Gender, Women and Leadership

download Gender, Women and Leadership

of 9

Transcript of Gender, Women and Leadership

  • Gender, Women and LeadershipAuthor(s): Cheryl de la ReySource: Agenda, No. 65, Women and Leadership (2005), pp. 4-11Published by: Agenda Feminist MediaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4066646 .Accessed: 05/01/2014 16:00

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .

    JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    .

    Agenda Feminist Media is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Agenda.

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Gender, women and leadership

    Cheryl de la Rey

    abstract There is an ongoing debate which focuses on the question of whether women have different leadership styles from men. This article offers an overview of current perspectives on gender and leadership. Two opposing views of women and leadership are presented: Firstly, the view that there is little difference between women and men in leadership and secondly, the opposing argument that women have different leadership styles from men. The article suggests that the dominant view is that there are gender differences in leadership styles. It then examines explanations for these differences. By pointing to research on institutional culture, men and masculinities, it argues that gender differences in leadership are not reducible to biological differences, nor can these be adequately explained by socialisation practices and sex roles. Instead, we need to look at how some forms of gendered behaviours become dominant and privileged within organisational contexts that are masculinist. Finally, it is suggested that feminine attributes may provide a source of alternative leadership more appropriate for a new morality.

    keywords leadership, women's leadership, gender and leadership, organisational culture

    Internationally, women are still under- represented in positions of power, responsibility and leadership, despite the dramatic increase in their formal employment over the last five decades. In South Africa, even though there have been remarkable increases of women in positions of power in the post-apartheid era, this trend is still evident. The most marked change in gender representation is perhaps in parliament, where women comprise 32.8% of parliamentarians, placing South Africa I Ith in the global ranking of women in parliament. In the private sector, the picture is less positive. Women comprise 41% of the South African paid labour force but only 14.7% of executive managers and 7.1 % of directors in the country (Succeed Magazine, July/August, 2004).

    One of the frequently used strategies to increase the number of women in leadership positions takes the form of leadership and

    professional training programmes. In my research on leadership and gender and leadership, I have found that there are two prevailing assumptions: the first is about leadership in general, that it is a construct that can be learned, and the second is about gender and leadership, that women have a different leadership style compared to men. In this article, I examine these assumptions and ask how they resonate with our understanding of gender

    Leadership as learned In organisational psychology and management studies, there is a vast literature on the topic of leadership, but it is a concept that has proved difficult to define. A continuing thread in the many debates about the definition of leadership is a prevalent assumption that leadership can be taught and learned. This assumption has given

    4 Agenda 65 2005

    This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Article Gender, women and leadership

    rise to a burgeoning industry in leadership training programmes. Such training is typically focused on activities that are designed to teach or train the participants to exhibit the traits believed to be synonymous with leadership. Although in earlier writings leadership traits were regarded as inherent, the current view is that these traits may be learned (Mitchiner, 2000) and, therefore, the claim is that effective leadership training can enable anyone to become a leaderThese programmes are based on the trait theory of leadership, which argues that leaders possess certain traits or characteristics that contribute towards being an effective leader The traits commonly associated with leadership include: effective communication, task completion, responsibility, problem solving, originality, decision making, action taking, passion, vision, ethics, humour, self- awareness, confidence, courage, experience and power (Foster, 2000; Whitten, 2000; Withers, 2000).

    Women leaders as different? There is ongoing debate on whether women have different leadership styles and traits from men.The one school of thought advocates that female leaders are not different from male leaders.This school proposes that women who pursue the non-traditional role of a leader reject feminine roles and characteristics and have needs and styles similar to those of male leaders. The argument is that leaders in an organisation are socialised and selected into their organisational role and that this overrides their gender role. This results in little difference between male and female leaders (Korabik et al, 1993; Kushnell and Newton, 1986; Powell, 1990).

    The other school, a much larger voice, proposes that women have different leadership styles to male leaders.This perspective points to a distinctive leadership style associated with women, with characteristics that include being more participatory, democratic, more sensitive, nurturing and caring. Other characteristics associated with women's leadership include good conflict management and interpersonal

    skills, being excellent listeners and showing tolerance and empathy. Women are also described as more likely to lead from behind, compared to men who lead from the front, and to be encouraging of participation, sharing power and information.

    The notion that women's leadership is different from that of men has been systematically examined in several studies. Eagly and Johnson (I 990) conducted a meta-analysis of these studies and they reported significant evidence for gender differences in leadership styles. They concluded that women adopted a more democratic or participative style while men adopted a more autocratic or directive style.This trend in favour of gender differences in leadership has been supported in more recent research such as the Australian study on senior women executives (Chesterman et al, 2004), which reported that women encouraged greater collaboration, more consultative decision-making and more collegial workplaces.

    The two schools of thought on gender and leadership are often visible in newspaper articles that question whether women bosses are better than men. The oft-explicit assumption is that women are expected to be more caring towards their colleagues and employees. In earlier published research on South African women's leadership training needs, the majority of respondents endorsed the notion that women possess unique leadership qualities (de la Rey et al, 2003).The prevailing perspective amongst South African women seems to be that which advocates the existence of a feminine style of leadership.

    Explaining difference If women's leadership is different, how is it to be explained? Feminist theory would seem to be the obvious source of explanation, but as feminist scholarship has developed over the

    If women's leadership is different, how is it to be explained?

    Agenda 65 2005 5

    This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Gender, women and leadership Article

    decades, so has feminist theory become more complex. Contemporary feminist theory is multifaceted and complex, comprising competing perspectives and worldviews. Identifying points of convergence or commonality is not a simple task as the various disputes and tensions that characterise feminist theorising make it difficult to derive a simple agreed-upon understanding. Even the concept 'gender' does not permit easy definition, since gender itself is a contested concept.The once- accepted distinction between sex as biological and gender as social construction has been blurred by numerous critiques.

    At the height of the gender and difference debate, Flax (I 990) posited that the single-most achievement of feminist theory has been that it has problematised genderThis is useful as it allows us to broadly define feminist theory as all theoretical perspectives that share the belief that gender is conceptually significant in the analysis of society and that the relationship between the sexes/genders must be problem- atised. We can then accept that within the broad scope of this definition there are several ideas and tendencies that sometimes may be interlocking, in contradiction and in

    parallel. Rather than classifying the different perspectives within feminist theory into schools of thought or different theoretical strands and then adopting a particular stance, it is often useful to draw on different theoretical strands in order to explain an issue, such as gender differences in leadership.

    What is evident is that equal opportunities discourses (often noted as the definitive feature of liberal feminism) or simple claims for equality of women and men may have been necessary. However, these are insufficient for achieving dramatic changes in gender representation in leadership. South Africa has been able to move up in the global ranking of women in parliament because of gender-specific interventions and not

    by relying on procedures that regard women as the same as men. It is doubtful whether the same gender outcome would have been achieved if the ruling party had not insisted that at least one-third of its representation should be female. In a hierarchical society, equality of opportunity rarely translates into women having an equal chance.

    There is no doubt that women's access to leadership positions has been hindered by discrimination and stereotyping. One explanation for gender differences in leadership is that knowledge and experience learned from overcoming these difficult circumstances has resulted in women developing a more cooperative and flexible model of leadership. Certain characteristics associated with women's leadership such as communication, interpersonal and conflict resolution skills, as well as a greater capacity for prioritising than their male counterparts, may stem from gender-specific experiences such as managing a household and raising children, while at the same time juggling a career (Helgesen, 1990).

    This explanation for gender differences in leadership is not, therefore, rooted in the biological sphere. Instead, the differences are attributed to gender-specific socialisation practices and life experiences. For example, Rosener (I1990) reported that a second wave of women leaders were making their way into the top leadership positions by drawing on the unique skills and attitudes that they had developed through their socialisation and from sharing their experiences.These women leaders were demonstrating that women can achieve successful results, but the path they take might be different from that taken by men. This is supported by research findings - for example, Rosener (1990) reported that women leaders were characterised by a style of interactive, 'transformational' leadership and that they actively worked to make affirmative interactions with their subordinates and create a work environment where everyone is involved.

    Although research like the work done by Rosener (1990) points to a different style of

    Women's access to leadership positions has

    been hindered by discrimination and stereotyping

    6 Agenda 65 2005

    This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Article Gender, women and leadership

    0

    z Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C >N.

    _S~~~~~

    leadership in women, other research has found that some men are perceived to be demonstrating this transformational style (Clark et al, 1999) and, of course, there are cases of women leaders who do not exhibit such behaviour, thus supporting the view of no gender differences. How then do we explain gender and leadership?

    Historically, the characteristics associated with good leadership have been traits and behaviours associated with masculinity. In the vast literature on leadership, gender has been ignored. In reviewing the literature on leadership, discernible patterns become evident. With reference to management, Hearn (1999:1 67) made the point that the 'historical development of management cannot be understood without naming most managers as men', but this is often ignored and the topic is then treated in a gender-blind way. The same applies to the general literature on leadership. Searches for studies on gender and leadership reveal that when gender is considered, the tendency has been to focus overwhelmingly on

    women. As has been stated, considerable attention has been given to the question of whether women display different leadership traits and behaviours. A second burgeoning strand in this literature relates to leadership training programmes for women in an attempt to address the skewed gender representation. Far less attention has been given to questions related to men and leadership.This is perhaps a reflection of the gender bias in the literature as a whole.There is a vast literature on leadership and since most leaders have been and continue to be men, it may be safely assumed that this literature pertains to men, yet this is rarely made explicit. What is implicit in the research on women and leadership is that it relies on a point of departure that marks women leaders as different from a norm based on the leadership behaviours of men.

    From the early 1 990s to date, many of the connections between leadership, masculinity and men have been made explicit through the application of more complex understandings of gender The concept of institutional culture

    Agenda 65 2005 7

    This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Gender, women and leadership Article

    has gained wide usage and many organisations have been criticised for having a masculinist culture. But, what does this mean? In her analysis of interviews with seven women who were high level education administrators in Australia, Blackmore (I1993) elucidated the meaning of 'masculinist culture'. Her point of departure was the conceptualisation of organisations as contested cultural sites in which certain cultures become hegemonic and other cultures are subordinate and positioned as 'other'. Drawing on Connell's (I1987) work on gender and the state, she argued that the discursive practices

    of contemporary educational management are constructed by particular hegemonic masculinities, while women's interests are marginalised, particularised or ignored. She proposed that recent reforms in Australian educational governance have led to the emergence of a new form of masculinity epitomised in the notion of the'multi-skilled manager'. By examining the institutionalised discourses, she revealed that the dominant hegemonic masculinity was associated with rampant individualism, competitive- ness, authority and technical

    competence. Although Blackmore was referring to

    management and not leadership, her research is still relevant as management and leadership are not conceptually distinct. Although there are debates about the differences, leadership and management are often used interchangeably in the literature as it has been accepted that there is a wide degree of overlap. Where differentiation has been attempted, attention has been drawn to leadership connoting charisma and creativity compared to the technical functions of managers and the idea that leadership can exist independently of a formal organisation, but the same can be said of management (Hughes et al, 1993). For the

    purposes of this discussion, ideas from the literature of management are referred to where relevant, such as the study by Blackmore.

    Each of the participants Blackmore interviewed talked about a dominant masculinist culture, which was given form through behavioural norms and images of good management and leadership.The women in the study described symbols, rituals and myths that shaped the organisational culture. These included the use of sporting metaphors to refer to models of leadership, rituals such as meeting for drinks after work, specific types of dress and body image and myths about women and indecisiveness. All participants were reportedly aware of the importance of impression management for their credibility, for example fitting a particular stereotypic female image by dressing for the job was seen as critical to establishing credibility.

    Several studies have subsequently further described how institutions of higher education are hierarchically organised in ways that privilege hegemonic masculinities. However, most have done so from the perspective of women. In contrast, Hearn (1999), using his personal experience as head of department, described how universities are sites for the production and reproduction of certain masculinities and men's cultures. It is important to note that it is certain forms of masculinity that are identified as good leadership and management. The research conducted by Clark et al (1999) showed that certain types of macho management are associated with male behaviour, but that some men are perceived to manage in the transformative style associated mostly with women and femininity.

    From both a theoretical and activist perspective, the findings by Clark et al (1999) are significant. Theoretically, the findings suggest that gender differences in leadership are not reducible to biological differences, nor are these merely explained by socialisation practices and sex roles. Instead, we need to look at how some forms of gendered behaviours become dominant and privileged in ways that work

    Institutions of higher education are hierarchically

    organised in ways that

    privilege hegemonic

    masculinities

    8 Agenda 65 2005

    This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Article Gender, women and leadership

    against women and favour men. Through practices of self-selection, the majority of leaders and managers in an organisation are likely to be those who display the forms of masculinity (assertive individualism, competitiveness, authority and technical competence) that shape the culture of an institution.Thus the institution is a site for both the construction and reproduction of hegemonic masculinities and these, in turn, shape and are shaped by the institutional culture.

    Interestingly, in the Clark et al study, both men and women staff (who are managed) preferred the transformational leadership style associated with women.This is hopeful in terms of the prospects for change. In recent years, many organisations have started to adopt a flatter organisational structure, where interpersonal and participatory skills are required. Thus it may be an indication that modern workplace environments are increasingly relying on characteristics and behaviours associated with feminine roles in society. Consequently, the implication is that organisations and communities would benefit immensely from selecting and promoting women to higher leadership positions.

    Alternative leadership In the aftermath of several high profile lapses of good corporate governance and management accountability (such as the Enron case), and in the wake of conflicts and wars such as that in Iraq, there is a questioning of dominant models of leadership. This has led to a search for alternative models of leadership and a re- examination of values of cultures that are relatively marginalised within the contemporary political and economic orderAn example of this is the approach offered by Bordas (2001), who described a model of leadership growing out of Latino history and values. This model points to three dynamics - firstly, personalismo, the concept that requires that a leader embodies the traits that will earn the respect, confidence and trust of his/her community; secondly,

    tejiendo lazos, or weaving connections, that is the ability to bring diverse sectors together to build the fabric of community; and thirdly, desorollando abilidodes, or developing skills with the most important skill being strategic communication. Bordos argues that this model is responsive to the challenges faced by Latino leaders today.

    Are women leaders more likely to display the kind of leadership needed to establish a new moral order? The trend seems to suggest so. In addition to the research already discussed, Stanford and Oates' (1995) heuristic model of female leadership points out that women leaders in general are characterised as participative leaders and encourage a high degree of employee involvement. This results in a team-based management approach, and fosters a relationship based on mutual trust and respect. Woman leaders are acknowledged as possessing entrepreneurial vision and effective communication skills, and operate from a reward power base, which results in a work atmosphere where all individuals are motivated and work together to achieve the organisation's mission.

    But, it is very difficult for individual women leaders to achieve this. A recent Australian study (Chesterman and Ross- Smith, 2004) showed that women senior executives are more likely to make a difference in organisational cultures if they were present in a c critical mass. Although they found c instances where a single strong e woman had made an impact, they generally found that it is difficuft for z an isolated woman to do so. >

    Agenda 65 2005 9

    This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Gender, women and leadership Article

    Conclusion In our search for alternative models for leadership, we should not, however, pay exclusive attention to leadership as a quality of individuals.Although this is important, the role of distributive leadership and social structure, systems and processes are equally deserving of analytic scrutiny As Montiel (2001) argued, positive changes tend to be more resilient when leadership is diffused throughout a collective rather than being vested in a single person. In a recent paper, Leigh (2002) drew attention to the importance of leadership as a process. In motivating for the application of the theory of

    adaptive leadership to the issue of reconciliation in present-day Australian society, he argued that the most relevant leadership for this context is not leadership as influence or vision-setting but creating an environment that gives people the space to do adaptive work, referring to a process of dialogue between groups.

    One of the most important challenges we face today is the transformation of relationships, not only gender relationships but also relationships across other social boundaries such as race and ethnicity The role of leadershiD is of critical

    importance - not only leadership in formal positions but leadership that is distributed throughout communities.

    What kind of leadership is required in societies undergoing transformation of relationships between groups? What is the role of leaders in such contexts? Some point to the need for an alternative leadership, one that is not based on dominance and material superiority, but new values of sustainability, diversity and human rights (Ndebele, 2003). What is interesting about these suggestions is that there is remarkable overlap between the kinds of traits posited as desirable for this alternative leadership with the characteristics typically associated with women's leadership.

    Positive changes tend

    to be more resilient when

    leadership is diffused

    throughout a collective

    References Blackmore J (I 993) 'Towards a postmasculinist

    institutional politics?' in D Baker and M Fogarty (eds) A Gendered Culture: Educational Management in the Nineties, St Albans, Victoria: Victoria University.

    Bordas J (2001) 'Latino leadership: Building a humanistic and diverse society', in Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, 21 12-23.

    Chesterman C and Ross-Smith A (2004) 'Senior Women Executives and Cultures of Management', available at http://www.uts.edu.au/oth/wexdev/ research/outomes.html, site accessed 23 May 2005.

    Clark H, Chandler J and Barry J (I1999) 'Gender and managerialism' in P Fogelberg,J Hearn, L Husu and T Mankkinen (eds) Hard Work in the Academy, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

    Connell RW (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.

    de la Rey C, Jankelowitz G and Suffla S (2003) 'Women's leadership programs in South Africa: A strategy for community intervention', injournal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 25, 1, 49-64.

    Eagly AH and Johnson BT (I1990) 'Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis', in Psychological Bulletin, 108, 2, 233-256.

    Flax J ( 1990) 'Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory' in LJ Nicholson (ed) Feminism/Postmodernism, NewYork Routledge.

    Foster R (2000) 'Leadership in the twenty-first century: working to build a civil society', in National Civic Review, 89, 1, 87-93.

    Hearn J (I1999) 'Men, masculinities, managements and gender equality in UK universities' in P Fogelberg, J Hearn, L Husu and T Mankkinen (eds) Hard Work in the Academy, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

    Helgesen S (i990) The Female Advantage: Women's Ways of Leadership, NewYork: Doubleday.

    Hughes RL, Ginnett RC and Curphy GJ (I1993) Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience, Sydney: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

    Korabik K, Baril GL and Watson C (I1993) 'Managers' conflict management style and leadership effectiveness: the moderating effects of gender', in Sex Roles, 29, 405-420.

    Kushnell E and Newton R (1986) 'Gender, leadership style, and subordinate satisfaction: an experiment',

    10 Agenda 65 2005

    This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • Article Gender, women and leadership

    in Sex Roles, 14, 203-208. Leigh AK (2002) 'Leadership and aboriginal

    reconciliation', in Australion joumal of Social Issues, 37,2, 131-152.

    Mitchiner M (2000) 'Leadership skills: the overlooked training', in South Carolina Business joumal, 19, 1, 10-12.

    Montiel C (2001) 'Toward a psychology of structural peacebuilding' in DJ Christie, RV Wagner and D DuNann Winter (eds) Peace, conflict and violence: Peace Psychology for the 2 I st century, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Ndebele N (2003) 'The "War on terror" and the

    African Renaissance', UKUZA lecture, Cape Town. Powell G (1990) 'One more time: do female and male

    managers differ?', in Acodemy of Management Executive, 4, 3, 68-75.

    Rosener JD (1990) 'Ways women lead', in Harvard Business Review, 68,119-124.

    Stanford JH and Oates BR (1995) 'Women's leadership styles: a heuristic analysis', in Women in Management Review, 10, 2,9-17.

    Whitten C (2000) 'The value of leadership training', in Public Relations Tactics, 7 (2), 24-26.

    Withers P (2000) 'Birth of a leader', in BC Business, 28(l) 20-28.

    Cheryl de la Rey is currently Professor of Psychology and Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Cape Town. For more than 10 years she served as a member of the Agenda Collective and then the Agenda Management Board. Her published research has focused on gender and race and her recent work is on gender in higher education. Email: [email protected]

    Agenda 65 2005 /1

    This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    Article Contentsp. 4p. 5p. 6p. 7p. 8p. 9p. 10p. 11

    Issue Table of ContentsAgenda, No. 65, Women and Leadership (2005), pp. 1-144Front Matter [pp. 1-114]Editorial [pp. 2-3]Gender, Women and Leadership [pp. 4-11]PerspectiveEmbracing Democratic Governance, Human Rights and the Environment [pp. 12-16]

    Women in Political Decision-Making in the SADC Region [pp. 17-31]PoetryWoman, Mind Your Head [p. 32]

    BriefingWomen Caregivers and Leaders in the Second Phase of HIV/AIDS [pp. 33-39]

    FocusIn the Frontlines of the AIDS Inferno: Women Leaders' Contributions [pp. 40-43]

    Teacher Leadership: Gendered Responses and Interpretations [pp. 44-57]Globalisation, Higher Education Restructuring and Women in Leadership: Opportunities or Threats? [pp. 58-74]PoetrySnakes and Ladders [p. 75]

    BriefingLeadership and Issues Affecting the Productivity of Women Entrepreneurs in KwaZulu-Natal [pp. 76-82]

    Women in Management and Occupational Stress [pp. 83-94]PoetryForgotten Again... [p. 95]

    BriefingEquality, Institutions and Leadership: A Tentative Synthesis [pp. 96-103]

    ProfileAre We There Yet? Perspectives on Women and Leadership [pp. 104-108]

    PoetryMe, the Feminist, the Woman [p. 109]

    In Briefs [pp. 110-113]Writing ProgrammeHelp for Your Imagination [p. 115]Am I Just a White-Washed Black Woman? What Transformation Means to a Privileged Young Black Woman [pp. 116-122]Power Interrupted [pp. 123-129]The Cyborg in Africa: Of Any Use for African Feminisms? [pp. 130-136]Look at Me [pp. 137-141]

    PerspectiveReclaiming Spaces [p. 142]

    Back Matter [pp. 143-144]