive Frontiers: Women Managing Across Borders, in Adler, N. J./Izraeli, D. N. (eds.), Competitive Frontiers: Women Managers in a Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell 1994, pp. 22-40.

Adler, N. J., Global Women Political Leaders: An Invisible History, An Increasingly Important Future, Leadership Quarterly, 7, 1996, pp. 133-161.

Adler, N. J., Global Leaders: A Dialogue with Future History, Journal of International Management, 2, 1997a (in press).

Adler, N. J., Societal Leadership: The Wisdom of Peace, in Srivastava, S. (ed.), Executive Wisdom and Organizational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 1997b (in press).

Anderson, N. F., Benazir Bhutto and Dynastic Politics: Her Father's Daughter, Her People's Sister, in Genovese, M. A. (ed.), Women as National Leaders. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1993, pp. 41-69.

Astin, H. S./Leland, C., Women of Influence, Women of Vision. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 1991.

Bass, B., Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership, 3rd ed. New York: The Free Press 1991.

Belenky, M. F. et al., Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development o. f Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books 1986.

Benn, M., Women Who Rule the World, Cosmopolitan, February 1995.

Bennis, W., Why Leaders' Can't Lead: The Unconscious Conspiracy Continues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 1989.

Bennis, W./Nanus, B., Leaders: Strategies of Taking Charge. New York: Harper & Row 1985.

Bernard, J., The Female World. New York: Free Press 1981.

Bolman, L./Deal, T., Leading With Soul. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 1995.

Boyacigiller, N./Adler, N. J., Insiders and Outsiders: Bridging the Worlds of Organizational Behavior and International Management, in Toyne, B./Nigh, D. (eds.), International Business Inquiry: An Emerging Vision. Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press 1996, pp. 22-102.

Boyacigiller, N./Adler, N. J., The Parochial Dinosaur: The Organizational Sciences in a Global Context, Academy of Management Review, 16, 1991, pp. 262-290.

Brod, H./Kaufman, M. (eds.), Theorizing Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 1994.

Bunch, C., Foreword, in Astin, H. S./Leland, C., Women of Influence, Women of Vision. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 1991, pp. xi-xiv.

Calas, M. B./Smircich, L., Dangerous Liaisons: The "Feminine-in-Management" Meets "Globalization", Business Horizons, 36, 1993, pp. 71-81.

Cantor, D./Bearnay, T., Women in Power. New York: Houghton Mifflin 1992.

Carroll, S. J., Feminist Scholarship on Political Leadership, in Kellerman, B. (ed.), Leadership: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall 1984.

Chodorow, N., The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press 1978. Cohn, S., The Process of Occupational Sex-typing: The Feminization of Clerical Labor in Great Britain. Philadelphia: Temple University Press 1985.

Col, J.-M., Managing Softly in Turbulent Times: Corazon C. Aquino, President of the Philippines, in: Genovese, M. A. (ed.), Women as National Leaders. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1993, pp. 13-40.

Conger, J. A., The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 1989.

Conger, J. A./Kanungo, R., Charismatic Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass 1988.

Dinnerstein, D., The Mermaid and the Minotaur. New York: Harper and Row 1976.

Dobrzynski, J. H., Somber News for Women on Corporate Ladder, New York Times, November 6, 1996, pp. D1.

Dorfman, P. W., International and Cross-cultural Leadership, in Punnett, B. J./Shenkar, O. (eds.), Handbook for International Management Research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell 1996, pp. 267-349.

Dorfman, P. W./Howell, J. P., Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede Revisited, Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 3, Greenwich: JAI Press 1988, pp. 127-150.

Dorfman, P. W./Ronen, S., The Universality of Leadership Theories: Challenges and Paradoxes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Miami, Florida 1991.

Douglas, A., The Feminization of American Culture. New York: Avon Books 1977.

Eisler, R., The Chalice and the Blade. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco 1987.

Ferguson, K. E., The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press 1984.

Finlay, F., Mary Robinson: A President with a Purpose. Dublin: The O'Brien Press 1990.

Fondas, N., The Origins of Feminization, Academy of Management Review, 22, 1997, pp. 257-282.

Gardner, H., Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. New York: Basic Books 1995.

Gilligan, C., In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1982.

Glennon, L. M., Women and Dualism. New York: Longman 1979.

Godfrey, J., Mind of the Manager, Inc., 18, 3, 1996, p. 21.

Goodwin, D. K., No Ordinary Time: Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II, New York: Simon & Schuster 1995.

Grace, N. M., The Feminized Male Character in Twentieth-century Literature. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press 1995.

Grant, J., Women as Managers: What Can They Offer Organizations? Organizational Dynamics, 16, 1, 1988, pp. 56-63.

Hampden-Turner, C., The Structure of Entrapment: Dilemmas Standing in the Way of Women Managers and Strategies to Resolve These. Paper presented at the Global Business Network Meeting, New York, December 9-10, 1993.

Hartsock, N. C., Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism. New York: Longman 1983.

Havel, V., The New Measure of Man, The New York Times, July 8, 1994, p. A27.

Helgesen, S, The Female Advantage: Women's Ways of Leadership. New York: Doubleday 1990.

Hofstede, G., Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 1980a.

Hofstede, G., Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill 1991.

Hofstede, G., Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 1980b, 1, pp. 42-63.

Hollander, E. P., Leadership and Power, in Lindzey, G./Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House 1985.

Howell, J. P. et al., Leadership in Western and Asian Countries: Commonalities and Differences in Effective Leadership Processes and Substitutes Across Cultures. Center for Business Research, New Mexico State University 1994.

Iannello, K. P., Decisions Without Hierarchy: Feminist Interventions in Organization Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge 1992.

Iqtidar, H./Webster, L. J., Frene Ginwala: Speaker of the South African National Assembly, McGill University, Faculty of Management 1996 (unpublished).

Jennings, E., The Anatomy of Leadership. New York: Harper & Row 1960.

Kakar, S., Authority Patterns and Subordinate Behavior in Indian Organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 1971, pp. 298-308.

Kanter, R. M., Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books 1977.

Kelly, C., 50 World-class Executives, Worldbusiness, 2, 2, March/April 1996, pp. 20-31.

Klein, V., The Feminine Character: History of an Ideology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press 1972.

Klenke, K., Women and Leadership.' A Contextual Perspective. New York: Springer Publishing Company 1996.

Kluckhohn, F. R./Strodtbeck, F. L., Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson 1961.

Kotter, J., The Leadership Factor. New York: Free Press 1988.

Laurent, A., The Cultural Diversity of Western Conceptions of Management, International Studies of Management and Organization, 13, 1/2, 1983, pp. 75-96.

Lipman-Blumen, J., Emerging Patterns of Female Leadership in Formal Organizations, in Homer, M./Nadelson, C. C./Notman, M. T. (eds.), The Challenge of Change. New York: Plenum Press 1983, pp. 61-91.

Marshall, J., Women Managers: Travellers in a Male World. New York: Wiley 1984.

McMillan, C., Reason, Women and Nature: Some Philosophical Problems with Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1982.

Miller, J. B., Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon Press 1976.

Peters, T., Listen up, Guys: Women Fit Profile of Execs of Future, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 11, 1989, p. B6.

Pogrebin, R., Pearson Picks an American as Executive, The New York Times, October 18, 1996, p. D7.

Pond, E., Women in Leadership: A Letter from Stockholm, The Washington Quarterly, 19, 4, 1996, pp. 59.

Rechtschaffen, S., Timeshifting. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Audio Publishing 1996.

Reskin, B. F./Roos, P. A., Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women's Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press 1990.

Robinson, M., Speech to International Women's Leadership Forum. Stockholm, May 1996.

Roddick, A., Body and Soul. New York: Crown 1991.

Rosen, R. H., Leading People. New York: Viking 1996.

Rosner, J., Ways Women Lead, Harvard Business Review, 68, 6, 1990, pp. 119-125.

Rost, J., Leadership for the 21st Century. New York: Praeger 1991.

Sackley, N./Ibarra, H., Charlotte Beers at Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, Case No. 9-495-031, Harvard Business School, Boston 1995.

Saint-Germain, M. A., Women in Power in Nicaragua: Myth and Reality, in Genovese, M. A. (ed.), Women as National Leaders. Newbury Park, California: Sage 1993, pp. 70-102.

Scott, A. F., Natural Allies: Women's Associations in American History. Urbana: University of Illinois Press 1992.

Seidler, V. J., Unreasonable Men: Masculinity and Social Theory. London: Routledge 1994.

Spender, D., Women of ideas and What Men Have Done to Them from Aphra Behn to Adrienne Rich. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1983.

Stogdill, R., Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press 1974.

Tannen, D., You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books 1990.

Tannen D., Talking from 9 to 5: How Women's and Men's Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work. New York: Morrow 1994.

Thatcher, M., Path to Power New York: Harper Collins 1995.

Trompenaars, F., Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: The Economist Books 1993.

Vardi, Y./Shrom, A./Jacobson, D., A Study of Leadership Beliefs of Israeli Managers, Academy of Management Journal, 23, 1980, pp. 367-374.

Weisman, S. R., A Daughter Returns to Pakistan to Cry for Victory, New York Times, April 11, 1986, p. 12.

Wellington, S. W., Women in Corporate Leadership: Progress and Prospects. New York City: Catalyst 1996.

Woolf, V., Three Guineas. Harcourt Brace & Company 1938.

Dr. Nancy J. Adler, Professor of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

----------

Please note: Some tables or figures were omitted from this article.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 1997 Gabler Verlag http://www.gabler.de Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition) Adler, Nancy J. "Global leadership: women leaders." Management International Review, vol. 37, Annual 1997, p. 171+. Gale OneFile:

Business, https://link-gale-

com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/apps/doc/A20009604/ITBC?u=oran95108&sid=ITBC&xid=cfcf6c33. Accessed 15 Aug. 2020.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A20009604