Post on 30-Apr-2018
1
Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?
A Meta Analysis and Case Study
Valerie M. Constance
Dr. Ella Burton
EDLD 713- Field Based Research
Educational Leadership
December 2003
2
Table of Contents
Abstract------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 Theory--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 Methodology-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 History-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 Meta-Analysis of Leadership Theory--------------------------------------------------33 Figure 1 Trait Theory---------------------------------------------------------------------------36 Behavioral Theory------------------------------------------------------------------38
Contingency Theory---------------------------------------------------------------42 Matrices*
Figure 2 – Trait Theories Figure 3 – Behavioral Theories Figure 4 – Behavioral/Influence Figure 5 – Fiedler’s Contingency Theories Figure 6 – Contingency/Normative Decision Figure 7 – Contingency/Path Goal & Servant Leadership Figure 8 – Contingency Theory/Transactional Figure 9 – Contingency Theory/Transformational & Social Change
Review of Current Literature-----------------------------------------------------------54 Self-Reflection ------------------------------------------------------------------------------65 Case Study of My Internship Experience-------------------------------------------67 Conclusion----------------------------------------------------------------------------------111 Bibliography--------------------------------------------------------------------------------118
* All information in matrices cited in text
3
Abstract:
Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?
The world's most renowned and highly respected thinkers have tackled
the question about what is leadership. As a result, definitions of leadership
through the ages have grown in quantity even as they have taken on different,
sometimes oppositional meanings, leaving some doubt as to whether
"leadership" can be considered with "a hard," empirical methodology. Academics
and researchers alike have been known at various times in history to consider
leadership as a "soft science" because of its dependence on human subjectivity.
This hasn't prevented researchers from trying to scrutinize this topic from strictly
objective methods. The question is how valid are these methods in evaluating
what is essentially a social construction?
In this paper I use meta- analysis, a quantitative approach in which the
researcher synthesizes research articles to answer a research question. The
approach, fashioned after (Glass, 1976) and subsequently used by (Banning, et
al., 2000); (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001); and (Davies, et al, 2003) ". . . analyzes the
theory, method, and findings of a body of research, in this case, related to
leadership, especially gendered leadership. I examine past and present research
on leadership in its various forms and contexts, reflect upon and relate it to my
own leadership experiences, and attempt to answer the question whether in
reality there is any difference between male and female leadership.
4
Theory:
Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?
A Meta Analysis and Case Study
As I sit on a rock beside my pond and toss dried crumbs of fish food, I
study the reflection of the surrounding forest as it is beamed upside down upon
the glassy surface to my mind's eye. Suddenly beneath the water a movement, a
ring emanates across the surface disturbing the perfection of that watery image
with wrinkles and waves of distortion. Shortly later the inverted photographic
replica of the forest returns to its previous tranquil state.
Which is real? I wonder, contemplating the meaning of "social
construction."
Is the forest real or the image of the forest cast upon the pond? The
disturbance of the image suggests that the forest is real and the reflection an
imposter. Certainly from the perspective of the feeding fish below the surface
there is no reflection, further testifying to the forest as being real. Yet the
reflection is a darned good replica of what I see. What "I see" is key to the
meaning of "social construction" as I understand it. If the forest is real, then I
can't know it except through my own perception. There's no significance to me of
the "objective" reality of my property. My ability to perceive creates significance
and makes me the definer of what I see, and how I see the forest whether it is all
5
around me or in the inverted reflection of the water, I'm free to define it
depending on context. For example, if I were writing poetry, I might wish to
signify that the reflection is real for symbolic purposes. If I were surveying the
geological features of my land, I might wish to signify the percentage of land I
own in relation to the size of the pond. I might wish to use a "particle-wave"
viewpoint and see my property and this man-made pond as a member of the set
of all ponds located in forests worldwide; or I can see this pond as a microcosm
of man's world but with an ecological organization.
In The Constructivist Leader, Lambert et al (2002) say, “Constructivism
has become a theory of learning that has emerged from a theory of
knowing”(p.7). It is an epistemological concept that draws from a variety of fields,
including philosophy, psychology, and science. Fosnot (1992) qtd in Lambert et
al, points out that constructivism is at once a theory of 'knowing' and a theory of
'coming to know' (p. 167). The theory of knowing, as first articulated by Piaget, is
essentially biological in nature; that is an organism encounters new experiences
and events and seeks to assimilate these into existing cognitive structures or to
adjust the structures to accommodate the new information. The cognitive
structures or schemas, are formed and reformed based on experiences, beliefs,
values, socio-cultural histories and prior perceptions. Piaget noted that schemas
are "under construction,” meaning that the cognitive structures evolve as
individuals interpret, understand, and come to know (Piaget, 1971, in Duffy
Jonassen, 992, p.140 qtd in Lambert et al, 2002, p.7).
6
Organization is a social construct. People decide how they are going to
order their world. Learning is a social construct. People decide how best to teach
and learn based on the latest research. Leadership is a social construct, because
people decide how to signify its meaning. Gender is a social construct, because
people decide how to set expectations for behavior amongst the sexes in order to
aid communication. For instance, how could we possibly process and accept our
perception of a woman as a leader if our schema precludes the possibility? That
is the situation we find ourselves in right now. But we can no more ascertain the
objective over the subjective reality as perceivers and signifiers than can society
ascertain that gendered versions of organizations or leadership exist. In short, if
gender-linked organizations or leaders exist—we put them there and we can take
them away. The fact of the matter is that someone, somewhere, introduced the
notion of male superiority in some historical context and because of the male
dominant culture no one thought to question this reality until recently. Lambert et
al (2002) capture the essence of what this means to education when they say,
. . .these modes of sense-making bring with them what Camus calls "the
definitive awakening." They cannot imagine a retreat to outmoded
behaviorisms or to conceptions of truth as a correspondence with an
objectively existent reality. Crucial to their contemporary orientation is the
recognition that reality is socially constructed, and that a great number of
once silenced people (including students, teachers, and parents)
participate in the construction. (p. vii)
7
Likewise, in education, the educational model of the authoritarian teacher
and the passive learner is a hold over from a prior historical context. That context
is changing. Research is finding that a student-centered model that involves
active learning and the importance of significance to the student as he or she
compares it with prior knowledge and experience is a more effective way for
teaching and learning to happen. The point is that in a learner-centered world
context matters. Paulo Friere basically treated the passive model, or what he
called "the banking method" of learning as "bankrupt" when he illustrated the
student as the bank and the teacher the banker dropping coins of "truth" into the
empty vessel. All interactivity of learning is destroyed, not to mention the
unstated assumptions regarding the intelligence of our students. The student-
centered model is significant because like viewing organization, leadership, and
gender as social constructs, so too are we beginning to posit different paradigms
for learning.
Constructivism is the primary basis for learning for children, adults,
and organizations. Individuals and organizations bring past experiences
and beliefs, as well as their cultural histories and world views, into the
process of learning; all of these influence how well we interact with and
interpret our encounters with new ideas and events. As our personal
perspectives are mediated with the world through inquiry, we construct
and attribute meaning to these encounters, building new knowledge in the
process. This constructive, interpretative, work is facilitated and deepened
8
when it is undertaken with others and with reflection. (Lambert et al, 2002,
p.xvi).
The paradigm shift of moving power and authority away from a
hierarchical organization and towards non-hierarchical models such as
empowering student-centered learning is very much related to changes in the
larger society. Changes such as the increasingly diverse population of the United
States and the evolving roles of gender, culture, and ethnicity are gradually
altering the contexts away from homogeneity. Interestingly, our market-driven
economy may also be a source for society changing to a non-hierarchical model.
I say this because as higher education imitates a business model, they begin to
see the student as a customer. In this paradigm universities must be student or
customer centered. As they become more so, their tired old organizational
structures for faculty and administration become obsolete. Historical changes
that move away from economic models that feature manufacturing to a post-
industrial paradigm involving information in the age of technology are underway. I
see teacher as facilitator analogous to leader as visionary empowering followers
to achieve a shared goal. It all fits neatly together theoretically, except that in
actuality, since the revolution is incomplete, I still see many of the old structures
in place. I attribute this to basic leadership theory that states that if a culture is
fearful or needs a sense of control, then they will need an autocratic government,
which is precisely what we have in George W. Bush in the post 9-11 era. But
leadership theory also states that highly individualistic and autonomous
9
individuals need a more participative, read that democratic, government, which is
what we were prior to 9-11. If we are to evolve as a society to a higher, more
democratic level of existence as moral human beings, we must challenge
ourselves with new paradigms for seeing and perceiving reality.
A social constructivist viewpoint does this for us. Therefore, I use a social
constructivist theoretical model as basis for my arguments in this paper.
10
Methodology:
Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?
A Meta Analysis and Case Study
I have selected a meta-analysis across literature of the theory, method,
and findings of leadership as it pertains to gender as my quantitative method,
and the case study method to analyze a range of my leadership experiences as
my qualitative perspective.
The quantitative piece, a meta-analysis was borrowed from Timothy Gray
Davies, Clifford P. Harbour and James H. Banning's introduction to their meta
analysis study of 65 articles written over a ten year period (1990-2000) in the
"Community College Journal of Research and Practice" (CCJRP) asking the
question, "What have recent contributors to the Community College Journal of
Research and Practice reported in their research about persons from
underrepresented populations? (2003)" Their methodology calls for an approach
that posed a research question and identified all studies able to provide data to
answer the research question. Not to be mistaken with a qualitative method in
which themes are synthesized, this meta-analysis includes a synthesis, which
include findings, methods, and theories. The qualitative piece will include an
analysis of my experiences and reflections from my internship as they relate to
the literature.
11
The procedure I used to perform this meta-analysis involved creating an
annotated bibliography of all of the reference texts I used for this paper. I combed
all of the texts listed in my reference for five objective criteria: theory,
method, findings, researcher, and year. I placed the research into its historical
context by developing a tree chart that traces leadership theory metaphorically,
from simple to complex as symbolized by the tree, and literally, from early
contemporary to current time. In evaluating the theories that met my objective
criteria. I looked specifically for findings that would indicate leadership behaviors
that either a man or a woman could perform. I chart my findings based on the
research. If the findings showed behaviors either men or women could employ in
leadership situations, then I coded my answer “Yes—Gendered Leadership is a
Null Hypothesis” because in that particular study there was no differences
between gendered and non-gendered leadership. If the findings showed behavior
that only a man could perform, then I coded my answer “No—Gendered
Leadership is not a Null Hypothesis” because in that particular study there was a
difference between gendered and non-gendered leadership. If the findings were
too ambiguous to ascertain if either a man or a woman, or both could do the
behaviors, I coded my response “don’t know.” If the findings didn’t address the
issue at all, I coded my response “No answer.” Then a counted the results.
12
Introduction:
Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?
A Meta Analysis and Case Study
Is gendered leadership a null hypothesis? To better answer my thesis
question, first let’s ask what is gendered leadership? Since the focus of this
paper is gender, let’s take a closer look at the differences between sex and
gender. Sex is the biological imperatives that create physical differences
between men and women, while gender is the social constructions people create
from this information. “Gender is a significant cultural rather than an individual
difference or demographic variable which has important implications for
individuals and organizations” (Klenke, 1996, p. xi). An example would be that
women shouldn’t be leaders because leaders have to be strong, intelligent, and
make tough decisions, and those characteristics are better suited to men.
When examining, analyzing, and evaluating female and male
leaders, gender operates as the first of a series of prisms. “Gender” refers
to the historical, social, and cultural construction of biological sex, and is
usually defined “by default,” since what we attribute to one gender is
typically denied to the other. It is a powerful symbol because the very word
“gender” encapsulates all the signs that a culture elaborates to account for
biological differences between women and men. (Gherardi, 1994, qtd. in
Klenke, 1996, p. 14)
13
So if we look closely, we realize that by strong, we don’t necessarily mean
physically strong, we could mean strong-willed, committed, and persuasive.
Women can have these qualities. By intelligent, we don’t necessarily mean in a
crafty or wily way, we could just mean smart. Women can be smart both
academically and worldly. By being able to make tough decisions, we don’t
necessarily mean that a person should not be a caring, feeling, person, we could
just mean that they can make tough decisions and have everyone involved
understand. Women can do all of these things. So by gendered leadership, I
mean the human tendency to identify stock characteristics found in the complete
set of possible human responses, dichotomizing them, and then attributing one
set to men and the other to women. For instance, objective, autocratic, and task-
oriented behaviors are attributed to men and considerate, democratic, and
collaborative behaviors are attributed to women. Furthermore, gendered
leadership means that as a society we agree with unstated assumptions about
these stock characteristics as they relate to men and women respectively. By this
I mean, because we acculturate boys to behave in typically masculine ways, and
girls to behave in typically feminine ways, we agree with the unstated assumption
that these characteristics have rigid boundaries and the behaviors cannot and
should not turn up in the behaviors of the opposite sex. But is this true?
Which brings us to the meaning of “null.” My use of the word “null” is
meant to be playful. I find it ironic that throughout time researchers have
searched for an “objective truth” with such earnestness using seemingly biased
14
questionnaires and self-reported data to merely establish “probability.” Null is a
statistical term used to describe whether, in fact, a body of research supports or
does not support a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is that men and women have
exclusive gendered leadership behaviors for their sex, and I say that there is “no
difference” between leadership styles we typically attribute to a man from those
we typically attribute to a woman, then I’m finding the hypothesis of gendered
leadership is “null.” “As transmitters of culture, women leaders are helping to
rethink and restructure our assumptions about leadership and leaders in virtually
every field” (Klenke, 1996, p. xi). In regard to typical masculine leadership
qualities, isn’t it all right if a man taps that set of behaviors typically ascribed to
women? And isn’t it a double standard that this is not okay for women leaders?
And isn’t societies attitude becoming more accepting of woman leadership, albeit
slowly?
Now why might we resort to gender identities? Well, for one thing, it aids
us in communicating with one another. The more prior-knowledge we have, the
better we can evaluate a particular situation quickly, and respond accurately and
effectively. Gender stereotypes perform this function in society. We could then
enter into a situation armed with a set of understandings that had been agreed
upon in advance throughout society, and then interpret meaning faster and more
efficiently. For instance, the idea that men are the breadwinners in the family
would result in the meanings, women shouldn’t work, or that men should always
earn more money than women. The problem with using gender stereotypes
15
arises when these “mental models” no longer accurately represent society. Still,
we, as a society, socialize and acculturate our children to behave in these gender
appropriate ways. Change, in our technological age, happens faster than
humans can respond and adjust their conventions. In this paper a meta- analysis
of the past and present literature on leadership and gender is combined with a
case study of my leadership experiences and reflections as an intern. I served as
an intern in the Vice-President’s office of University Relations at a medium-sized
comprehensive university in the Midwest. I served two female leaders, one white
and one African American, who are each minorities in the administration.
Although I didn’t know this when I started my internship, a fundamental premise
of this paper is that anyone can be a leader.
. . . leadership is a process and a role that can be assumed by
women and men, adults and children, leaders and followers; it is an
aspiration, opportunity, and inspiration. In this process, time, tradition, and
innovation are critical elements. Different times, both in history and our
personal lives, call for different types of leadership. This means that
leadership must be constantly examined, re-examined and reformulated
against rapidly changing sociocultural, political, economic, and
technological conditions that mark our times. ( Klenke, 1996, p. 12)
Through my analysis of the past and present literature on leadership,
together with my fieldwork in these various settings, I propose to answer the
16
research question:
Is Gendered leadership a Null Hypothesis? Or is there an empirical
difference in the way women and men lead?
History
In my study, I wanted to begin by understanding the history of
women's efforts to enter the once male-dominated workplace. In Women and
Leadership, A Contextual Perspective, Karin Klenke writes:
Many tasks in the workplace are gender-typed. Construction work
is typically considered "men's work," while clerical work is considered
"women's work." Therefore we may expect that the nature of the task is
likely to have an effect on the performance or effectiveness of male and
female leaders. More specifically, we would expect that males are more
likely to assume leadership roles when dealing with "masculine" tasks
while women are more likely to take the lead in situations involving
"feminine" tasks. Whether a task is gender-linked or neutral is likely to
influence people's evaluations of their leaders. (p. 152)
Women's vision involved not merely creating a woman friendly
environment, but to advance the human rights of women to work by moving
society toward a more neutral stance. “Women are no different than men in the
17
respect that both derive autonomy, satisfaction, feelings of self-confidence and
worth, from working” (Witmer, 1995, p.7). Likewise, women are likely to use
whatever skills, behaviors, and methods necessary in their leadership roles at
work according to evolving contexts, as will men. In other words, leadership
behavior comprises the complete "tool kit" of possible responses whether male or
female. And yet society continues to construct stereotypical gendered meanings
for leadership behaviors. For example, in a study, women's behavior of using
directives with their husbands while working on household tasks were acceptable
use of leadership in the home, according to empirical evidence from (Bass,
1965), the same approach became unacceptable leadership at the husband's
company. The significance of this study suggests that, "The nature of the task as
a potential source of bias is but one of many situational factors" (p. 152). These
situational factors are changing our social ecology requiring us to use a broader
conceptual analysis of leadership situations (p. 152).
The early women's struggle towards equity in access, pay, and
opportunities for advancement have moved us closer to a neutral model of
leadership by exposing bias, and has opened up untold economic and leadership
opportunities for women; and yet some ceilings remain glass and some doors
remain closed. I'm curious as to why the revolution has been so successful in
some of the previously less-tractable areas, such as in mining, manufacturing,
and construction, for instance, while Higher Education remains resistant. Take for
example in the book, Class Action, The Landmark Case that Changed Sexual
18
Harassment Law. (2002), authors Clara Bingham and Laura Leedly Gansler tell
the riveting story of Lois Jenson's 20 years of leadership in the 1984 Class Action
sexual harassment lawsuit against Eveleth Mines, located in Northern Minnesota.
In 1974, nine of the country's largest steel companies signed a "consent decree"
with the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Department of Justice,
and the Labor Department forcing the steel companies to hand over a historic
$30 million in back pay for past discrimination against minority and women
employees, and it also required the industry's mills and mines to provide 20
percent of its new jobs to women and racial minorities. "Just like that, affirmative
action had come to Iron Range, and it set the stage for Lois Jenson and a
handful of women desperate for a decent wage to walk into a place that had
been forced by the federal government to hire them" (p.8). Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 provided women with a tool to seek redress for sexual
harassment as a form of sexual discrimination at a time when it was so prevalent
as to be ubiquitous to most people, who claimed not to understand how to define
it (p. 70). We certainly know what it is now. Why do we tolerate it in higher
education? What larger pattern emerges that may be applied to leadership in
education that would erase differences in gendered leadership? What’s
preventing us from moving toward a neutral model? Historically, what steps were
taken?
In Alice Kessler-Harris' book, In Pursuit of Equity, women, men, and the
quest for economic citizenship in 20th - century America, women who had not
19
previously worked, patriotically filed into manufacturing jobs to help the war effort
when most of our American men were in combat. This was a time when men
wanted and needed women to work, and women answered the call. Working not
only made them patriotic, but made women feel pride and self-satisfaction from
receiving pay for their hard work, unlike their previous role as stay at home
mothers, which often was thankless and sometimes felt unrewarding. After the
war, although women conceded their jobs back to men, they did begin to
question the rationale behind women staying home, while men worked. Of
course the suffrage movement at the turn of the century represented the
beginning of the woman's movement, but feminism can be traced back to the
modern era when Virginia Woolf first wrote her experimental stream of
consciousness literature to illustrate the inner workings of a woman's mind. This
questioning was followed by the publication of Betty Friedan's, The Feminine
Mystique, a feminist treatise that dared to question the social construction of
gender up to that time. Friedan's questioning the underlying assumptions about a
woman's sole purpose in life being to marry a rich man who would "take care" of
her, opened Pandora's box and set in motion the post-modern woman's
movement.
As a result of the woman's movement, more women felt empowered to
enter the workforce and take on leadership positions. This was dubbed a
"Revolution in American Family Life," according to one magazine headline. The
number of women who earned wages doubled from the 1920's to the 70's, and at
20
a time when it was becoming increasingly more difficult for families to survive on
only one wage-earners pay. So this time, economic necessity caused women to
answer the call of their country. More women were in the labor force, some
dropped out to have children and never returned, but many not only returned but
took less time off to deliver and care for them, introducing an explosion of need
for childcare and other products and services to accommodate the needs of
working women. For example, there was a revolution in diaper services,
improved support in the form of portable equipment for pumping breast milk for
breast-feeding, superior formulas, food, and medication for infants and toddlers,
to the emergence of take-out food, family friendly environments, or simply video
or DVD rentals to enable women to enjoy home entertainment with their families.
Entrepreneurial women who stepped up to answer the call of their own changing
needs provided much of these goods and services. All of which suggests how
inappropriate it was to define women so narrowly (p.280). You could actually say
that men themselves may have unwittingly ushered in the woman's movement by
their war mongering; talk about unintended consequences!
But despite women's patriotism and economic contributions their efforts
would have gone unrecognized had their leadership not thought to link women's
rights to the civil rights of black people, they might never have obtained legal
standing for their efforts for economic equity. Congress passed an Equal
Employment Act in 1971 that gave the Equal Employment Opportunity Center
(EEOC) power to sue in court, which gave women a tool to enforce regulations
21
regarding sex discrimination. Despite the fact that women were themselves
divided (and remain so today) as to what the proper role of women in society
ought to be, some advocated preserving women's special status, while others
sought equality, the public slowly came to understand the legal meaning of
discrimination. The women's movement's demand for individual rights with
access to political and social citizenship eroded barriers to economic citizenship.
Interestingly, in respect to women in higher education, Senator Moynihan
suggested society get a "vocational return for the money we invest in women's
education and household appliances." He proposed the use of women as
teachers, government executives, and community workers, but only after their
children had grown (p. 220).
It seems reasonable that we should challenge Senator Moynihan's
unexamined negative assumption masquerading as positive “spin” that women's
education and presumably the household appliances that make it easier for
women to work outside the home are investments. Unfortunately this sort of
attitude prevails in higher education. Mary Ann Mason, dean of the graduate
division at the University of California at Berkeley and study director of another
study called, “Do Babies Matter?” said “she wanted to address the question my
women graduate students always ask me, Is there a good time to have a baby?,”
in a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. She found:
. . .the worst time for women who pursue careers in academe to
22
have a baby is within five years of earning a Ph.D.. . .Women who do have
babies then are nearly 30 percent less likely than women without babies
ever to snag a tenure-track position. And of those women in the study who
had babies early on, only 56 percent earned tenure within 14 years after
receiving their Ph.D. (2003, pg. A6)
Could it be that the hierarchical and rigid tenure system is outright hostile
to women, especially those with a family? Consider this systemic bias. Compare
the family status of tenured professors. 70% of tenured men are married with
children, whereas only 44% of women are. More women in academe are either
single without children or married without children, and more women reported
they either chose not to have children because of their career in academe or had
fewer children than they wanted. (2003, A8). This quote from Joan C. Williams,
the director of the Program on Worklife Law at American University, sums it up
the best. She says:
Academe is still based on a model in which men worked and their
wives stayed at home with the children. This is a job that systematically
excludes mothers . . .it shows that so long as we continue to identify the
ideal academic worker as someone who works full time, 60 hours a week
for 40 years straight—surprise!—that will overwhelmingly be men.” (2003,
p. A7)
23
Up until the present, research generated by white male students studying white
male leaders has formulated the theoretical bases of educational leadership.
However, they're quick to say they spot "cracks in the male-controlled
educational leadership establishment" (p.6). Sustained increases, they say, seem
possible because of the sheer numbers in graduate degree programs.
Demographics also play grandly in the scheme. Increasing school enrollments
will spur the need for educational leaders. But also retirements will play a role.
"More than half of today's high-ranking educational leaders, in their late 50's or
early 60's have adequate years of service to retire" (p. 18). Furthermore,
according to "The 25 Hottest Careers," (1993) in Working Women Magazine,
62,000 educational administrators with entry-level salaries from $45,000 to
$52,000 and top salaries from $55,000 to $90,000, will be needed within the next
few years.
Witmer (1995) claims higher education by virtue of its flexibility, is fertile
ground for a change to women's leadership styles and hence increased numbers
of women leaders. While it’s true, there is a higher percentage of women
attending graduate schools, receiving Ph.D.'s, and studying Educational
Leadership than ever before, Higher Education remains a male dominated
institution. Why is this? Especially when all of the latest research on Educational
Leadership points to “women's ways of leading—collaboration”-- as being the
preferred leadership style. Authors, Marie Somers Hill and Joyce Raglund
discuss this phenomenon.
24
Marie Somers Hill and Joyce Raglund (1995) say according to a 1992
study, 54% of the total student population in college was women (p. 34) and their
numbers, especially in graduate school, have increased since then (p. 25). The
authors support their assertion with these statistics:
Throughout graduate programs, Yeakey et al (1986) found a 20%
increase in women doctoral candidates and a 338% increase in female
enrollment in business courses. The portion of doctoral degrees conferred
on women has moved from 28% in 1979 to 39% in 1994 and is expected
to reach 45% by the year 2000. (Database, 1994 qtd. In Somers &
Raglund, p. 25)
In Moving up! A Guidebook for Women in Educational Administration,
Judith Thompson Witmer says, "Most women choose administration for the same
reason that men do: more money, more autonomy, more status and more power"
(p.7). Their motivations are not different from that of men. But according to the
book Women as educational leaders, opening windows, pushing ceilings, while
women represented in higher education administration roles grew from 8.5% in
1975 and 1980, to 38% in 1990 (p. 34); women in higher education still hold
disproportionately fewer administrative jobs. Wecan dismiss Patricia Sellers
claim that because 21% of college presidents are female that women are
experiencing greater success in academe because she narrowly focuses on just
25
presidents not other leadership positions. According to Sellers article in Fortune,
out of government, business, and academe, women represent 14% of
government, 8% of business, and 21% in academe, noting women have made
the most progress in academe with 21% of college presidents female (p.96).In
Marie Somers Hill and Joyce Raglund's preface, they note steadily increasing
numbers of women in educational administration, but assert that the field is still
dominated by men. They say, male dominance of key leadership positions
presents "a significant barrier for women moving into roles as educational
leaders. Traditionally, men have controlled the highest administrative jobs within
school districts." Universities too have perpetuated these male only schemes. Hill
and Raglund say,
In its role of training chief school executives, the university has for
years been an example of a closed fraternity. Traditionally, faculty
members in educational leadership departments have been male. This
dominance has influenced career paths and choices of women in many
ways. First, university faculty members initially encourage or discourage
prospective graduate students about pursuing a degree. Once admitted to
a program, faculty members foster and mentor future leaders. Finally, in
many regions of the country, departments play central roles in selecting or
at least nominating candidates for leadership roles (p. 10).
26
Phyllis Bronstein (2001), grants that change is coming slowly, in her study
called, "Older women in academia: contemporary history and issues [Part 1 of 3]
in the Journal of Women's History. She says that thanks to the women's
movement some women have attained tenure positions in academia and have
become influential in their field. She says that women themselves have continued
to work as research associates, adjunct faculty, and independent scholars
despite the lack of emotional or monetary support. They derive their legitimacy
and worth from their own sense of how important their work is. The author
interviews thirteen white, academic women and herself ranging from age fifty to
seventy-two. She then provides the reader with a brief history of what she calls
the “first and second wave” of women faculty entering academia. She talks about
the sacrifices women made for their husbands when it came to who stayed home
to raise the children and who quit their job if the husband received a promotion or
job offer, saying it was a surprise women ever got their Ph.D.’s at all. In her
discussion of “The Graduate School Years” she provides the reader with real
experiences from the women she interviewed as evidence of the both obvious
and subtle ways being older affected them.
Experiences such as women faculty using their positions of authority to
keep excellent women from being successful; either by failing to admit them to
their class or program or by purposefully excluding them from networks of
younger women. Male faculty used a parent-child model of mentorship, which
prevented most women from seeking a mentor. Financial- aid administrators
would readily accept women’s financial aid in full even as they short-changed the
27
woman candidate. Administrators’ hiring decisions, with assumptions regarding
the primacy of men in our culture, would frequently supercede even qualified
women’s right to academic employment when administrators hired younger, less
qualified men and women. Even Duderstadt (2000) in his book, A University for
the 21st Century, admits that faculty women suffered from the “glass ceiling” at
the University of Michigan, in a discussion about the Michigan Agenda for
Women, which sought to improve equity on campus for women faculty, staff, and
students. He acknowledges that faculty suffered because of hidden prejudice.
He noted how it was especially hard for women faculty to earn tenure from their
male peers. But he also noted that the university didn't do a good job of placing
women in key positions to step into leadership positions either. So although the
University of Michigan was one of the first to admit women, they remain to this
day resistant to female leaders and feminine leadership styles. What the
Michigan Agenda did was allow different strategies to emerge for different
departments. Each department was to submit specific plans for how it intended to
be more inclusive of women.
Competition in a male dominant environment is entirely predictable.
However something happens to women who are forced to operate in this alien
system. They become even more cut throat than their male counterparts at
holding other women back. To have women responsible for perpetuating the
male dominant system is both ironic and unfortunate. It’s a divide and conquer
strategy. As noted earlier, it seems higher education doesn’t have any trouble
admitting women to graduate school at some level—its only when women get
28
their first tenure track position and try to advance through the ranks that it begins
to become clear that the assumptions about what women should and shouldn’t
do in society are still prominent. Bronstein analyzed women’s credentials and
found that women hid their age and family status whereas men didn’t. If women
failed to hide this fact from search committees, they invariably were cut.
Frequently men who wrote women’s letters of recommendation were the ones
who embedded language revealing the woman candidates’ age, marital, and
family status, almost as if it were code for don’t hire this person. Bronstein
concludes by suggesting that if you’re a woman in her fifties with excellent
credentials, it’s likely you will be punished. After filing an age discrimination suit
with the State Department of Fair Employment, she asked “why they might not
want an older, highly qualified woman for the position” the answer she received
was:
If you don’t do things on a certain timetable, you get punished.
Academia is built to accommodate male career development. Also, people
don’t like to have a subordinate who is older than them. Being
‘overqualified’ really means you’re not a little cream puff. I’m not some
baby beginner who can just be pushed around. (p. 6)
Within the last ten years, as more women have chosen to work, women
have participated in actively constructing a gendered leadership model for
29
themselves. So economics were largely responsible for this rise in gender-
stereotypes. Perhaps you wonder why women would be instrumental in creating
gender identities. On reason is that women simply enjoy being different and
being treated special. Another reason is that it unified the two conflicting beliefs
regarding women’s proper role in society that women have fought about since
suffrage times—that women could retain their gender identity; yet still be leaders.
One reason, I think, women chose to create gender identities is they thought they
couldn’t compete directly with the dominant culture’s model. Indeed, they couldn’t
compete because men are very competitive and when only men made the
decisions, they were at a distinct advantage. But by constructing a separate
gender identity, women posed no threat to men. Men, who might otherwise think
twice about promoting women to leadership positions, did so, thereby allowing
the first woman to get her foot in the door. If you think about it, women couldn’t
have devised a more ingenious strategy for women to make headway into
leadership positions. This constructing of a gender-identity that is separate but
equal to men, I believe, is an essential phase through which women must pass in
order for society to move towards a neutral model. It is essential because in our
culture we define things in relation to other things. By defining one model as
masculine and one as feminine, we are better able to see not only the ways that
gendered distinctions serve us, but also the ways they can be a disservice. Our
examination of both phenomenon allow us to ask whether there is any credence
to separate gender identities and in turn, whether these boundaries are, in fact,
rigid.
30
In the spirit of this reasoning, Witmer is quick to describe power as
different from men's conception. My own best analogy to describe this is, for
men, power is a noun, something to be possessed to the exclusion of all others.
For women, it’s a transitive verb, an action process shared with others. The way
that Witmer deconstructs masculine and feminine styles of leadership, helps me
understand historically, how the masculine style has dominated in educational
leadership while the feminine style has dominated in educational practices;
perhaps because women were relegated the lower status teaching jobs, while
the men preserved for themselves the higher status administrator jobs. Witmer
says, "It could be said that "the masculine style uses structural power, which is
based on authority associated with position, title, and the ability to reward and
punish, while the feminine style relies on charisma, work record, and contacts"
(p.27). Witmer says,
Interaction, access, flow, conduit, involvement, network, reach—these are
the attitudinal words of women administrators. They are "process" words
all of which emphasize relationships. They are interactive words that are
favored by women and that reflect women's style of leadership. These
qualities specifically include encouraging participation, sharing power and
information, and enhancing other people's self worth. Women who make it
into the top executive spot according to Rosener (Men vs. Women," n.d.),
report that they "work to make their subordinates own self-interest work for
the good of the entire operation. (p.6)
31
A neutral model is some ways off in the future. You can see evidence of
women still finding use for a gendered identity. For instance, in an article in the
October 13, 2003 issue of Fortune called, "Power: Do Women Really Want It?"
the author says, "No, they do not want it" (p.86). I believe this is a deliberate
attempt to placate men who may feel threatened. What exactly is it that these
women say they do not want? The audience for seems to be men, because they
treat the words “leadership” and “power” as though they are interchangeable.
Perhaps for men they are, but savvy women have learned to substitute the word
“leadership” for “power” so as to deflect criticism that they are failing to fulfill
men’s gender expectation. Author Patricia Sellers bases her argument on the
unstated assumption that only the male-hierarchical versions of leadership count
in business. To her credit, she does redefine women's notion of power to one of
influence, which emphasizes relationships. But when Patricia Sellers claims the
most educated, accomplished powerful women don't seek the highest paid jobs;
she fails to mention that these women are rejecting the hierarchical leadership
model not power positions. The way to understand this distinction is to compare
management and leadership. Management is said to be driven by structure,
leadership by process. (Klenke, 1996, p. 97). Structure, the "formal pattern of
how people and jobs are grouped together in an organization"; and "process, the
activities that give life to a structure," are distinct because one has to do with
"position" and the other does not (Klenke, 1996, p. 97).
Hill and Raglund identify "conflicts between the role of leaders and
32
expectations for female roles" like those described in Patricia Seller's Fortune
article about whether women want power, as barriers to women's' promotion.
They list the following expectations as cultural barriers:
1 Male Dominance of key leadership positions
2 Lack of political savvy
3 Lack of career positioning
4 Lack of mentoring
5 Lack of Mobility
6 Internal barriers and bias against women
All of these barriers are a result of experiential deprivation resulting from
using gendered identities too rigidly. As women struggle to align their cultural
acculturation for gendered identities with a female leadership model that never
existed before, they experience conflict. For instance, lack of career positioning
refers to the way ranks of workers are closed, making it impossible for women to
move from a staff position to a line position (p. 11). They’re closed because
they’ve always been that way. So it becomes a matter of women forging new
models. Of particular interest to me because of my internship experience is "lack
of mentoring." Hill and Raglund cite women's inexperience and lack of
understanding power and processes as reasons some women don't mentor.
Another reason is if the administrator sees herself as a token, she'll be too
threatened to foster leadership in others. (p. 13.) Lack of mobility involves the
33
whole socio-economic structure surrounding women—that is their need for a
support network in child-rearing, especially if the woman is a single parent. This
need causes women to define their mobility in terms of miles from their homes
rather than pulling up stakes and moving to a new state. The internal barriers
include subtle verbal and non-verbal communication methods intended to
undermine a woman's authority and hence decision-making.
Meta-Analysis of Leadership Theory
In Figure one, you will find a metaphorical representation of leadership
theory. You’ll notice that the words, “Great Man Theory,” and “Military Theory”
appear beneath the ground, at the root level, for all other contemporary theories
arose from these. At the sturdy trunk level of the tree is the singular concept of
the leader. All studies about leaders from the leader perspective appear here,
including Behavioral Theory. The lower part of the tree, which usually branches
out into a few strong major limbs represent the three types of behavior identified
as Democratic, Laissez-faire, and Autocratic. I placed these traits so as to
coincide with traditional directions in ideology. Therefore, the democratic
leadership appears on the left-side of the tree, and the autocratic leadership
appears on the right side of the tree. The laissez-faire leadership style is placed
in the middle where it obtains all of the direct strength of the tree and therefore
doesn’t require much effort. The entire canopy of the tree represents the
34
Contingency Theories, including leaders, followers, and situations. So I’ve placed
the various names of the contingency theories all along the top to represent the
great complexity of Leadership Theory today. I place the names of theories to the
right, left or middle of the trunk as matches their ideology. Of course, the
implication of this metaphor is that as the tree, or Leadership Theory grows, and
as we all know, growth is a “process” so they will continue to increase in
complexity.
As for the meta-analysis piece of my research, after synthesizing the
readings down to core nuggets of information about the studies, I place them as
succinctly as possible into a matrix so the reader may quickly ascertain the
meaning of the findings. Then, I looked specifically for findings that would
indicate leadership behaviors that either a man or a woman could perform. I chart
my findings based on the research. If the findings showed behaviors either men
or women could employ in leadership situations, then I coded my answer “Yes—
Gendered Leadership is a Null Hypothesis” because in that particular study there
was no differences between gendered and non-gendered leadership. If the
findings showed behavior that only a man could perform, then I coded my answer
“No—Gendered Leadership is not a Null Hypothesis” because in that particular
study there was a difference between gendered and non-gendered leadership. If
the findings were too ambiguous to ascertain if either a man or a woman, or both
could do the behaviors, I coded my response “don’t know.” If the findings didn’t
address the issue at all, I coded my response “No answer.” Then a counted the
results.
35
Leadership Theory research from the oldest to the most current theories,
may be divided into three periods: Trait Theory which developed roughly
between 1910 to World War II; Behavioral Theory which developed from about
the onset of World War II and lasted until the late 1960’s; and the Contingency
Theories which developed from 1960 to present.(Chemers (1984) qtd in Wren, p.
83) Contingency Theory is both an overarching name for a series of theories as
well as itself a name for a particular theory. Early Leadership Theories tended to
be simplistic, but over time they have grown in complexity. In addition,
Leadership Theory has evolved over time from a static idea to a dynamic idea in
which theories related to the movement or exchange between leaders and
followers; leaders and situations; followers and situations; and the full tool kit of
behaviors leaders draw upon on which to be successful leaders are included.
Interestingly, Leadership Theory parallels other cross-disciplinary areas as well:
Organizational Theory, Learning Theory, Writing Theory, Feminist Theory, to
name a few. Researchers who have developed Leadership Theory have drawn
from many disciplines, and used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Most
of the quantitative methods involved asking a large population of respondents
using random sampling to answer a questionnaire or survey designed to highlight
the particular research question. The qualitative methods usually involved
interviews or case studies.
36
The Trait Theory
The Trait Theory is a holdover from the historical Military Theory and the
Great Man Theory, which date back to Plato’s Republic. In the Military Theory
“Each group member is responsible for following the member above him. ”(Faris
& Outcalt, 2001, p. 9). All eyes were on the leader, because the leader exercised
control over those beneath him in the hierarchy. I intentionally left out reference
to women, because in this early time period women were not thought to be
capable of leadership, only white males. The Great Man Theory shares some
features of the Military Theory such as the belief that some people have a greater
natural endowment of those characteristics. The Trait Theory assumes leaders
had physical and psychological traits, such as height, dominance, and
aggression, that made them natural leaders and these traits were inborn. Bass,
(1981), says “the Great Man Theory contains a thread of belief in Darwinism and
the notion that leadership ability is passed from generation to generation
genetically” (Qtd in Faris and Outcalt, 2001, p. 10). Faris & Outcalt reason that it
is elitist because it aligns with the ancient practice of leadership being passed
down to royal offspring. Trait Theory, according to Komives, Lucas, & McMahon,
(1998), asserts that “leaders are those individuals who have a “natural ability to
lead” (Qtd in Faris & Outcalt, 2001, p. 10). Traits were determined by observing
behavior or from self-reported data of men. The earliest research on Trait Theory
occurred in 1959 when R. Mann’s study, “A review of the relationship between
personality and performance in small groups” found that while “leaders tended to
37
be more intelligent, extroverted, dominant, masculine, and taller than non-
leaders” he found contradictions suggesting that “possessing these traits does
not guarantee leadership success” (Mann,1959, qtd. in Klenke, 1996, p. 59).
Following Mann’s study was Stogdill’s (1948) study in which,
A large number of studies were done in which leaders and followers
were compared on various measures hypothesized to be related to
leadership status or effectiveness. Measures of dominance, social
sensitivity, moodiness, masculinity, physical appearance, and many others
were used. (Chemers, 1995, p. 84)
An ‘individual differences’ instrument was used by both leaders and
followers and compared. After reviewing 120 trait studies for a pattern Stogdill
was left with inconsistent results. One of the problems with Stogdill’s research
was his methodology.
“. . .groups were artificially created in contrived settings, such as
laboratories, or based on classroom observations and other environments with
limited generalizability” (Stogdill, 1948 qtd in Klenke, 1996, p. 61). Stogdil
concluded that “A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession
of some combination of traits. . .; the pattern of personal characteristics of the
leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and
goals of the followers” (Stogdill, 1948, p. 64 qtd in Klenke, 1996, p. 60). Stogdill
unintentionally debunked the trait myth in his 1948 study and so he did another
38
study in 1974 which showed the trait theory did actually have some positive
potential; however he stuck to his contention that the situation would always
determine the traits a leader should use. In hindsight, realization of the
importance of the situation opened the door to women to serve in leadership
positions. In 1956, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) was the site of a
longitudinal study (Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974). Career progress of men and
correlations between traits and managerial success were drawn; however
questions arose as to whether managers were equivalent to leaders. So the
findings of Trait Theory point to some relevance of certain kinds of traits for
leadership but no more. “. . .assumptions that leaders are born and certain inborn
traits are necessary to lead effectively have not been substantiated after six
decades of research . . . ” (Klenke, 1996, p. 61).
Behavioral Theory
Behavior Theory shifts the focus from leaders to leader behaviors. “. . .the
behavioral approach assumed that leadership is learned by acquiring a set of
behaviors or leadership style necessary for effective leadership” (Klenke, 1996,
p. 64).The earliest appearance of a Behavioral Theory happened In 1939, when
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White, trained graduate research
assistants in three leadership styles, 1. autocratic, 2. democratic and 3. laissez-
faire. The first leader made all of the decisions and held tight control of group
activities in the autocratic style. The second leader emphasized group
39
participation and majority rule in the democratic style. The third leader in the
laissez-faire group involved low levels of any kind of activity. The democratic
style was found to be the most effective on group processes (Wren, 1995, p. 84).
Over time apparently the laissez-faire leader choice dropped out of the
possibilities because it was seen as not leadership, leaving us with the dualistic
views we still hold today. I see this research as representing the beginning of the
dichotomy we now see in leadership theory, which we call gendered leadership.
In the following quote by Martin M. Chemers we see an introduction to the
research that results in two schemas, which we would later socially construct to
being that of male and female respectively.
The importance of this study is not so much in its results but in its
definition of leadership in terms of behavioral style. Also the emphasis on
autocratic, directive styles versus democratic and participative styles had
a profound impact on later research and theory. (Wren, 1995, p. 85).
The next to appear were Influence Theories. One such concept that
sounds very much like a “Great Man Theory” was the Charismatic Leader.
“Charisma” means “Gift of Grace” from Greek origins, and was used to describe
a person’s ability to prophesize, rule, teach, convey wisdom, and heal (Klenke,
p.76). Charisma began appearing in the work of Max Weber (1947), who
described these as “self-appointed leaders who attract followers in distress or
times of crisis” (Klenke, p. 76). Charismatic Leadership, which grew from
40
religious, social, and political movements in which leaders emerge during crises,
culminated in “. . .a testable set of variables meant to predict charismatic
personalities” (Faris & Outcault, 2001, p. 11). According to a study by Northouse
(1997), charismatic leaders possess these behavioral approaches: “They are
said to be strong role models, competent, have the ability to ‘arouse task-relevant
motives in followers that include power and esteem’ (Qtd in Faris & Outcalt,
2001, p. 11). The link between charismatic leaders and their followers is direct,
says Weber, because the followers are not part of any mediated organization. It
is by virtue of their seemingly magical abilities, revelations of heroism, power of
mind and speech, and not any basis of office, that these charismatic leaders
attract followers. (Klenke, 1995, p. 76). Charismatic Leadership, while still very
much a factor in Transformational Leadership which followed many years later,
fell out of use, dismissed as also being elitist (Bass, 1981; Northouse, 1997).
Independent researchers in the 1950’s used the “Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire” (LBDQ) on large numbers of industrial and military
leaders. Their findings resulted in the creation of two clusters of behaviors. One
they described as Consideration behavior related to interpersonal warmth,
concern for the feelings of the subordinates, and the use of participative two-way
communication. Initiation of structure related to directiveness, goal facilitation,
and task related feedback (Klenke, 1996, p. 64). The findings showed difficulty in
relating behavioral factors to organizational outcomes, causing the relationship
between leader-structuring behavior and group productivity to have few patterns
41
(Klenke, 1996, p. 64). In another study in which these two types of behaviors
appeared was in a study between Ohio State University and the University of
Michigan. In this study similar broad leader behaviors called 1. initiating structure
and 2. consideration approach was developed through extensive research
between Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. The researchers
(Halpin & Winer, 1957) developed questionnaires that would identify task-or
relationship behaviors as they relate to attaining group goals. Their findings
showed: “leaders high on consideration tend to have more productive followers,
who are also more satisfied with considerate leaders than leaders low on
consideration; however the relationship between consideration and leadership
effectiveness varied substantially” (Klenke, 1996, p. 64). Again situational factors
figured heavily into leaders decisions regarding which behaviors leaders
displayed. Some of the more prominent researchers in this area and the years
they published included Stogdill, (1974); Katz (1960), Likert, (1961) White and
Lippitt, (1960),and Jago and Vroom (1982). Yukl (1981) said of Stogdill’s 1974
study, “both technical and administrative skills were added to the roster of
leadership traits as the research shifted more to applied contexts (Klenke, 1996,
p. 61). Stogdill concluded that “leadership is entirely situational in origin and that
no personal characteristics are predictive of leadership”(Stogdill, 1974, p. 72 qtd.
in Klenke, 1996, p. 61). Katz (1960) and Likert, 1961, said that follower-centered
leadership styles are related to supervisory effectiveness (Kenke, 1995, p. 65).
White and Lippitt said out of the three leadership styles authoritarian, democratic,
and laissez-faire, “followers preferred a democratic leadership style, although not
42
in all situations” (Klenke, 1995, p. 65). Personal experience tells us that in
situations of high stress and intensity, such as in an emergency room; autocratic
behaviors are more effective than democratic behaviors. So it’s no surprise Jago
and Vroom reported that “leaders use a democratic style when followers exercise
initiative and autonomy, but a more autocratic style when followers are passive,
depend on instructions, and need direction” (Klenke, 1996, p. 65). While an
improvement over Trait Theories because of their increased complexity of
looking at the various elements of leaders, followers, and situations, Behavioral
Theory did suggest that leadership styles could be learned. I assume if it can be
learned, it can be taught; and it can be taught to either men or women.
Contingency Theory
According to Contingency Theory “there is no best way to make decisions,
and that the most effective style will depend on the characteristics of the
situation” (Wren, 1995, p. 88). So Contingency Theory, defined as “those
theories which postulate that leadership effectiveness is dependent or contingent
upon the interaction between certain leader attributes and the characteristics of
the specific situation” (Klenke, 1996, p. 66), attempts to take in situations or
contingencies into consideration. The relationship between leader decision-
making and style to group performance and morale suggests, “certainty,
predictability, and control could well be the most critical factors in the leadership
equation” (Wren, 1995, p. 88). Much of the research in this area associates
43
highly structured, directive, and autocratic styles with task-motivated leaders and
attentive, responsive, and participative styles with relationship motivated leaders
(Wren, 1995, p. 86). Fred Fiedler’ spent fifteen years studying Contingency
Theory, and he was one of the first theorists to reliably predict the effects of
leadership style on organizational outcomes. As I mentioned previously in this
paper, his theory, called The Contingency Model, was named for the entire group
of contemporary leadership theories. Fiedler developed a measure called the
‘least-preferred coworker (LPC)’ scale. The relationship of the LPC to group
performance was determined by whether the rater gave a negative or positive
rating. A ‘task-motivated’ leader would give a negative rating to a ‘relationship
motivated person’ and a ‘relationship motivated’ leader would give a negative
rating to a ‘task motivated leader’ and visa versa. He found that “. . .leadership
style alone was not sufficient to explain leader effectiveness” (Wren, 1995, p. 86).
So he expanded his studies using a situational control scale, which included:
1. leader-member relations, that is the degree of trust and support
which followers give the leader
2. task structure, that is, the degree to which the goals and
procedures for accomplishing the group’s task are clearly
specified
3. position power, that is, the degree to which the leader has formal
authority to reward and punish followers (Wren, 995, p. 86)
44
Research findings showed neither style was effective in all situations. Although
Fiedler’s Contingency Theories resulted in a great deal of argument, Strube &
Garcia’s, “A Meta-analytical Investigation of Fiedler’s Contingency Model of
Leadership Effectiveness” (1981) demonstrated that the data supports the theory
(Wren, 1995, p.87). The importance of this research directly affects leadership
training because it implies that if you teach leadership then this results in
increasing leader’s situational control (Wren, 1995, p. 88).
Another kind of Contingency Theory is called, the “Normative Decision
Theory.” According to Martin M. Chemers, “As the word normative in the name of
the theory implies, the model specifies which of the styles is most likely to yield
effective decisions under varying situations” (Qtd in Wren, 1995, p. 88). Vroom
and Yetton (1973) identified the following range of decision-making styles:
• Autocratic Leader makes decision alone
• Consultative Leader consults with subordinates then makes decision
• Group Leader allows subordinates to share
in the decision-making responsibility (Wren, 1995, p. 88)
The situational characteristics include:
1. the expected support, acceptance, and commitment to the
decision by the subordinates
2. the amount of structured, clear, decision-relevant information
45
available to the leader
The following rules determine which styles will be most effective:
1. autocratic decisions are less time-consuming; therefore more
efficient
2. if the leader does not have sufficient structure and information to
make a high quality decision, he or she must consult with
subordinates
3. if the leader does not have sufficient support from subordinates
to assure they will accept the decision, the leader must gain
subordinate acceptance and commitment through participation in
decision-making
Both Normative Design Theory and Fielder’s Contingency Models make similar
predictions, but Fiedler’s Contingency Model, which is based on a belief in ,
stable, leadership personalities, says that styles are hard to change; whereas the
Normative Design Theory assume leaders are flexible and can change their style
at will. “Autocratic decisions are likely to be efficient and effective when the
leader has a clear task and the support of followers. Relatively more participative
decisions will fare better when either support or clarity is absent” (Wren, 1995, p.
89). Another giant of leadership theory is Bass and Associates, who identified
five leadership styles:
46
1. directive
2. negotiative
3. consultative
4. participative
5. and delegative (Wren, 1995, p. 89)
In this study, Bass and Associates surveyed several organizations using a large
survey that asked managers to rate whether decision styles affect a number of
features of the leadership situation. The findings, while inconsistent, did say that
effects of decision style on group performance and subordinate satisfaction
depend on the situation; but the more important finding was that “various
leadership styles were not independent of one another” (Wren, 1995, p.89).
Another Contingency Theory is the Path Goal Theory. This theory shifts
from the follower’s viewpoint to the leader’s viewpoint, because the leader has
“high clarity and follower support.” Unlike the previous theories, Path Goal has
nothing to do with decisions. Similar to a theory of supervision “The theory
predicts that leader-structuring behavior will have the most positive effects on
subordinate psychological states when the subordinate’s task is unclear and/or
difficult, that is, unstructured. The structure provided by the leader helps to clarify
the path to the goal for the subordinates” (Wren, 1995, p. 90). In a study of Path
Goal Theory, Ricky N. Griffin found that job characteristics, the needs, attitudes,
47
and expectations of the follower have an important effect on the follower’s
reaction to the leader. Managers who scored on a measure of the need for
personal growth preferred not to receive structuring supervision; conversely
subordinates low in growth need were not upset by a boring, routine job (Wren,
1995, p. 90).
While some Contingency Theories such as those discussed, deal with
either followers or leaders viewpoints; a very different type of leadership emerged
during the 60’s that would turn the hierarchy on its head. This was called Servant
Leadership. Robert K. Greenleaf defined it this way:
The servant leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling
that one wants to serve. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to
lead. The best test is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while
being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more
likely themselves to become servants? (Greenleaf, 1998, p.
Servant Leadership is important to this study because first, it ushered in the era
of student service learning, out of which The Social Change Model of Leadership
grew; but also because of the way it validated the ‘women’s way’ of leading as
okay for men. Servant Leadership grew out of the recognition in the value of
learning through experience advocated by Dewey. The student service learning
model (1980) became the name when service and experiential learning were
48
linked. “Servant-leadership advocates a group-oriented approach to analysis and
decision making as a means of strengthening institutions and of improving
society” (Greenleaf, 1998, p. 9) Larry Spears says in his introduction to The
Power of Servant Leadership (1998), that the time has come for the paradoxical
idea of putting together the words “servant” and “leadership,” because of a
monumental shift in thinking during this period in history.
As we prepare to enter the 21st century, we are witnessing a shift in
business and nonprofit organizations—away from traditional autocratic
and hierarchical modes of leadership and toward a model based on
teamwork and community; one that seeks to involve others in decision
making; one that is strongly based in ethical caring behavior; and one that
is attempting to enhance the personal growth of workers while at the same
time improving the caring and quality of our many institutions. This
emerging approach to leadership and service is called “servant-
leadership.” (Greenleaf, 1998), p. 2)
When you consider the power men wielded in these traditional hierarchical
structures you can almost feel their pain at being moved from the top to the
bottom of organization. “Servant-leadership holds that the primary purpose of a
business should be to create a positive impact on its employees and community,
rather than using profit as the sole motive” (Greenleaf, 1998, p. 9). You also don’t
see a lot of women showing much interest in this theory because this is the
49
model they had been using in their families and communities all along. It’s as if
the men came along and dreamed this all up themselves, and it never existed in
society prior to this introduction. Women and people of color, historically have
suffered under the two-tier system in which men’s lives and world were
hierarchically ordered; while women, especially African American Women
catered to men. Interestingly, Spears addresses these negative connotations of
the word “servant” for those workers, women, and persons of color who endured
them under the previous model, and urges them to move beyond these reactions
so that everyone is encouraged to seek opportunities to both serve and lead.
Transactional Approaches are more theories in support of the leader
viewpoint as it relates to the leader-subordinate relationship. Leadership
legitimation such as the controversial “Idiosyncratic Credits Theory,” developed
by Edwin P. Hollander, happens because a group bestows status upon an
individual when that individual demonstrates competence and shared values,
then the group will allow him or her to be a change agent for the group.
“Hollander’s work shows us that the legitimation of leadership is a process of
social exchange” (Wren, 995, p. 91). An example of this from my readings is A.
Kleiner’s article in the July 2003 Harvard Business Review titled, “Are you in with
the in crowd?” Kleiner argues that it’s human nature for companies to develop
core groups within organizations. These are usually people who control access to
some bottleneck. The example he uses is how inside the Coca-Cola Company
only a few people have access to the secret Coke recipe. He says smart leaders
50
are the ones who are quick to identify the “in-crowd” and lead according to his or
her perceived attitudes of the core group in order to be accepted. (p.87).
Interestingly, Kleiner claims we “can confer legitimacy on anyone but ourselves.
He says, “Indeed, what people conventionally call leadership is, at bottom, the
ability to get others to confer legitimacy on us—and thus to get others to put us in
the core group” (p. 89). A study by George Graen and associates disputes
Kleiner’s notion of “an in-crowd.” In this study using the Vertical Dyad Linkage
Model (VDL) Graen introduced a leadership training model in which the leader is
trained to assess his or her power to produce results valued by in-group followers
and negotiate the exchange of these outcomes for desired follower behaviors
and performance levels” (McElroy & Stark, 1992, p. 245 qtd in Klenke, 1995, p.
254). The study demonstrates that leaders develop specific and unique
exchanges with each subordinate and the more positive the interaction the
greater the subordinate will identify with an organization. There are many
theories in which subjects are asked to rate aspects such as their leader’s
behavior and their own satisfaction causing researchers to question whether
what they’re getting is subordinates subjective opinions or accurate reflections of
the construct being studied. Instead of dismissing these as subjective therefore
biased, we must remember that in transactional relationships subordinate’s
perceptions, biased or not, still compels leaders to conform to subordinate’s
expectation (Wren, 1995, p. 94).
Burns (1978) describes two types of leadership: transactional, which
represents the industrial models that distinguish between leaders and followers
51
like the one’s I’ve just described; and transformational leadership, which focuses
on the relationship and is more of a process for raising motivation and morality to
a higher level.(Faris & Outcalt, 2001, p. 13). During the past twenty years there
has been a decided shift away from “assumptions about scientific management,
rational decision making, positivist epistemology, and behavioristic psychology”
and towards a “more descriptive, naturalistic, phenomenology of leaders in action
(Starrat, 1993 qtd in Klenke, 1995, p. 75).
From this point forward, Leadership Theories would become known as the
“post-industrial” leadership models. Bass (1985) studied transformational
leadership by developing and using an instrument called the Multifactor
Leadership Development Program (MLQ) which classifies leaders as either
transactional or transformational. Bass found charisma to be the important part of
transformational leadership that causes followers to put forth extra effort. In
addition, Bass found that transformational leadership consists of three
components: charisma, which is described as a quality in “self-appointed leaders
who attract followers in distress or times of crisis” (Klenke, p. 76); intellectual
stimulation, which described the process that leaders use to increase followers’
awareness of problems; and individualized consideration, which means the
leader providing care support to followers. These three components interact to
produce changes in followers and their combined effects distinguish between
transformational leadership and charismatic leadership (Klenke, 1995, p. 80).
The two different worlds of transactional and transformational leadership
are similar to a comparison between management and leadership. Transactional
52
leadership lives in existing cultures, satisfies followers’ psychological and
material needs while maintaining the status quo; transformational leadership
motivates followers by appealing to collective interests, creating new visions, and
shifting their followers’ beliefs through their self-confidence, dominance, and a
strong conviction in the moral righteousness of their beliefs (Klenke, 1995, p. 81).
MLQ measures showed correlations between charisma and self-actualization. In
that study United States Air Force Cadets saw charismatic squadron
commanders as their role models because they were not only more likely to find
their leadership effective, but because they encouraged followers self-
actualization (Klenke, 1995, p. 81).
Rost (1991) insisted upon differentiating between transactional leadership
comprised of “good management” and transformational leadership comprised of
leaders who by force of their personalities can move performance of followers to
extraordinary lengths (Klenke, 1995, p. 82). For Rost, the cataclysmic changes in
Eastern Europe in 1989-90 are one of many indicators of a massive paradigm
shift. For the researchers in the text Developing Non-hierarchical Leadership on
Campus, the rapidity of change though technology, the age of information, the
internet itself all indicate this massive shift in values experienced world-wide. As
a result Rost called for a reconceptualization of leadership theory from the
industrial model to a post-industrial model in which transformation is the
cornerstone, (Klenke, 1995, p. 82); because “leadership is the outcome of the
necessary and reciprocal relationship between leaders and collaborators” (Faris
and Outcalt, p.12). How would studies of leadership theory change as a result of
53
this reconceptualization? Klenke says that first rather than being the exclusive
domain of the social sciences, it will become more multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary in the areas of anthropology, education, philosophy, and feminist
theory. The studies themselves will rest “largely on retrospective analyses,
qualitative and descriptive studies, and questionnaire data” much like I’m doing in
this study and are also used in the Social Change Model of Leadership (SCM).
The Higher Education Research Institutes co-principal investigators, Helen
and Alexander Astin, developed this model in the 1990’s. Also known as the
Seven C’s of Change, multiple levels of interaction are framed in such a way as
to foster leadership development. These levels include, the individual, the group,
and the community/society. The seven values are 1. consciousness of self, or
knowing oneself; 2. congruence, or actions that are consistent with beliefs; and 3.
commitment, or the energy that drives the collective commitment; (individuals
strive) 4. Collaboration, or working together towards common goals; 5. common
purpose, or a groups ability to engage in collective analyses according to shared
aims; 6. controversy with civility, or recognition that conflict is inevitable and must
be solved through open and honest dialogue, (groups strive) and 7. citizenship,
or the self’s connection to the environment and community. (Community’s strive.)
(Bonous-Hammarth, 2001, p. 37). According to Marguerite Bonous-Hammarth,
“Thus, our leadership model seeks to develop a conscious and congruent person
who can collaborate with others, who can become a committed participant in the
shaping of a group’s common purpose, who can help to resolve controversy with
civility and be a responsible citizen” (p. 38) This model emerges from the belief
54
that anyone can be a leader, and that we must actively educate students to be
leaders.
Review of Current Literature
In the essay, "New Ways of leading in a networked world," Cynthia
Cherrey and Kathleen Allen describe how the internet is itself an embodiment of
the female leadership model and that this is reason enough for paradigm shift.
The equality of access and democratic approaches that creates a delivery
system for information that force the user to discern its value requires critical
thinking and active engagement, is socially constructed and an embodiment of
what it means to learn. Cherrey and Allen say:
It [the internet] can only be understood as a systemic set of actions. There
are many agents of leadership dispersed throughout a networked
organization. Leadership within a networked world can be practiced from
anywhere. In this sense, leadership has the potential of being abundant
especially if we think of it as non-positional—not just attached to position
and rank. If leadership capacities are encouraged and developed, anyone
in the network can become an agent of leadership. (p.46).
55
Cherrey and Allen describe the traditional hierarchical organizational
system as coming from the worldview in which "the whole system is understood
as a collection of parts, much like a car that is constructed on an assembly line"
(p. 40). They say it is fragmented, making them easy to identify, especially in
higher education. They say, "the ivory tower image of the academy represents a
self-contained entity, secluded from the outside environment. Within higher
education, academic and student affairs are divided by traditional boundaries
between parts" (p. 41).
It just so happens that computer technology, like the United States' twin
ideologies of market-driven economics and social democracy, embodies both
ideologies. Computers have both masculine and feminine features. Both
encourage a market-driven paradigm while simultaneously providing much
information free of charge. It permits a hierarchy and levels it by allowing all
voices to be heard; it causes isolation and dispels it; it privileges men's ways of
knowing even as it privileges women's multitasking abilities. The reason to view
leadership structure as flexible enough to encompass both leadership styles as
the need arises simply makes sense. Now, if we can construct an all-
encompassing paradigm with flexible gender boundaries for the computer, then
why can’t we construct the same for both men and women? It means more
potential leadership candidates in a dwindling pool. When the authors write,
". . .the dawning of a networked world does not supplant, but encompasses, a
hierarchical fragmented orientation by adding another layer of dynamics to the
organizations within which we operate" (p. 41), tells me that they predict society
56
will be using dichotomized gender identities for some time to come. But this
shouldn't detract from their main premise, that we should construct "the
leadership competencies" needed to create non-hierarchical organizations--
competencies such as "Collaboration," diversity in perspectives and "systems
cognition" (pp. 40-48). We should pave the way for this paradigm shift, if we truly
want to encourage and support it.
If you're not sure yet, whether a paradigm shift is desirable, you might
want to read "The Emergence of Inclusive, Process-oriented Leadership" by
Shannon K. Faris and Charles L. Outcalt, because they enumerate the evolving
meanings of leadership since the post-industrial era and credit the theorists who
developed them. If you follow their highlights, you can't help but to be impressed
that theories are moving in a more emotionally positive direction than "command
and control." Note the following recent definitions of leadership:
1 Leadership is a relationship, not the property of an individual
(Rogers, 1996)
2 Leadership is a process (Northouse, 1997; Cherrey & Isgar,
1998);
3 Leadership is about change (Rost, 1991);
4 Leadership can be learned (hesselbein et al., 1996);
5 Leadership is inclusive (Rogers, 1996, p. 305);
6 Leadership is collaborative (Rost, 1991; Northouse, 1997);
7 Leadership is comprised of relationships (Komives et al., 1996)
57
8 Leadership is oriented toward social change (HERI, 1996).
They summarize that leadership has "moved from the industrial notion that
leadership is inherited by the few, to the emerging post-industrial imperative that
everyone has inherited the mutual responsibility of leadership" (p. 14). Who has
responsibility for training leaders in our society? Higher Education. The authors
point out that the historical contexts of leadership theory and mass education are
parallel. Higher education went from serving only the elite to serving the masses,
so should leadership theory. A new epistemology for leadership seemed
especially necessary because demographics and cultural shifts in the United
States mean we need to look to everyone to provide leadership.
Can higher education adapt to change? James J. Duderstadt says higher
education can and must adapt. In his book, A University for the 21st Century, he
defines a university.
What is a university? . . .To some, the university is a place of light,
of liberty, and of learning (Disraeli, 1873) or a "place of instruction where
universal knowledge is professed." (Newman, 1996). The university has
played a critical role in the evolution of Western Civilization by stressing
broad-minded empiricism over dogma and orthodoxy and conveying the
fundamental values that under gird individual freedom and constitutional
democracy" (Shapiro).
58
To others perhaps more skeptical of such lofty definitions, the
university is a far more utilitarian entity, defined by the many roles it plays
in contemporary society; to provide an education for our citizens, to
produce the scholars, professionals, and leaders needed by society; to
preserve and transfer our cultural heritage from one generation to the
next; to perform the research necessary to generate new knowledge
critical to the progress of our nation; and to provide service to society
across a number of fronts that draw on the unique expertise of our
institutions. (pg. )
The numerous definitions suggest that even a university is a social
construct. It is what we want it to be. We must have liked our colleges and
universities, because of the exceptional growth in higher education over the past
several decades. Duderstadt says,
"From an enrollment of 3 million students and $7 billion expenditure
in 1960, higher education in the United States today enrolls over 15 million
students and spends over $180 billion per year" (p.43). He adds that over
80% of all college students attend public colleges and universities. And
although only "one quarter of the 2,215 four-year colleges in the United
States are public, these enroll almost 5.8 million students or two-thirds of
all college students in four year institutions. When the additional 5.3 million
students enrolled in public two-year colleges is taken into account, some
59
11.1 million students attend public colleges and universities, over 80
percent of the total" (p. 47).
Duderstadt talks about how universities have been stressed by change,
particularly market-driven needs of society. He stresses that change is the only
constant. He adds:
Of course, our nation has been through other periods of dramatic change
driven by technology . . .But never before have we experienced a
technology that has evolved so rapidly, increasing in power by a
hundredfold every decade, obliterating the constraints of space and time,
and reshaping the way we communicate, think, and learn. (p. 14)
He argues that although higher education's traditions keep it bound to a
slower pace of change, higher education better learn to move more quickly and
forge its own vision for the future or the market will do it for them. He says we
won't like what we're left with if that happens, for few of higher educations most
cherished traditions will survive.
In contrast to Duderstadt's assertion that higher education is slow to
change, this article says education has changed a lot since 1636, when Harvard
was founded. So perhaps the secret to understanding change is the length of
time in which we examine it. The article begins with a review of the history
60
regarding change in higher education. It points to the various forces that promote
change, everything from internal pressures such as students, faculty, and staff to
external forces, such as state legislatures and public concerns for cost, quality,
and access (p. 168). Like Duderstadt's article, this essay begins by defining the
modern university as pluralistic. In saying this, it becomes clear why higher
education is often referred to as "organized anarchy." Authors Liscinsky,
Chambers and Foley quote Birnbaum (1988) when they say
. . .governance and management within higher education must contend
with multiple sources of control, unclear or competing missions,
decentralized structure, and constrained resources (p. 169).
The biggest impediment to change is resistance, so this essay is a case
study of change at Dartmouth College using the Social Change Model and the
Seven C's to implement a strong residential life program. The change team
consisted of nine volunteer students and two professional staff. The Social
Change Model was introduced to the group, and the staff professionals facilitated
discussions rather than dominate them. It's important to note at this point how the
article says how difficult it was for staff to relinquish their power and authority to
students when they would remain responsible for the outcome of the project. The
authors concede that perhaps they should have shared facilitation with the
students, and that perhaps by not doing so, they kept control. As the authors
describe the various ways that their model failed, it became clear to me how hard
61
old habits die. Both the professionals struggled with giving up power and the
students struggled taking it on. Students have difficulty finding their appropriate
boundaries and see themselves as staff. Relationships with peers and staff
suffered. The group set a schedule. Reflection and dialogues uncovered the fact
that students had some role confusion about what was expected of them, so this
was discussed openly. Meeting minutes were recorded. Disagreement was seen
as both integral and vital. Sharing was valued, although the student-led piece
was not as successful as the professional piece. The outcome of the project was
the successful launch of the residential co-curriculum. Liscinsky, et al. Describe
the co-curriculum this way:
The curriculum has two components—the first outlines educational
objectives for the residential community while the second defines the
various roles that student staff employ to accomplish those objectives. (p.
174)
The process improved student and staff interactions and created a "new spirit of
cooperation" (p. 174). Although, these authors contend that their commitment
towards working through conflict helped them to overcome resistance, the way
the author's point out all of the pitfalls encountered along the way, leads this
reader to believe that perhaps the project wasn't as successful as the authors'
would have us think. They conclude with lessons learned, so the person who
attempts this experiment again will gain from their knowledge and experience.
62
Adams and Aqui (2001) say that high number of students from different
countries alone, necessitate understanding culture in higher education. They say
it's higher education's role to facilitate interpersonal and intergroup interactions
by creating programs whereby students learn to understand different cultures.
This, I thought, at a time when the Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting a
drastic decrease in foreign enrollments because of Attorney General Ashcroft's
repressive Patriot Act. Nonetheless, the authors say, leadership education is an
ideal vehicle because leadership is an understanding of people, their culture, and
their institutions (Adler qtd in Adams & Aqui, (2002) p. 190). Traditionally,
leadership courses in the United States have prepared leaders to lead in
monocultural orientations. However when these leaders encounter diversity, their
leadership skills break down, and conflict results. Adams and Aqui suggest that
"non-hierarchical leadership perspectives offer alternatives for applying
leadership skills in diverse cultural contexts" ( p. 191). They say it allows leaders
to transcend one's cultural worldview by developing intercultural competence.
Social construction is the principle underlying this definition of leadership,
and culture provides one of many valid ways to interpret and evaluate the world.
(p. 191) The Intercultural Leadership Seminar (ILS) became the four-day
leadership development program. The program began with a needs assessment
of students wishing to participate. The curriculum consisted of theories relating to
intercultural relations, leadership, and communication. (p. 196) Students are
63
encouraged to look closely at their own intercultural anxieties. Issues related to
marginality, in and out of group dynamics, multiple perspectives, power, privilege,
coalition-building, and inter group conflict are identified and discussed. Active
listening skills and communication skills are stressed. The authors' admitted that
open-minded people tended to be more attracted to the program.
Cress (2001) asks the provocative question:
Are higher education institutions truly cultivating and facilitating
students' abilities to plan, problem-solve, and initiate action toward social
change? Or, are colleges and universities simply providing venues for
students to practice those skills and enact those values that they already
possess upon entering higher education?" (p. 225).
Of course what she is discussing is assessment, and how well are
colleges and universities able to determine success or failure in their mission to
educate students? As for the question regarding how higher education is doing,
she notes that the public and legislatures are putting pressure on higher
education to quantify how well higher education is succeeding at educating
students, and in the absence of a plan to do so, the plan is being provided to
higher education by these constituencies in the form of increased testing. This
could be one instance that Duderstadt describes as higher educations' missed
opportunity to lead itself. But Cress says there are more important and rational
64
reasons for assessment. Its primary purpose should be to be proactive in
enhancing student learning and institutional performance. (p. 226) She links
assessment and citizenship, saying that institutions are "a collective investment
for future society" (p. 226). She says, there is a national call for the development
of democratic citizens and leaders, and institutions are answering it with
increased leadership programs. Cress uses the Social Change Model of
Leadership. She says the reason is that it "offers an integrative technique for
assessing the development of leadership skills and knowledge within a
community and societal context (p. 228) This integration also includes gender. A
participatory assessment, she says, is a value-based and inclusive process that
is focused not only on outcomes, but also on the process itself. In this case, the
Seven C's provide the framework. She espouses a meta-cognitive method that
helps students consciously participate in their learning processes and assessing
their outcomes. She explains how the Social Change Model was integrated into a
participatory self-assessment plan.
65
Reflection
I’m the middle child of a working class family of seven: the oldest, a boy,
the second oldest, a girl, me, and two other girls. Both the size and composition
of my family created family dynamics that make me who I am. My brother
enjoyed special status as both the oldest and only son in my family of predom-
nantly women, and after learning all that I have about social construction, it pains
me to think of my mother’s role in perpetuating male supremacy myths. This had
so much of an impact on me growing up that when I had children of my own, I
never wanted boys. Fortunately, I had girls, and I intentionally raised them
without the traditional female values and encouraged them to try out their
masculine selves. For instance my daughter was allowed to use my husband’s
tools, whereas I was never allowed. I tell you this because I think it is pertinent to
my years of effort at breaking gender stereotypes and the cognitive dissonance
that resulted making me a conflict- adverse person.
As a child, I was a shy person, who wanted to default into a traditional
female role so as not to draw attention to myself; yet at the same time I fought
that side of my nature by defiantly forcing myself into masculine roles. Growing
up, I was the classic tomboy. I hated everything about being a woman. I climbed
trees, competed in typical childhood yard games with my siblings and neighbors,
physically fought with people I didn’t like, and I wore my hair short. I seemed to
understand early on that the game was rigged against girls, and I struggled to
make it seem more balanced, if only for me. As a September born child, I felt I
66
had to mediate between fights between my mother and father, my father and
brother, my mother and sisters; but no matter how hard I tried I couldn’t stop the
conflict. I grew to hate conflict. Some part of me knew conflict was somehow
good because it brought about growth and change, but I learned to pick my
battles to lessen the stress.
By the time I was a teen-ager, I expected more from myself; but more than
that, I wanted my parents’ approval. The girls in my family were quite invisible in
comparison to my over-achieving brother. He was your typical alpha male body-
builder and incredibly talented all around athlete. My mother kept a display case
with his medals and trophies as a shrine. She attended every one of his games
and was his biggest advocate. I figured out that the way to win my parents’
approval and still push against gender stereotypes was to model myself after my
brother. So I became an overachiever; I kept high grades in school, my favorite
subject was English—I loved reading and writing. I participated in athletics, my
favorite was gymnastics, and as soon as the dress code allowed it, I wore pants
to school. After I broke my neck in a gymnastics accident, I thought I’d lost my
identity. But I reinvented myself, and I was the first woman in my family to attend
college. As I pushed on the boundaries of gender, I created conflict in my world.
In addition to this conflict that I created myself, I endured the inevitable conflict
that arises from within a large family in a small house. The long term effects of all
of this was that I would spend my life at war with my two natures—the social
construction of the feminine me, nurtured and encouraged by my parents, and
the self-constructed male version of me who I loved, and a genuine anxiety
67
disorder over conflict.
Case Study of my Internship Experience
In the summer of 2003, I embarked on my internship. The internship was
in the department of University Relations.
My decision to intern in this particular department sprang from my
educational leadership coursework with an emphasis in higher education and my
hobby and interests in politics. I am myself an elected official, park commissioner
for my Township, as well as a member of Women's Progressive Activists, an
organization committed to getting women elected to public office. I have always
participated in volunteer work and community service through active involvement
in organizations over the years, and recently, I had become quite well known
amongst women legislators in both the house and the senate through my
participation in fund-raisers and grass-roots campaigns. I wielded my influence
through my voluntary involvement in a campus organization called, the Alumni
Associations' Legislative Connection. So prolific was my influence and
contributions on behalf of the University that the Vice-president for University
Relations described me in a letter of recommendation to the graduate committee
as, "the best lobbyist the University has ever had." --a reference to my writing
and talking to the press and legislators regarding subjects of relevance to the
university. Indeed, the President of the university, in his letter of recommendation
68
on my behalf to the graduate school acknowledged my contributions to the
university. I attended several house and senate Higher Education Appropriation
meetings in support of the president, and the University. When combined with my
extensive course work in organization and leadership theory, I felt I had a solid
foundation in which to begin my internship. And all of these experiences
presented me with unique credentials for leadership in negotiating the
relationships the University has with its external constituencies, including both
the surrounding community and in the political community. University Relations is
especially appealing to me because it is one of the few campus departments led
by women. I was excited for the opportunity to be mentored by these savvy
women who had penetrated the "good old boy network."
The way I wish to proceed through my case-study is to present my actual
journal filled with my reflections taken at the time I experienced them. After
having read the literature on leadership, I will analyze my experiences both in
terms of my own prior knowledge and experience and the literature presented in
this study, and provide the reader with my sense making. So following this
paragraph, the actual unedited journal will come first, followed by my analysis.
69
Journal Entry 7-03-03
Date: 7-03-03 Goal: Get started and Establish a routine. Brief Description of Activity: This week I arrived at Welch Hall, Monday through Thursday from 8- 10 am and reported to my office in University Relations. During this time, I got acquainted with my computer and phone, created documents needed for my internship. Because of problems with internet access, I researched the EMU online database of articles and books off site. I printed out articles, which could be read while on site. Next I went to the library and collected 14 resources, which I could examine while at Welch. I have enough reporting, reading, annotating, and creating a bibliography to keep me busy until online access is restored to my computer.
Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: I can’t express how proud I am to be climbing the steps of Welch Hall to “work.” I take my responsibilities there as seriously as any paying job. The secretaries who work in University Relations are friendly and welcoming towards me, which I appreciate. I have been establishing a routine of reporting every morning to University Relations at 8 am until 10:00 am. They’ve invited me to share their coffee, and they’ve shown me where I might find supplies I might need. On my desk, I see someone has already created binders with my charge clearly spelled out on the spines, like Political Action Committees, Michigan Senate, Michigan House, and Michigan Congressional delegation which are all part of my research. The first week, my computer did not function properly. When Kathleen Tinney found this out she said, “You know you’re free to work on anybodies computer in this office, if they’re not here, including mine.” I was quite taken by this, because there aren’t many people who would share their computer with just anyone, much less an intern. Her willingness to share her computer was equivalent to her sharing her power with me, and I felt quite humbled by the trust she expressed in her single act of kindness. Carol, Kathleen Tinney’s secretary got my computer taken care of so quickly, I never had to “borrow” someone elses computer. Now I have a clean install in which to work. I hear the office women’s casual conversation from inside my office. When someone sneezes, someone calls out “God Bless You.” Their easy banter tells me they have relationships of mutual respect. I hate to seem like I’m unfriendly, but it’s important to me to maximize the two hours I have to get as much accomplished as possible, so I don’t linger and chat unless someone asks me a question. Still it’s reassuring to me to hear their laughter and camaraderie, because it dispels any notion of hierarchy. These women collaborate with one another to make sure the goals are accomplished. I’ve heard them provide thorough planning and support for the vice-president, and associate vice-president with professionalism and care, whether it be for a division planning meeting or preparations and travel accommodations for a major conference in Washington, D.C. When the vice-president made mistakes checking into her Washington Hotel with a
70
detailed agenda provided to her by her industrious secretary; there wasn’t even a hint of hostility, anger, or resentment. Instead the secretaries laughed with her, not at her. This is my favorite kind of work environment. It’s so different from Continuing Education, where staff are afraid to say what the really think, and where they are not allowed to talk to anyone a level above their supervisors. The air was stultifying. If anyone dared speak it was behind closed doors, in hushed tones. I’m excited to have been invited to participate in the Division Planning Meeting to be held at Washtenaw Country Club, July, 11 and 12. I took personal time in order to participate.
Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: I do not have any suggestions at this point because collaborating, sharing responsibility, and extending mutual respect, in a non-hierarchical, non-threatening environment are all leadership qualities I wish to master. I should practice the fine art of small talk though, so I seem more approachable.
Analysis
It’s fitting that my internship experience should begin and end with a
classic gender inspired irony. Although conventional wisdom presumes men to
be more typically technology savvy, I work in a computer lab, and regard myself
as knowledgeable; yet my first and my last days as an intern were mired with
computer trouble beyond what I could fix. On the first day the technology
department cleared the old computer and set it up with a fresh installation of
software. On the last day, I tried to load the enormous Qualified Voter File onto
that same computer causing it to crash. Was this a foreshadowing that my thesis
for this paper was wrong—that gender does, indeed, play a large part in setting
our expectations about what women can and can’t do? Or was it more likely an
indication that we can make gender stereotypes mean what we want them to
71
mean and they are therefore, unreliable schemas? What would my internship
experience teach me about myself, and my beliefs about gender?
I came into the internship with gender-driven expectations. I believed that
some behaviors were masculine and some feminine, and that leadership was no
different. There’s no shortage of texts to support this perspective. For instance, in
Judith Thompson Witmer’s, Moving Up! A Guidebook for women in educational
administration, I found the following description of gender styles, “It could be said
that the masculine style uses structural power, which is based on authority
associated with position, title, and the ability to reward and punish, while the
feminine style relies on charisma, work record, and contacts” (Rosener qted in
Witmer, 1993, p. 23). I wanted to believe that my mentor, whom I will call Ms. M
for mentor, was a great leader, and I expected to ascertain in short order whether
she used a masculine or feminine model of leadership.
At this point, it’s important that I share some prior knowledge and
experience. I’m both staff and student at this institution, and I know that the
administration is hierarchical. I also know that according to the Affirmative Action
Audit 2000-2001 “of the corporate level employees who report directly to the
president and have substantial line management authority” (Internal Document)
only 33.3 percent were women. So the fact that I even found female leaders at
this institution under which I could intern was remarkable. What I didn’t know was
whether these women rebelliously displayed typically female leadership styles to
contrast the male dominant culture, or whether they had actually been forced to
adapt and adopt a masculine leadership style. It’s clear to me that I had hoped
72
they’d show a feminine style.
So my reflections discuss clues I saw that informed me one way or the
other. For instance, on the issue of the computer, she tells me I’m “free to work
on anybodies computer in the office, including hers.” I saw this as a great leveling
of the hierarchy. I said, “Her willingness to share her computer was equivalent to
her sharing her power with me, and I felt quite humbled by the trust she
expressed in her single act of kindness.” My reference to the word “power” is
meant to be in the traditional sense. “The ideal leader from this traditional
viewpoint is independent, tough, decisive, and individualistic” (Witmer, 1993, p.
180). I saw her invitation to use her computer as elevating me to her stature. This
is important because this was the point that I began to realize that unconsciously,
I coveted a masculine leadership style. Although I did use the secretaries ‘
computers from time to time, I never used Ms. M’s. I didn’t believe I had a right to
her computer. In Women in Leadership, a contextual perspective, K. Klenke
says, in hierarchical models of leadership the leader is someone who has
authority and controls resources in order to achieve a particular objective. By
definition, this person exercises power over those he or she leads” (p. 154).
Computers are a resource, and with out a doubt I believed Ms. M. had power
over me. At the very least, she had the power to say whether I would graduate or
not. The fact that I believed I didn’t have a right to her computer, even after she
gave it to me, shows I was following a different paradigm than the female
empowerment model I thought I was practicing. I think this speaks to my
assumptions about myself as an intern in relation to “power.”
73
Speaking of power, it is very clear to me that I’m quite envious of other
women who have it. Listen to me speak with pride of going into Welch Hall as if
this were a real job and my permanent location. At the same time, I hear my self-
deception about responsibility versus getting to know everyone. I was trying to
present myself as a business-like, no nonsense worker. I demonstrated my
working class work ethic. This directly contradicts any belief I might have had
about belonging there. My actions showed humility. I actually believed I didn’t
belong there, and I felt my behavior should not show that I presumed as much.
Socializing paled in comparison to my work ethic. But at the same time, the fact
of the matter was, it’s much easier for me to self-direct my work than it is to be
social. So I was definitely falling back on traditional gender behavior of
submissiveness, and I was making excuses for myself. Another interesting part
about power and me is the fact that I claim in my reflection to dislike hierarchy
with its old fashioned leader at the top of an organization, while at the same time
wishing for it for myself. By in large, I was constructing a non-hierarchical
environment from the evidence I saw; but realized that without the requisite
social skills, I would experience difficulty in a leadership role in a non-hierarchical
environment. Is not being required to be social the reason for my preferring a
traditional leadership style? I don’t think so. Traditional leaders need social skills
too. Simply, I hoped that working hard would make up for this self-perceived
shortcoming.
Despite my commitment to feminism And my purported desire for a
collaborative female leadership style, I had been thoroughly indoctrinated by my
74
upbringing and by society that there was only one legitimate leadership style, and
that was the masculine one. “Men’s traditional leadership style is hierarchical,
action-oriented and, sometimes, quasi-military” (Witmer, 1993, p. 180). I attribute
this to growing up feeling powerless in a male dominant world. I earned the right
to enter this exclusive club by virtue of my studies in educational leadership, and
I didn’t want to get in by what seemed to me to be illegitimate means. For me
changing from a masculine to feminine paradigm was illegitimate because I didn’t
have to change, the paradigm changed.
Journal Entry 7-11-03
Date: July 11, 2003 Goal: Observe meeting leadership & etiquette Brief Description of Activity: University Relations Division Annual Planning Meeting. From 7:30 am to 5:00 pm the University Relations Division met at Washtenaw Country Club for their annual planning meeting. A continental breakfast, lunch, and dinner was provided for the first day, and continental breakfast and lunch was served on the second day. We were each given an empty binder, and presenters came with a hard copy of their PowerPoint materials three-hole-punched for the convenience of attendees. The V.P.’s secretary, L, was very organized, she even remembered to bring a three-hole-punch. An agenda was provided, as well as ancillary reading materials related to a recent survey in the Chronicle for Higher Education about attitudes towards higher education. Introductions preceded the agenda. The agenda began with the V.P. discussing the higher education appropriations negotiations. She then turned the meeting over to a representative of the university lobbyist, K D, who proceeded to inform us about the strategies they are taking and the mood in the capital. Subsequently, other groups presented their news and year-end self- assessments. The meeting concluded with a group effort to brainstorm new goals for the various divisions.
75
Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: I knew many people in the meeting. Carrying polite conversation has always been a challenge for me because I’m not good at small talk. I tend to talk passionately about the matters I care about, and it puts people off. So when one person remarked “How about those democrats who hid out in Oklahoma to avoid a quorum in the Texas legislature.” In an attempt at small talk, I responded quickly because I knew a lot about this topic. I said, “While it’s very funny, it’s a serious matter because by law the republicans are not supposed to be redrawing district lines except after a census. This is a flagrant abuse of power that is now happening in Colorado. Someone has to challenge them in a court of law.” Silence fell. I realized I had made the assumption that this man was a democrat, when in fact; it was entirely possible he was a republican—after all he was mocking the democrats. I looked around the room and realized all of the separate divisions are entrepreneurial groups who very likely have market-driven interests. The silence was also telling. Note to self: how do my mentors handle situations like this? Interestingly both Ms. M and the V.P. seem to walk a fine line between partisan politics. L commented that after all of these years working for the V.P. she has no idea whether she’s a republican, democrat, or independent. Everyone was fully aware of my party affiliation immediately after my introduction when I told them I was treasurer for the Hillary Rodham Clinton Support Network (an local grassroots organization intending to support Hillary if she runs for president of the US.) Perhaps they key to lobbying is the ability to talk to both parties equally without allowing partisanship to enter the equation. Other Leadership observations: The V.P. knows details about all of her people and shares them with the group when they are being introduced. She speaks directly to people, makes eye contact, and asks “how are you doing?” Or “what do you think of the meeting so far?” She has presence and charisma before her people, which are evidenced by the way she carries herself, dresses, and her easy laugh. She is equal; yet she is a leader. She is not a dictator. She seems not to be hierarchically inclined. She speaks frankly and honestly about sensitive economic issues relating to higher education appropriations. I heard people commend her for her candor after word. Ms. M is knowledgeable too. She speaks easily before a group. When introduced, she said “I do whatever the V.P. wants me to do.” While this could be construed as self-effacing, I actually saw it as immense loyalty and teamwork. Both women are meticulous when it comes to details. I observed evidence of discontent by attendees regarding the universities official arrogant response to the communities concerns, and realized that even at this high level everyone recognize the epistemological split between what the university says it believes and how they act.
76
Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: I need to strike a balance between speaking without thinking about the assumptions I might be making and not speaking at all out of fear and paralysis of saying the wrong thing. I do have the organization skills, the attention to detail down. I am more self-effacing than leader like. Right now, I think humility will take me a long way because I’m still learning. Technically, I am proficient at using technology to make presentations such as were made here today. I did contribute to the discussion whenever I felt it appropriate. Both Ms. M and the V.P. extended warmth and graciousness to me when I spoke.
Analysis
It’s safe to say that I now see a pattern developing. I obliviously continued
my unexamined assumptions about people based on stereotypes. In my first
reflection and analysis I relied on gender stereotypes. In this one I relied on the
arrangement of the furniture to tell me what type of model I was in. I also relied
on the tired old political stereotypes—left leaning, progressive individuals are
democrats and right leaning, conservative individuals are republican. I had no
idea how much I relied on these to provide me with clues as to how I should act
and what I should say. More importantly though I didn’t want to believe the
evidence before me that my female led division was actually hierarchical and not
collaborative as I feigned to have hoped.
I was invited to participate in the departments all day division-planning,
meeting. I went eager to learn about the administration of university relations. I
didn’t even know which departments were aligned under this department. If I
sound as if I expected and found a hierarchical organization, I did. But dismissed
it as being deeply embedded in the larger culture of the university. To the extent I
77
thought it humanly possible, I assumed that these women would have created a
non-hierarchical division culture. So I continued constructing a non-hierarchical
organizational style for the group from the evidence presented to me.
Let me pause for a moment to reflect on why I might do that. I was taught
an epistemology, or teaching philosophy that tore down the traditional,
hierarchical, and authoritarian model of teacher in favor of a more collaborative,
student centered, teacher as facilitator model in all of my education classes at
this university. I had reflected and written about the apparent epistemological
split at this university before, arguing that the two needed to be reconciled. As a
woman and a teacher, I know, believe, and practice this epistemology in my
teaching, and assumed I’d carry these beliefs over to my administration
practices. (At least before I figured out that I was actually pining for a traditional
hierarchical model in administration for myself.) I also assumed these women
would too. One of the outward signs of a collaborative epistemology is the layout
of the room. A circle formation implied equality. So when I encountered a u
shaped configuration, I thought, “Well, it isn’t a circle, but darn near.” I committed
another unexamined assumption. The shape of the furniture immediately
confirmed for me that this was a collaborative model, and I began to allow myself
to feel comfortable in this environment.
The next unexamined assumption I made was regarding partisan politics.
While I’m not good at small talk, I can and do speak fearlessly and very
passionately about leftist issues I care a great deal about while in my feminist
organizations where I know I’m with like-minded people. This is exactly what I did
78
in my first moment of socializing. I made the mistaken assumption that because I
perceived the group to be non-hierarchical they’d also be politically democratic.
So when two men discussed a current event in which the democrats of the Texas
Legislature hid out in Oklahoma in order to avoid a quorum for a redistricting vote
that came up, my rebuttal demonstrated my partisanship. I said,
“The forced redistricting by the republicans should be challenged in a
court of law.”
I realized I was out of my element. I felt as embarrassed as if I were a gay
person who inadvertently revealed my sexual preferences. Were my mental
models leading me astray or was I just too uncomfortable to speak my mind in
the presence of people of different political ideologies? Both, I think. This is
another case of being socialized not to discuss religion or politics in mixed
company because it will invariably end up in a fight. A part of me, perhaps the
leader in me loves a good fight, but clearly in this situation I was not a leader and
I was out of line in my presumptions. That’s when I took a good hard look at the
materials presented in the binder about the divisions, and realized that if ever
there were going to be a traditional hierarchical organization for a division, this
would be it because all of the divisions were entrepreneurial agents. Suddenly
the u shaped layout lent itself to a hierarchical format because the two women in
charge sat at the head table, and I no longer fit in. I noticed that I had no idea
what party either of the women was affiliated with, and I censored myself after
79
that. This was consistent with my behavior in the office where I was guarded and
awkward socializing, and I think it’s because my role as an intern left me feeling
illegitimate and without credibility. The result of all of these unexamined
assumptions was conflict. In the R.B. Winston, D.G. Creamer, & T.K. Miller &
Associates text, The professional student affairs administrator, educator, leader,
and manager, D. Roberts writes in his essay called “Leading,” that
A shift in paradigms, regardless of where it occurs, means that
there are multiple and conflicting realities present at the same time and in
the same environment. Most institutions of higher education are still
characterized by bureaucracy, control, power, competition, and the
resulting divisiveness they create. This is part of the reality of working in
the higher education environment. (p. 397)
Given that I didn’t feel comfortable speaking, I turned all of my attention to
studying the relational skills of the leadership, since this was an area in which I
felt I lacked. I envied their confidence and poise, and in my journal I made note of
the specific ways each one conversed and handled herself. The vice-president
dressed and carried herself in a feminine way. I thought the vice-president to be
charismatic. Since the literature reveals so many different meanings for “having
charisma” I’ll differentiate my use of the term again as being traditional. Leading
theorists of Trait Theory, Stogdill and Bass defined leadership in precisely the
way I would define “charisma.”
80
A leader is characterized by a strong drive for responsibility and
task completion, vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals,
venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, a drive to exercise
initiative in social situations, self-confidence and sense of personal
identity, willingness to accept consequences of decision and action,
readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration
and delay, ability to influence other persons’ behavior and capacity to
structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand. (Bass, 1981,
p. 81 qtd in Klenke, 1996, p. 60).
The contemporary meaning of charisma is “leaders who elevate the goals
of followers, sharing power with them, converting followers into leaders, and
being shaped by the followers” (Klenke, 1996, p. 75). This is how I hoped I would
experience the vice-president but definitely not how I experienced her. In fact, I
had initially asked the vice-president to mentor me in my internship and she
delegated responsibility to the associate vice-president, Ms. M. I also had hoped
I’d experience the associate vice-president as elevating me, sharing power with
me, and converting me into a leader, but I didn’t experience that either. I was
treated like a sub-contractor who was brought in to perform some temporary
work. The associate vice president’s demeanor was quite self-effacing in a
feminine manner. (Her behavior reminded me of my own personality.) She
displayed a masculine intelligence, which included critical thinking skills and a
81
stoic personality, but she was submissive. For instance, when introduced she
described her job as “doing whatever [the boss] tells me to do.” I observed that
the two together perfectly complimented each other. Neither made any promises
to faculty or staff in their division regarding complaints, but both demonstrated
willingness to listen. As for the issue of their party affiliation or seeming lack of
one I should say, I constructed the idea that they must have made a conscious
effort to hide any political ideology they might hold for fear of appearing too
partisan on issues while negotiating for money with the legislature.
Finally, I noticed group dynamics were at play in the way people divided
themselves up into small familiar groups for breaks and lunch, and that this
amplified my feelings of not fitting in, which in turn reinforced my unwillingness to
engage in small talk. I was extremely guarded, because I had made so many
mistakes so far. I used to be unable to tolerate the ambiguity of social situations
and experienced great anxiety, but by forcing myself into these situations often, I
am learning how to let conflict help me grow as a person.
82
Journal Entry 7-17-03
Date: July 17, 2003 Goal: To understand steps for creating a PAC Brief Description of Activity: I downloaded and printed the PAC forms and manual from the State of Michigan, and I downloaded and printed the IRS Manual on Political Organizations. I added the documents to my working bibliography. I read the documents, annotated them, and began to make a list of steps. At the same time, I became treasurer of the Hillary Rodham Clinton Support Network which requires that I essentially do everything I will have to do for the Alumni Association’s PAC. I made an appointment to meet with the V.P. and Ms. M to present my findings.
Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: I struggled with the importance and necessity of actually performing this work and somehow meeting my mentors’ expectations of what an intern should do. Ms. M said something last week like “You don’t have to hide out in that room.” I took this to mean that I must initiate a relationship with the secretaries and with her and the V.P. Everyday, I hear the staff talking small talk easily with one another, and I know I need to propagate friendships by sharing; but I’m concerned I won’t get the work done. Again, somehow I must strike a balance, so I don’t seem remote. In an e-mail I outright asked Ms. M if she had any expectations that perhaps I was not meeting. I didn’t hear back what these might be, so I asked other more specific questions, which also went unanswered. I concluded that Ms. M is having her secretaries “log in” my e-mail summaries regarding my activities, so that she will be able to use these documents as a guide to my progress over the internship and that she probably isn’t reading them right now. Note to self: don’t ask important questions in e-mails. Ask these face to face.
Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: Perhaps the reason these situations are so hard for me is it’s easier to be remote than confront my anxiety and uneasiness over saying the wrong thing. This is why I am so confident writing—because I have time to revise, review, and put assertiveness into my writing voice that is hard for me to achieve in person. I feel quite proficient in my research, analytical, and writing skills---which makes me something of a loner. I need to break out of my self imposed isolation. I need to grow by getting out of my safe space and confronting the areas like “socializing with small talk” where I need work. Jerry, my husband says to make people talk about themselves; then be a good listener.
83
Analysis
Being self disciplined enough to work alone is perhaps my greatest
strength. I can accomplish virtually anything I set out to do in this context. I see
myself as a very capable, independent worker, and it’s that self-confidence that
propels me to achieve. But I also have low self-esteem in other areas. Ms. M
began to notice my lack of social skills and said something like, “You don’t have
to hide out in that room.” This caused me to think about working on my
relationship with Ms. M. Hill & Raglund (1995) speak about mentorship relations
by quoting Matczynski and Comer’s (1991) five stages of mentorship
relationships.
1. Careful selection and time for evaluating each other.
2. Development of Trust
3. Mentor nurtures growth of mentee.
4. Mentors begin to intervene for mentees.
5. Mentee begins disengaging and refocusing as an individual with the
mentor close at hand as a safety net. (p.81)
In examining what I did against these stages, I’d say I failed the first point,
because initially I wanted the vice-president as a mentor. In my current situation,
I saw myself as “developing trust.” I wanted to establish a rapport, so I wouldn’t
feel so darn awkward around her, so I began looking for an opportunity. I arrived
84
at work before her. When she did arrive, she never looked in to say hi to me, so I
assumed that she felt that it was my responsibility to go to her. This caused me
to consider the other expectations she might have for me of which I was
unaware. Having been betrayed by all of my previous attempts at making
meaning through the use of stereotypes, I was afraid to assume anything. So I
asked in an e-mail, but received no response. I figured out that she had her
secretaries read and log in all of my e-mails, because I rarely received an
answer. I had to ask her face-to-face. Here was a chance for Ms. M to fulfill stage
3 and “nurture growth of mentee,” instead, I didn’t get my question answered,
and I remained puzzled by what was happening, what she thought was supposed
to happen, and what I thought was supposed to happen.
At this point, I’d like to apply the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) framework as described in the text, The Standards-based
administrative internship, putting the ISLLC Standards into practice, and from
which the policies governing this internship was based. Initially, I was instructed
to discuss my plan with my mentor and then submit my plan for my internship. At
the outset my plan didn’t survive the cut. Hill & Raglund (1995) said,
If the principal had regarded the new assistant principal as a
dumping ground for tasks he did not wish to handle, consider the
difference in experience and growth. If he had embraced the “let them
make it on their own” philosophy, neither the principal, assistant principal,
nor the students would have benefited. (p. 83)
85
Unlike the above positive scenario, Ms. M. had very specific ideas about
what she wanted me to do. In fact, she told me that they were severely
understaffed in that department and had put in a request for a support position
prior to the university hiring freezes and budget cuts. Needless to say the
position went unfilled, or at least not paid. I believed that I’d fulfill all of these
needs and in return I’d be taught how to be an administrator. I didn’t mind doing a
lot of work, because I hoped that if I proved my competence, I’d be the first
person they would think of the next time the budget for new hires was restored.
But contrary to the previously mentioned 4th stage of “mentors intervening for
mentees,” Ms. M. advised me not to look for employment in higher education, but
rather in K-12. She seemed to be discouraging me of the very thing for which I
was hoping. The ISLLC guide calls for mentors to
Be a positive role model, so that the intern can learn through
observing the mentor’s actions and daily interactions with others. The
intern should be introduced to the best administrative practices by being
permitted to observe not only the mentor but also other outstanding
administrators in the district and region. The mentor should continually
assume the role of teacher, openly explaining actions and discussing the
reasons for those actions. (Hackmann et al, 2002, p. 21)
This made me realize how incredibly difficult Ms. M. was to “read.”
She typically looked at me with an expressionless face, and her language had
86
neither highs nor lows, which made me feel enormously uncomfortable in my
skin. I internalized this as “my fault” because I “rely too much on body language”
when interpreting how I am coming across to others. Since I didn’t particularly
want to ask any questions much less important ones face to face. I isolated
myself, thereby completing the 5th stage—disengaging from the mentor even
before I had engaged. She didn’t embrace me warmly or make me feel
comfortable in her presence. So the question became in terms of leadership,
whose fault was it? It was both of our faults, because we were each working out
of different frameworks. The fact that I blamed myself, is evidence of my lifelong
acculturation and socialization to typical female gendered behavior. But more
importantly, I was beginning to realize that most of my discomfort arose from my
lack of legitimacy, which came from my being an intern more than from my
perceived lack of social skills. I hate to make a negative impression. I rationalize
that this must be why I love to write—I can take my time when writing to get what
I want to say right. I’m a perfectionist and a control freak. How can someone like
that reasonably expect to be comfortable as an intern, much less talk off the cuff
without any damage control in place?
87
Journal Entry 7-23-03
Date: July 23, 2003 Goal: Get acquainted Brief Description of Activity: This week I was supposed to attend the initiation meeting of the new members of the Alumni Connection. They met Monday evening at a fine restaurant. Over the weekend, I received a 3 paged rejection letter from the Dean regarding my appeal for admission into the Ed.D program. I tried to brush it off, but clearly it bothered me a great deal. So I handed the letter to Ms. M for her to read. I had informed her of my appeal just so her office would know what I was doing. She didn’t read it. Depressed, I went home and fell asleep.
Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Now I’m incredibly embarrassed to have missed that meeting. I had to look the V.P. and the associate V.P. in the eye and apologize. I asked Ms. M, “How far in the doghouse am I?” She said, graciously, “Not at all.” I heaved a sigh of relief. Then she said, “It was supposed to be a learning experience.” Guilt. Of course it was. I told her that I hadn’t been myself since receiving the 3 paged letter from the Dean rejecting me from the program that I had worked hard for three years to get into. Then I chastised myself for making excuses. There are no excuses. So I said that when I saw the V.P. “I’m sorry to have missed last nights meeting.” She said, “Oh, that’s okay, things come up.” She was being kind, but I know she thought I had something more important to do. Guilt. Like sleep? Come on Valerie—you seem to be sleeping all the time. A sign that your depression is kicking in. I told her, “There’s no excuse.” It felt good to chastise myself. But I was still agitated all day. I beat myself up. I frowned until my head hurt. By the end of the day, I was so exhausted from being agitated and angry with myself, I went for a long swift walk to decompress. I felt a lot better after word. I’m trying to understand my motive for giving the letter to Ms. M. I’m trying to reach out to her, to establish a rapport? I guess I wanted her to see that the faculty discounts my work (and hers by extension). I expected outrage that two arms of the university could have such opposing viewpoints. Of course, this is probably nothing new to her. The administration and the faculty have traditionally always been at odds. But in an Educational Leadership program? A place where they teach you how to be an administrator? At this point I took these issues directly to Ms M. I told her about how the book says that academe sees itself as above the fray of politics and lobbying. The book explained that higher ed sees itself as “a public good.” She asked me the copyright date. I said 1998. She said she was surprised it was so recent because things have changed a lot. Lobbying has become more respectable and necessary.
88
Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: I can’t take personally the actions of others. Ms. M was busy and simply didn’t have time to look at my letter. I asked her for a copy and told her why. She said that when my internship is through, she and the V.P. could write a letter to the Dean about letting me in. She says nothing is ever final. This shows both confidence and leadership, and explains why her response to my issue was not nearly as intense as was mine. She also suggested that there is a great deal of opportunity in this field, and I shouldn’t limit myself to higher education—but to look broadly. It took leadership on my part, to walk into her office and ask her about this specific issue. I gave her a brief history of me. Told her about my Down Syndrome child who died and how I worked in the disability movement as an advocate. Advocacy always seemed to be my strength. The bonus was that she shared with me a story about her Down Syndrome son. I was delighted that we share this in common. I outright asked her whether I could interrupt her from time to time, just to talk like this. She said she’d tell me if it wasn’t a good time. Note to self. Don’t take it personally if she can’t talk to you about an issue.
Analysis
In this journal entry I found my opportunity to reach out to Ms. M. As to
what mentors do, “Simply stated, mentors guide, train, and support a less skilled
or experienced person called a novice, mentee, or protégé” (Hill & Ragland,
1995, p. 72). Regarding the extent to which different organizations embrace
mentoring, Hill & Ragland (1995) say, “A continuum from one extreme to another,
with myriad approaches in between . . .”( p. 78). They describe one of the
extreme cultures this way:
• Cultures of Isolationism – Collaboration is seen as a threat to the power
structure. Competition is encouraged and even cutthroat among fellow
employees. (p. 79)
I had been invited to dinner at a fine restaurant as part of the Legislative
Connection, but after receiving a three paged letter from the dean saying I was
89
refused entry into the educational leadership graduate program I felt I was in a
culture of isolationism. I became emotional and depressed, and frankly forgot to
go. When I get this depressed, I sleep a lot, as if I’m trying to tune out the world.
In addition, I was in violation of ISLLC standards, which state:
Be professional, dependable, and consistent. Even if the internship
is unpaid, the administrator candidates should approach the assignment
with the same level of dedication as if it were a fully compensated position.
All commitments should be honored and addressed as if the individual
were employed in the host district. (Hackmann et al, 2002, p. 25).
I embarrassed myself again. I apologized with my tail between my legs. I
explained the impact the dean’s letter had on me all the while being angry with
myself for trying to justify my behavior rather than assume responsibility for it. I
gave her the letter in hopes she’d read it and we could talk about it, but either
she never read it or she never revealed to me that she had.
Psychosocial functions are often less distinct and probably not as
overtly outlined by the mentor or the mentee. When the mentor supports,
validates, and reassures, the mentee’s self confidence is enhanced and
her or his outlook is improved. Psychosocial functions may be less
definitive, but they are certainly as powerful as career guidance mentoring
90
in affecting the novice’s future. (Hill & Raglund, 1995, p. 74)
So distant from her daily life was my letter that I had to ask for the letter back at
the end of my internship. I felt that I had made myself vulnerable by sharing this
highly personal matter, and betrayed and dumb when it meant nothing to her.
The above quote validates in my mind, that what I wanted from her wasn’t
unreasonable. I tried again when I asked if the reason I was excluded from
graduate school was because I strayed from wanting to teach. There is hostility
between faculty and administration. Although she said “No.” I felt I was onto
something. Was I a victim of the epistemological split I spoke of earlier and railed
against? My readings since have shown me that the acceptable career path is to
advance through the degrees all the while working at level-appropriate teaching
assignments. Only after I completed my Ph.D. and was hired in a tenure track
position could I have any reasonable expectation to move up into administration.
I had been breaking all of the rules for following a career path, and now I broke
them again while trying to get into graduate school. The mistake I made was in
believing that my years as an adjunct counted. Nothing in a “freeway fliers’” life
counts.
Back to my conversation with Ms. M, I even talked about a subject I hadn’t
discussed in a long time, the death of my first-born daughter who had Down
syndrome. It turned out that Ms. M too had a Down syndrome son. I thought we
were finally making headway. We were finally finding shared interests. I
applauded myself for persevering through these three subjects despite not
91
receiving any acknowledgement from her. I had tried. I made myself vulnerable.
What would she do with it? I desperately wanted and needed her to toss me a
lifeline, and when it didn’t happen, I holed myself up again.
Journal Entry 7-28-03
Date: July 28, 2003 Goal: Meeting Leadership Brief Description of Activity: Commencement Graduation Report Meeting of July 29, 2003, 206 Welch Hall.
Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Ms. M. arrived in 206 Welch with a brief agenda, which she distributed. She introduced me to each of the attendees as they arrived. I looked them in the eye, as I gave them a firm handshake. The agenda began with background information regarding her request for specific information about which EMU students come from which legislative district. She said DJ was the first legislator to request a list of his graduates from registration, so that he could congratulate them. She said there are now 4 or 5 senators now asking for this information Seating herself at the head of the table, she spoke calmly and knowledgeably, pulling numbers from her head about the latest legislative battle for higher education appropriations. She flatly stated that these appropriations were political and then gave an example. Since EMU doesn't have anybody from our district serving on the higher ed. appropriations committee, we are at a disadvantage. The hope is that if we provide legislators with information about EMU graduates that may be helpful to them, it might affect how they think of us. She directed me to find all of the zip codes that reside within each legislative district, so that the database at Eastern might be more easily utilized. The question, "What is your timeline?" revealed that Ms M was looking for information on who actually shows up at University beginning this Fall. She distributed copies of maps of legislative districts obtained from lobbyist K D. She said "Tell me what I need to know." expressing her willingness to do whatever it takes to get up to speed using the new database warehouse. M.B. offered to research this question. I observed Ms M’s demeanor as she conversed with these staff members. She spoke directly to each person regarding their take on what she was proposing, giving her a democratic approach. As each person present spoke or asked questions, she listened attentively, assessing the problem she was posing from their perspective. This made her seem respectful of their unique skills and abilities. They responded to her by being attentive, and courteous.
92
Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: Ms. M has a mix of male and female gender leadership traits. Her male leadership traits include her analysis ability, directness, and endurance. Her female leadership traits include a democratic, inclusive, and cooperative work style. Her personality is one of being shy, almost to the extent of being aloof. She seems least comfortable in a hierarchical setting. It seems fortuitous that she works mostly with other women in her office, because the hierarchy, while still there, isn't so obvious. Under these conditions, Ms. M seems to defer to others, as if willingly giving over power to others; other times as in this meeting, she clearly takes charge. An example is how she said in one of the meetings, "I do what the v.p. tells me to do." Another is how she walks with her head down. I wonder if this is her way of remaining accessible to those who answer to her? On the other hand, she does not seem to be an outgoing person. For instance, she never comes in to greet me on her own. She waits for me to come to her. Praising others doesn't seem to come easily to Ms. M. She is almost hypercritical, analyzing work for what's missing not for what's there. I can identify a lot with Ms. M. I'd say I certainly have her analysis ability, but I have not developed my assertiveness. I identify more with the female gender trait style of cooperation rather acting as an authoritarian. I believe Ms. M does too. This university has a reputation for being hierarchical; even a good old boys club. There aren't many women here in leadership positions. Perhaps what I'm seeing from her is the construction of herself which has evolved from years of reconciling the two leadership styles. Will I have to do this too?
Analysis
In this reflection I find myself in a meeting with some of the important
people at the university. This is definitely a hierarchical meeting. Ms. M. is at the
head of the conference room table, male and females mixed line either side of
the table, and I’m at the end. My presence as Ms. M’s intern privileges me to
attend. In Learning to lead, a handbook for postsecondary administrators, J.
Davis says, “Some people who are called managers in the secular world are
called administrators on a campus. The focus of administration is on enabling the
organization to carry out its established mission in an effective way” (p. 4).
Everyone introduces himself or herself, and I practice my strong hand-
93
shake and eye contact. I observe how Ms. M conducts the meeting. I continue to
notice traditional male and female stereotypes in my reflections. She lays out the
problem, which she describes as partisanship in the Legislature. Her solution is
to preemptively provide a service, the zip codes of graduating students from
legislators’ districts, as a method for winning favor with lawmakers.
I liked the forward thinking of this proposal. I thought all along that this
department needed to be more anticipatory of potential problems, and practice
better public relations so as to diffuse misunderstandings before they become
big. On this subject, J. Davis says,
Over the last half century, the focus of planning has moved from
long-range planning to strategic planning, and more recently to contextual
planning, a more proactive approach that suggests not only how an
institution might respond to its environment, but also how to shape that
environment in creative ways that benefit the whole higher education
enterprise. (2003, p. 43).
Everyday that I spent in the office of university relations some new “fire”
erupted. I noticed the department struggled to stay ahead of bad publicity. For
example, the V.P. announced at the divisional meeting that someone forgot to file
a form with the state regarding the private nature of funding covering
expenditures on the President’s new house, and when the republicans on the
higher education appropriations committee found out, they fined the university a
huge sum of money. Then they said they’d rescind the fine if the university
94
agreed to a state ordered audit. The construction of the President’s residence
was controversial from the start. Construction began during good economic
times, and continued through bad economic times, causing much speculation
about the university increasing tuition to students to cover the cost of the
construction. The leadership insisted that the money from tuition and the money
for construction came from different purses; but rumors were rampant. Still, the
legislators’ anger seemed to me to be more than partisanship. Besides, I’d
always thought this university had a republican administration; none of this made
sense to me.
So I wondered how effective this initiative would actually be in the scheme
of things. Ms. M delegates responsibilities to members of the group, including
me. This is when I notice the subtle distinction in Ms. M. as being a manager and
not a leader.
Distinctions between management and leadership may be made
based on a number of dimensions, including management as structure
versus leadership as process; management position versus leadership
role; and span of control vs. span of commitment. It has often been said
that management is driven by structure and leadership is driven by
process. “Structure” here refers to the formal pattern of how people and
jobs are grouped together in an organization. “Process,” on the other
hand, are the activities that give life to the structure. Leadership processes
include motivating followers, creating a vision, and affirming values.
95
Management is usually defined by the position or level the manager
occupies in the organizational hierarchy. Leadership, on the other hand . .
.has a role that is independent of position. In contrast, managerial
positions are deeply embedded in the structure of the organization and
often arranged in vertical relationships. (Klenke, 1996, p. 97)
When Ms. M delegated responsibilities to members, she was managing
according to these definitions, because she didn’t create a vision, she laid out a
plan. She wasn’t at all sure it would work. She wasn’t involved in process at all
because she wasn’t motivating others or affirming their values. She was making
people do what she wants, not making them want to do what she wants. (Davis,
2003, p. 4) I notice that she implies that I should work with “Mr. B” and create a
list of legislative district’s zip codes. Although I tried several times to meet with
Mr. B., he always ended up canceling, which made me understand that as an
intern, I had no value to him. I never spoke to anyone else in that meeting again,
except Ms. M. The colleagues ask her what is her timeline, and she answers as
soon as possible. Colored maps of legislative districts are handed around to
everyone present. She ran out when it came to me, so she gave me her copies. I
consider this is another sign of my relative unimportance. This seemed strange
because she just gave the biggest assignment to come out of this meeting to me.
As I consider my questions in my reflection, regarding whether Ms. M. is
changing before my eyes. I realize now I’m still trying to see her as a leader. She
has not yet fallen off her pedestal. In retrospect, I will not have to relinquish my
96
principles if I’m a leader; but I might have to if I’m a manager.
Journal Entry 8-08-03
Date: Aug. 8, 2003 Goal: Locate Legislative Districts by Zip Codes Brief Description of Activity: I was on vacation from July 31 to Aug. 7, so I only worked 2 days this week, Thursday and Friday. However, I did begin returning to Welch Hall in the afternoons. This starts a stint of "split-shifts" around my regular 5 hour work day. My new hours are weekdays 8-10 am and 3:30-5 pm. This week I focused on finding some source on the internet that would line up legislative districts with zip-codes. The internet got me to a description of a database called (QVS) Qualified Voter File. It contains many fields of useful information including those I'm looking for. The CD's of the entire state costs $170.00 and I got a request form from the Department of State. I have to find out if there is money to acquire this database. I also began to research the legislators on the Senate and House Higher Education Appropriations Sub-Committees. I found biographies on Senators G and P, as well as the bills they have introduced. While I was doing research in the office, I heard Ms. M come into the main part of the office, and begin speaking to the three secretaries. So I stepped out and listened while she spoke about a community meeting at which she presented information about the President's House.
Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: While I was in the office, Ms. M came in with some huge photographs of the President's House and a topographical map in tow. Apparently she and the V.P. attended a citizen's meeting with the local mayor and board present. The V.P has not been in the office lately. She injured her Achilles tendon and required surgery Aug. 1. Despite being under a Dr.'s orders, she attended this meeting, but Ms. M asked that the meeting be kept to an hour to prevent V.P’s discomfort. Ms. M said it was extremely helpful to have the legal description of the property in hand, so that she could cite it when questions regarding ownership came up. In addition, she had the land plats for the area. What was at issue was an easement. The citizens wanted a walkway through the easement from the neighborhoods to the street on the other side. The University had said they'd take a look at this request without promising they could fulfill it. To fulfill the request would mean allowing the public to walk right through the President's yard, and Ms. M said that was unacceptable. Then the mayor suggested a walkway over the berm separating the drug store and auto parts store from the President's House. She said that was unacceptable liability due to the height of the berm. The secretaries listening along with me commented on how well Ms. M did with her presentation, and praised her accomplishment. They further inquired as to what came next.
97
Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: The V.P. is a tough, no-nonsense administrator with a soft side. So I felt that the V.P.’s appearance at the community meeting on crutches spoke volumes about her ability to perform Servant Leadership. It seems to me that in university relations with the community there must be some deference to the community leadership, or else the university comes across as arrogant and self-serving. I was impressed with how Ms. M nurtured the V.P. by picking her up, and when the large pictures didn't fit in the V.P.’s car, Ms. M offered to drive. I don't know how the decision was made to have Ms. M do the presentation, but I suspect the V.P.’s condition may have had something to do with it. At any rate, despite the fact that these women have opposite personalities—the V.P. is gregarious; Ms. M is shy; these women cooperate with one another, and work together to achieve their goals. As Ms. M described for us the events of this meeting, I was struck how she stood steadfast, and mostly spoke objectively about the events. When her viewpoint was apparent or when she received compliments from the secretaries, she was detached and unemotional as if her recognition of the compliment might make her come across as haughty. This is definitely not her personality. She is reserved to the extent of being shy. Indeed the way she deflected compliments was by either changing the subject or simply refusing to react to them. She comes across as humble and gracious, yet confident and knowledgeable in this context. These seem to me to be a tough hold-the-line negotiation style, disguised in traditional woman gender qualities, which makes her incredibly hard to read. I can see where mannerisms such as these could help Ms. M achieve her goals of negotiating the margin between the university and the community.
Analysis
I became very excited when I found the Qualified Voter File (QVF)
because I could immediately see the bigger picture. I think about all of the ways
universities are required to present evidence of success in educating the
students in the state, and decide this database could be an indispensable tool to
the university, and may even answer the question about zip codes and legislative
districts as well. I was distracted by voices. In another effort at being social, I
came out into the office to hear Ms. M’s description of a meeting before the
township that she had just attended. To begin with, I was struck by the manner in
which Ms. M. was protective of her boss. She drove her boss who had a cast on
98
her leg to the meeting, and Ms. M. attempted to keep to a reasonable meeting
length for her bosses’ comfort. It was fascinating to see how the vice-president
struggled with projecting her strength while on crutches. It’s as if she were afraid
someone might exploit any perceived weakness in her. More importantly though
was how she relied on Ms. M. to do the presentation that she would have
otherwise done herself. This shows a capacity to delegate, which is good—but it
seemed so out of her nature to give up her control in this situation. Now that I
think back on the way Ms. M. talked about this meeting, I realize that both she
and the V.P. went into it with their minds made up as to how far they would be
pushed by the community. There was no spirit of collaboration going on. J.
Kouzes & B. Posner (2003) say, “Leadership is a relationship” (p. 2).
Success in leadership and success in life has been, is now, and will
continue to be a function of how well people work and get along with one
another. Success in leading will be wholly dependent upon the capacity to
build and sustain those human relationships that enable people to get
extraordinary things done on a regular basis.
(Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 3)
This is the kind of arrogance I see the administration at this university commit a
lot. The community is working class, and the university sees itself in loftier ways.
As a working class person, I identify with the community. I had encountered this
99
problem before in other analyses. I saw my own ongoing trials and tribulations
with the university as a class conflict. Because I had so much trouble getting
accepted into the doctoral program, the university has been a challenging place
for me. J. Davis says,
Perhaps the greatest leadership challenge facing higher education
today is to create an environment that values leadership at all levels of the
institution. Sometimes this challenge is referred to as “creating a culture of
leadership” that “empowers all members of the institution”. A culture of
leadership draws on the combined efforts of those in designated positions
of leadership and persons in various roles scattered across the institution
who might be leaders if they only thought of themselves in that way and
were prepared to lead. (2003, p. vii)
As for the zip code assignment, I knew it was going to be challenging, but
I saw it as an opportunity to show off my talents to a larger audience, including
Mr. B. In their text, Academic administrator’s guide to exemplary leadership,
Kouzes and Posner say, “We firmly believe that leadership is an identifiable set
of skills and practices that are available to each of us, not just a few charismatic
men and women” (2003, p.1). The difference in Mr. B’s and my approaches
couldn’t have been more different. He assumed no such information existed
anywhere, whereas I assumed it had to exist somewhere on the World Wide
Web and if it was there, I’d find it. I did. It’s called the qualified voter file.
100
Leaders have a desire to make something happen, to change the
way things are, to create something that no one else has ever created
before. In some ways, leaders live their lives backward. They see pictures
in their minds eye of what the results will look like even before they’ve
started their project, much as an architect draws a blueprint or an engineer
builds a model. (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 5)
This quote describes my vision of using the QVF file for something greater
than my initial assignment. I realize now that I was being a leader in this context.
Journal Entry 8-11-03
Date: Aug. 11, 2003 Goal: Reading People Brief Description of Activity: Meeting with Ms. M regarding zip codes for legislative districts. I was excited to tell Ms M how I had found the (QVF) Qualified Voter File. In the last meeting, everyone agreed that there had to be data that already exists somewhere regarding zip codes and legislative districts. The last thing we were told to do is find it. I asked Ms. M what Mr. B had to report about the subject. She said that he said no such data file exists. So when I told her it did, I was not prepared for her response. It seemed like she believe Mr. B and not me. Rather than being excited, she said, “What does that have to do with finding the zip codes of legislative districts?” I said, “This has them, and 36 other possibly relevant fields that the university might want to use sometime.” I told her, “This is a statewide database of all qualified voters . It is what every township and county clerk uses to track voter participation. I can obtain specific information about parts of the state free from the County; but if I want the entire state, the database will cost $170. Do we have a budget for $170 purchase? ” She said, “$170 is not a problem, but I don’t see how this will help us find the zip codes of legislative districts and then the students who graduated from this university. Maybe I’m being obtuse. I suggest you make an appointment to talk to Mr. B.” I must have looked visibly frustrated. Was I not explaining
101
well enough to her the significance of this database? I said, “It comes on CD-Rom. We can dovetail it with the universities database by having the first Database find the zip codes of legislative districts, or even registered voters who happen to be our students for that matter, and use our database to find our graduates from within those legislative districts. I’m thinking bigger here than what you asked me. Imagine the uses the university would have for this database.” I was thinking here about tracking the univerisites Graduates for accountability reports—politicians always want to know what happens to graduates after they leave school. “She said, “I thought you were going to get on the phone and call all of the legislators and ask them the zip codes in their districts.” I said, “But don’t you see? I did that? Why reinvent the wheel and do a lot of extra work that has already been done?” She did not understand why I did not fulfill her expectation, so I got on the phone and called the county. I asked L to explain to Ms. M what the database could do. Ms. M. told her I would go there to see how it worked. That was all that was said on the subject.
Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Clearly, I anticipated one response from Ms. M and got another; as well, she anticipated something quite different from me. It’s true that I don’t know exactly how the database works, but intuition was screaming that potentially this could be a very useful resource for the university. I couldn’t say how until I actually played with it myself. Ms. M wasn’t so sure. She was incredulous to say the least. Was Ms M blinded by the fact that I didn’t fulfill her expectations, so she was unable to see the value in the database I found? Did Ms.M believe Mr B’s initial assessment that no such database exists, and therefore failed to believe I actually found something of value? Would this mean that Mr. B, recognizing what I found, might try to take credit for the find himself? Does Ms. M show appreciation when she does recognize a job well-done—or is it her leadership style to “try to poke holes in it?” She strikes me sometimes as cynical, the way she dismissed my finding as irrelevant to her purposes even before she knew if it was. Note to self: don’t go to Ms. M expecting praise or appreciation for a job well-done. You won’t get it. This bothers me because as her intern, I respect and value her opinion, and wish she would recognize this. As a leader myself, I hope never to make those under me feel small and inconsequential.
Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: Even if Ms. M didn’t understand what I was saying, she should have given me the benefit of the doubt . She could have accomplished this by simply listening to me, hearing me out, and then validating the possible potential which she could clearly see I saw in the database. Then she could ask specific questions that she wanted answered, and allow me to answer them for her.
Analysis
I’d like to take a minute now and summarize the many ways I clashed with
my mentor during my internship. First, I inappropriately relied on gender
102
stereotypes to clue me as to how to behave. Those gender stereotypes led me
astray more than once by not allowing me to see what was really going on. I
continued to delude myself that Ms. M was a leader who used a female
leadership style. I found myself relying on other stereotypes, such as politics,
which only contributed to the inner conflict I experienced. Then I began to make
distinctions between managers and leaders, and I realized that the reason I had
been suffering from so much cognitive dissonance was that nothing was as it
seemed. Ms. M wasn’t the great leader that I had made her out to be; she was
merely a manager. She played her administrator role within a highly structured
hierarchy. She in turn, imposed that world view on others, including me. Perhaps
it was because I’m a non-traditional student, a woman in her late 40’s, that I
didn’t behave like an obedient intern. I never felt like I fit that label. Instead, I
performed the work to the best of my ability, and if that meant having visionary
leadership—then that’s what I presented her with. What I experienced here was
a classic clash of roles and role expectations.
At the time I wrote this I genuinely couldn’t understand how Ms. M
couldn’t see my point of view, so I was all too willing to take responsibility for
failing to effectively present my vision. But just suppose it didn’t have anything to
do with the way I said it? What if she was so bogged down with her own
expectation of me that she couldn’t see my point. After all, she was not in the
market for a visionary at that moment. What she wanted was a lowly intern to
pick up the phone and call all of legislators’ offices and obtain the information for
her. The way she wanted me to tackle this task was impossible because she
103
had failed to give me a telephone code, which would have allowed me to dial off
campus. Any calls I made, I had to make on my cell phone. Even when I handed
her my cell phone—it never sunk in that I didn’t possess telephone privileges
because she never gave them to me.
Roles and role expectations, on the other hand, according to role
theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) of leaders and followers and the prescriptions
and proscriptions associated with these roles, are determined by the
context in which members of a role set find themselves. In contrast to
management, leadership is not determined by structure or positions.
Rather, it is a role individuals assume independent of their position in the
organizational hierarchy. Leadership is a role relationship and a set of
processes shaped by the reciprocal interactions between the leader and
the led as well as by the context. (Klenke, 1996, p. 97)
Ms. M was stuck in her structure, whereas I didn’t feel confined because I
refused to possess the label given me. In so doing, I believe I imposed a role
reversal on Ms. M. and her “I don’t get it” response was a way to keep me in my
place. I was showing leadership by not behaving as a follower, and this may
have threatened her. Perhaps the reason that Ms. M. failed all of my
expectations is because of a phenomenon known as a negative queen bee
described in Hill and Raglund. “A negative queen bee” syndrome identified by
104
Bolton (1980) exists in some settings when the lone female resents and is
threatened by other women moving through the ranks” (p. 78)
As for Mr. B, I believe I got a double whammy from Ms. M, not only was
she discounting my idea, she was placing all of her confidence in a man inside
her hierarchy. I felt the same old bitterness I’d always felt when my brother got
out of taking out the garbage because he’d pay me to do it.
In an essay called Leading, D. Roberts says,
One of the problems encountered by anyone attempting to
understand leadership is that those with whom they interact will invariably
possess varying paradigms of leadership. Most often, these paradigms
are unexamined and implicit, which results in assumed, but often
conflicting, understands of leadership and its dynamics. When competing,
unexamined paradigms are active on any given issue or in an
organizational environment, the likely outcome is conflict that results in a
loss of credibility and trust. (Winston et al, 2001, p. 380).
This experience was truly a crisis in my relationship with Ms. M. I felt she had lost
all credibility and I could no longer trust her. I’m sure she felt this way about me
as well.
105
Journal Entry 8-20-03
Date: Aug. 20, 2003 Goal: To Stand Out Brief Description of Activity: The QVF. The last entry in my journal was Aug. 11 because it was during that week that the largest power outage in the United States occurred at 4 pm on Aug. 14. I had an appointment with Mr B for Friday Aug. 15, at 3 pm to discover how the university database worked and whether the QVF would dovetail with it. Fri. Aug 15, the university and my workplace were closed, so the meeting never happened. I didn't reschedule because frankly, I figured he'd take my CD and all of the credit as well. On the morning of the 14th I went into the Washtenaw County Election Office and met L to learn how to use the QVF file. I was excited about the wealth of information available, and L told me that the database ran on Excel. I knew that my computers at work and Welch Hall were probably not powerful enough to run the data CD; but I figured I could run it on my home computer which is new. So I faxed in my request to the State for the CD. I advised Ms M what I was doing in my weekly report, and she approved my purchase, but at the time I requested the disk, I was told it was only $170. Ms. M had said $170 was not an issue, but when the complete data file of every registered voter in Michigan arrived, it had a bill of $350—apparently the price for both the voter history and the street index. When I tried to open the CD on the computer at Welch, as expected it wouldn't open. So I called the QVF help desk to find out the precise steps. That's when B told me that the data could not be opened in Excel, and that I needed a $1,000 database called Oracle. In the meantime, I had asked our state senator about zip codes of legislative districts, and received an e-mail from her that she'd forward my request to her staff. Shortly afterward, I received all of the zip codes of the 18th Senate District. Her office told me they are working on my request for all zip codes of legislative districts and they would send it to me when finished. So Ms. M will get the information she's requested whether or not I choose to relinquish control over the data.
Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Okay so now I'm in a pickle. In my effort to be a hero and secure this valuable database, I unwittingly incurred a prohibitive expense upon myself. Not only do I have to pay for the database because the $350 is non-refundable, but I have to go out to buy a $1000 database program called Oracle. Was I blinded by my zeal to possess something that set me apart from others? I am very tired of working at a warehouse. I'm bored out of mind. I'm anxious to prepare myself and find employment in university relations somewhere after completing my specialist's degree. I've been trying to pave a unique path for myself as a lobbyist, and possessing the database would be a boon not only for the university and the Alumni Legislative Connection PAC which I am creating, but also for the Hillary Rodham Clinton Support Network and the Women's Progressive Activists, two PACs in which I serve in a leadership position. It would also be a valuable tool for the women candidates who run for office. Ms M had said to give her a receipt and she'd reimburse me—but I'm loath to give up control of the CD—especially since initially she didn't have a clue as to its value to the university. I'm still not sure she knows. Besides, she's expecting a receipt for $170, not
106
$350. If she pays for it and she hands it over to Mr B, I won't have access to it for my own purposes.
Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: The way I see it, there's a few ways I can go here. I can bite the bullet and shell out the big bucks for the program and data, or I can hand it over to the university and Mr B (if they'll pay that much for it) and lose control of it, or I can send it back and refuse to pay for it because no one informed me that I needed a $1000 program to read the CD. They can only say "no." I can also scout out someone, somewhere, somehow who can open this CD for me—but this would probably be the least convenient solution. Upon reflection, I think I should bite the bullet and buy the database Oracle program and pay the $350 for the CD of Michigan Registered Voters, and maintain control over the integrity of my work.
Analysis
I made mistakes in judgment. In this reflection I find myself stuck in an
expensive conundrum of my own making. I decide to keep the data because it
may come in handy in my other work as a lobbyist or in helping other women
campaign. Kouzes & Posner say leaders “know well that innovation and change
all involve experimentation, risk, and failure. They proceed anyway—“ (2003,
p.7). I wasn’t concerned about the costs to me. I think this is the point in which
unconsciously I was becoming aware of the hierarchical structure in which I was
working. I say this because I was behaving competitive rather than collaborative.
I feel like these two worldviews are incompatible, because invariably the
107
competitive worldview exploits the collaborative. J. Duderstadt affectionately
referred to this as a “creative anarchy” (2000, p. 64). Others describe higher
education more succinctly,
In “leadership Reconsidered” the authors note that while most
institutions of higher learning are organized and governed according to
two seemingly contradictory sets of practices (hierarchical and
individualistic models), the requirement for any meaningful change is
developing positive working relationships. (Astin & Astin, 2000 qtd in
Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 2)
I no longer had a good working relationship with Mr. B, who had failed to ever
make time for me, or Ms. M. who only wanted me to do what I was told.
At this point, I’d like to return to the ISLLC Standards in order to further
explore what was happening in my internship. Under “Administrative Mentor
Responsibilities” Hackmann et al say,
Approach the mentoring role with sincerity and commitment. An
outstanding learning environment must be created (Hackmann et al. 1999)
so that the potential school leader can take advantage of every possible
learning opportunity that comes along. When the intern completes this
requirement, the mentor should be convinced that this person has been
prepared—as fully as possible—to face the myriad challenges of
administrative life . (p. 21).
108
There were many times when I’d read the paper and found more problems
that the university was facing. I’d bring the article in hoping I could ask Ms. M
about them. Specifically, I wondered how the university was handling the barrage
of negative publicity. This after all, was why I was there, to learn. I never got a
chance. Whenever these serious issues arose, the leadership conferred behind
closed doors. “The intern should be welcomed as part of the leadership team, not
held at arm’s length and dismissed when it is time to discuss delicate matters”
(Hackmann et al, 2001, p. 22). I wasn’t given opportunities to “shadow” Ms. M. I
reported to work each day and performed the requested tasks. The
responsibilities I was given were substantial, or I probably wouldn’t have agreed
to do them—I was investigating how to create a PAC for the university without it
losing its tax-exempt status. But I was never given significant responsibilities
associated with the job of associate vice-president. Ms M also never gave me
feedback—positive or negative. I never knew where I stood. For my part in the
ISLLC Standards, I did learn as much as possible (p. 24). At least as much as
these circumstances would allow. Furthermore, I assessed my strengths and
weaknesses often, but perhaps not accurately, since I didn’t understand that I
was dealing with multiple conflicting structures.
109
Journal Entry 8-27-03
Date: Aug. 27, 2003 Goal: Understanding my feelings. Brief Description of Activity: Day-to-Day Research. I took Friday Aug. 22 off to visit my brother. Beginning Monday Aug. 25, I have been going into Welch Hall, logging onto the Senators' websites who serve on the Higher Education Appropriation Committee, printing out their biography, a map of their legislative district, a summary of the bills they've introduced and co-sponsored, and their position specifically on the Higher Education Appropriations vote this year. At first, I printed out all of D C's (D) votes on 365 bills discussed in the senate since the beginning of the legislature in January until I discovered that all of the bills for all of the Senators are identical except for each senator's vote. Armed with this, I searched through all of the bills for mention of Higher Education Appropriation bills, and noted the page numbers upon which these discussions appear. Then I proceeded to print out only the senators' positions on higher education topics and placed them in a binder. I included a list of all of our Senators and Representatives, as well as a copy of the Governor’s executive order and the higher ed appropriations bill in its entirety. Some of the information came from a Republican—Policy Group , The non-partisan group Project Vote Smart and the State Legislature site, as well as the senator's individual web sites. I finished the Senate book and began work on the House of representatives' book. I also worked on creating a logo for the new PAC called. I also designed a business card and letterhead using this logo. I still have to create an envelope and brochure.
Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Although it has been interesting to read and learn all about the senators who serve on the higher education committee, it has been mind numbing printing and 3-hole punching all of these documents to make one binder. I know I should make a copy for myself, but the quantity of pages is huge. If I need any of this information, I know right where to get it - online. While doing all of this printing, I listen to the conversations going on all around me. L, the V.P’s secretary is retiring after 27 years of service to the university. I briefly considered applying for the job, until I observed that the secretaries see themselves as "lowly secretaries" and behave in a subservient manner. For instance, they fetch their bosses' coffee, arrange their schedules, and jump when they call. This university is notoriously hierarchical, even under female leadership. That's the reason I've been in school so long—I don't want to be a secretary; I want the challenging and more powerful position because I'm easily bored, not because I want to be waited on. At first I considered whether the secretaries position would lead to moving me up the ladder. I thought about how the university rarely promotes from within and decided I'd be stuck as a secretary if I could even get the job—given that I'm overqualified. Besides, I'm beginning to get quite resentful about how many times I've had to "pay my dues" by working for little or no pay and accept being exploited, as I sometimes feel here doing my internship.
110
Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: Why am I feeling exploited? Is it because I am not a full participant in the department? Is it because I go in every day and work on what I've been asked to do, often without so much as a greeting from my mentors? The secretaries are very good to me, and I respect them and their professionalism, but it's clear to me that they're there for "job security." Their goal is to serve, put in their time until they retire with a pension, all the while keeping a clear division between their work and home life. Do I feel exploited because I know my value and I'm tired of not receiving any recognition, credit, or pay for what I know? Take for example yesterday, I ran across legislation relating to Charter Schools. The Office of Charter Schools shares our office. I had applied for the associate director job, and didn't get it. The person who did, was the person I approached with the legislation on Charter Schools going through the legislature. In the spirit of sharing, I asked him if he was interested in a copy of it. It so happens he had a meeting with the assistant to the governor that day and this was exactly the information he needed. I made another person look good at my expense. It seems like my generosity towards others never pays off for me. My brother spoke to me about Machiavelli's The Prince. He says good leaders must be shrewd and ruthless in preserving the public good. I'm generous, sharing, and trusting. He says Machiavelli says that the ends justify the means. I have always followed the rules. I don't see myself as the ruthless type. Maybe that will be my barrier to becoming a leader. I'm 47 years old. I need to find where I belong. I need to belong somewhere in which I'm valued for what I know and credited for my minds ability to problem solve. Whomever discovers me, will never be sorry.
Analysis
Here it really shows how much I was beaten down by too much cognitive
dissonance. My not so cathartic, “aha” experience was when I identified the
department under these women as definitely hierarchical. I didn’t realize at the
time that this was responsible for much of my troubles. I can’t believe I even
entertained the thought of applying to be the V.P’s secretary! Does this imply that
some part of me still yearned for hierarchy? If so, this experience defused it. I
saw so many problems with a hierarchical model. Everything I have read in the
research suggests that hierarchical systems have their place, but that non-
hierarchical and collaborative approaches are the future in education. One
111
purpose of hierarchical systems, presumably, is its ability to exact rapid change
through a top down disposition, providing leadership has both the authority and
the responsibility to initiate change. Universities have historically been slow to
change. The unstated assumption has been that this must be the fault of the
more collaborative and democratic faculty governance style, yet isn't this faculty
model a defacto non-hierarchical model that has been used for years? By now it
was clear to me that I was not going to form a lasting relationship with my
mentor. Nor did I feel that she held any further responsibility for me. It’s also
ironic that I went to visit my brother, and that his advice was to follow the dictates
of “The Prince” a notoriously hierarchical leadership book which states that the
“ends justify the means.”
Conclusion
Writing this paper has made clear to me that there is no single definition of
leadership. Nor would one definition be desirable. Leadership Theory has
examined the leader, the follower, the situation, and all movement in between
these variables in order to define leadership, and have discovered that
leadership is a process. Theorists have made some interesting observations as a
result, such as distinctions between managers and leaders, that considerate
behavior increased productivity in followers, and that democratic leaders have
proven to be most effective in some situations, but not all, because leadership
methods have always turned on the situation.
112
Putting a strict, presumably encompassing definition on leadership
limits our thinking about the phenomenon, moreover, the requirements
that an agreed upon definition be established hinders individuals in
thinking critically and deciphering for themselves what leadership means
in different situations. The creation of a standard definition takes away the
power of individuals to critically analyze leadership situations, roles, and
contexts that are unfolding before them. (Klenke, 1996, p. 12)
Yet how can we understand meanings without a definition? Well we can
keep in mind that there are ranges of meanings for a range of situations. One
such range of meanings concerns the two over arching styles, consideration
behavior-which is concern for the emotional well being of the follower, and
initiating structure, which is concern for task. These are behaviors of which both
men and women are capable. These behaviors represent a range of possible
responses and not merely gender appropriate behavior. When thought of strictly
in terms of gender appropriate behavior, we actually trivialize leadership choices.
Gender is a social construct—so we do make gender stereotypes mean what we
want them to mean. And this isn’t a random process. All stereotypes emanate
from a core truth. Gender identities have developed as a result of studies of
behavioral preferences for men and women. And so gender identities emerge as
rational outcomes of preferences. Gender identities and its inevitable partner--
gender stereotyping-- have a role in setting people’s expectation for unfamiliar
situations. However they are merely guidelines, not hard fast rules that determine
113
rigid boundaries in which sexes cannot cross. Otherwise it wouldn’t be all right for
men to cross them and women to not cross them. Gender stereotypes can
become unreliable schemas rather quickly in our fast changing world. We
shouldn’t rely too heavily on them.
Researchers attributed these two overarching styles to gender,
consideration being feminine and initiating structure as masculine. The
significance of this dichotomy can be traced to the enlightenment when
objectivism and rationality prevailed. Modernity, “is fundamentally about order:
about rationality and rationalization, creating order out of chaos” (Online, Klages,
2003, p.4). One explanation for increasing rationality is to increase order in
society, creating a better society. To best guard against disorder, a binary
opposition between “order” and “disorder” is arranged so that order will always be
preferred. In Western Culture disorder is anything, non-white, non-male, non-
heterosexual, non-hygienic, or non-rational. (online, Klages, 2003, p. 4).
Although the research showed few patterns that show a relationship between
behavioral factors and organizational outcomes, the myth of the masculine model
as superior has persisted.
Over time, theorists began to study leadership situations, also called
contexts, which could be described as “wild cards,” because you never know
what their effect will be.
The gender prism may be seen as the first of a series of lenses
through which leadership operates. The next set of lenses is represented
114
by contexts. Context, in the most general sense of the word, refers to the
setting in which leadership emerges and is exercised. Context may be
historical or situational. Contextual aspects of organizations include their
existing social structure, personnel and compensation practices, and
industry type. Just as different times call for different leaders and different
types of leadership, so do different contexts. (Klenke, 1996, p. 18).
Since certainty, predictability, and control were thought to be perhaps the most
important piece in the equation, studies looked at ways to control variables.
These studies resulted in the conclusion that the more prepared through
education and training a leader is, the more effectively he or she will perform
through “wild card” situations. This resulted in the understanding that leadership
can be learned. If leadership can be learned then it can be taught. Either men or
women can teach, be taught, or learn.
The next phase of research examined behaviors most likely to result in
effective decisions, and whether people in fact were stable or flexible enough to
adapt to changing situations. This piece was especially important to me because
I have continuously pushed my own boundaries forcing myself into situations that
would increase my flexibility, when I was never really sure if I could. My
internship experience taught me that because of the way I was raised and
acculturated to a gendered identity, I have longed for the ability to perform in a
masculine leadership style. The reason I coveted a masculine leadership style is
115
not because I believe it is a superior style, but because I perceived it as
something perennially beyond my reach. A surprising finding I made about
myself from my case study is that despite my feminist claims, I relied entirely too
much on gender stereotypes. Now I know people can be flexible and change. I
arrive at this conclusion from personal experience—as someone who admits to
having a social phobia—the reason for my phobia has more to do with conflict
over gendered expectations I find unreasonable, than any real psychosis.
Furthermore, a lack of legitimation, or my belief that others don’t take me
seriously, don’t understand my capabilities, and shortchange me, continues to
undermine my confidence in myself. This thinking has unnecessarily
handicapped women by causing conflict from clashing role expectations.
Changing situations always required different leadership styles or methods, there
is credence to the idea that leaders employ both masculine and feminine
leadership styles as the situation requires. ”Because many leaders function in
more than one context, no single formula is possible or advisable for the range of
potential settings leaders encounter (Bolman & Deal, 1991b, qtd in Klenke, 1996,
p. 18). If I had a leadership position for which I was well-suited by interest,
education, and experience, I would be an awesome leader who uses all
leadership resources availability to me whether masculine or feminine.
The premise of the overriding importance of context, which predicts
an increasing unpopularity of emphasizing differences between female
and male leaders, was derived from two observations: 1. the time-bound
116
nature of research on gender differences in leadership; and 2. the role of
methodological artifacts in producing such differences. First, earlier
studies of gender differences in leadership conducted prior to the 1980’s
(an arbitrary date) are more likely to report significant differences in
leadership styles of men and women, evaluations of female and male
leaders, follower satisfaction with male and female leaders, leader
effectiveness, and performance of the female and male leaders. More
recent findings, on the other hand, tend to report rather small or
insignificant differences. (Klenke, 1996, p. 144)
We are only as free as we ourselves allow. If we place too great an emphasis on
gender identity and its rigid expectations, then we are in effect, accepting
societies limitations for us. If we accept the limitations, it is impossible for women
to grow. However, if we understand the function gender identity serves in setting
expectation and aiding communication in unfamiliar situations, then when
situations come along that demand a masculine response, we can utilize the
correct tool for the situation.
As for the results of my meta-analysis, in which I examine the 25 research
studies included in this paper for answers to the question “Could either a man or
a woman do these things?” Researchers have long studied men for all kinds of
reasons and generalized their results to women. While women have questioned
the generalizability of these findings to women, they have nonetheless been
recipients of medications and decisions based on a male model. Isn’t this actually
an example of how much alike men and women actually are? Over time, studies
117
on women have begun and some still argue differences while others argue
similarities. Here I argue both, yes we have some differences that are based on
our sex; yes we also have similarities based on our being human. The question
about whether a man or a woman is capable of the leadership behaviors
examined in the studies is important, because it emphasizes our humanness
hence our similarities.
This study has shown me that my goal of being a leader is achievable.
Anyone with proper education can become a great leader. Individual differences
will always figure into the equation, making it easier for some, harder for others to
achieve. But women can and do become great leaders. Another observation I
made about myself is that while I’m good at identifying unexamined assumptions
in others, I’m not experienced enough at thinking on my feet to spot these in
myself. As a woman in a male dominant field, leadership, I do not yet possess
clear mental models for how a female leader should behave. Society offers few
role models. In addition, I demonstrate traditional gender behaviors such as,
assuming responsibility when things go wrong, putting others before me,
forbearance, sacrifice, etc. which inherently undermine my leadership efforts, and
are an unending source of low-self-esteem and internal conflict. If we
acculturated women to believe in a neutral schema that includes all of the tools,
both masculine and feminine, they would not suffer from the effects of the
epistemological split between the socially constructed false self, and the leader
self within.