Thousands of studies have already been published about leadership. And the phenomenon has been researched since the 1930s. In most of these studies, the focus point of the issue has been the leader and his relationship with the followers (House, 1997, p. 409). Since women have not been well represented in areas of leadership study in business (Padavic, 2002), the military (http://www.army.mil/women/profiles.html), and the academia (http://www.aaup.org/article/so-few-women-leaders#.UZ50Er_XbLg), it is apparent to me that leadership research has been mainly made from men to men.
Leadership studies have been made principally from a Western Industrialized perspective. More than 90% of the empirical leadership evidence has an American character and illustrates its cultural concerns of individualism, responsibilities, hedonism, etc (House, 1997, p.410). Furthermore, most of the leadership theories I have studied so far are business and management oriented (Northouse, 2010). For example, Robert Katz’s Three-Skill Approach was made in the 50s, based on field research in administration and first hand observations of executives in their work environment (Northouse, 2010, p. 44).
The problem with this is that women haven’t been well represented in the managing industry for a long time (Padavic, 2002). In 1960, 15.6% of all “Managers and administrators, except farm,” positions were held by women (http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-management-united-states-1960-present). As today, women’s representation in Fortune 500 leadership positions is significantly low, 14.3%, and only 1.2% higher than in 2009 (http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workplace). Gender hierarchy does exist, it benefits men (Padavic, 2002) and it is plentiful in the top management business positions.
Leading research about leadership was also made in 1990, such as the Mumford’s skill-based model of leadership. This research was made with funding from the U.S Army and Department of Defense, based on problem-solving skills in organizations (Northouse, 2010, p. 47). However, women are also underrepresented in the highest ranks of the military. Until 2011 there had been no African-American females with the rank of major general in the Army. The first time a female led a major Army command was the year 2008. Until 2009, there has not been any female commandant of the Drill Sergeant School at Fort Jackson, S.C. King. And until 2011 no female ever became surgeon general of the Army (http://www.army.mil/women/profiles.html). Then, we could say the Mumford’s skill-based model of leadership has been based on male leadership.
In addition to that, while there are plenty of men in the academia, married or single, women, after their post doctorate, decrease their chance of ascending to more prestigious and influential positions if they have children (http://www.aaup.org/article/so-few-women-leaders#.UZ50Er_XbLg). Consequently, I am not surprised when men have conducted most of the leadership research I come across.
Then, if leadership research works on, and from, areas or studies were women are underrepresented in senior positions, how much do we really know about human leadership? Only one of the 16th chapters of Northouse’s Leadership book is about woman leadership. That is 0.6 % of the book.
Reference:
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?. Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Padavic, I., & Reskin, B. F. (2002). Women and men at work (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Penn State World Campus (2012). PSYCH 485 Lesson 1: Introduction to Leadership. Retrieved on August 30, 2012, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/002/content/01_lesson.html.
I would like to first state that I agree women are underrepresented in study, and that when it comes to very high positions that women have not and still do not have the same chance as men do to fill or hold such positions. However, I am not surprised by the under representation in all the areas you mention.
As you mentioned, the studies and theories have been made primarily from data that is old and was done in a time when men and women were regarded in very different social lights. Since the studies want to try and make theories over maxim, a lot of the theories generated will end up using this old data, therefore creating data based heavily on observations of male leaders and managers. However with new studies I don’t believe it is the intent to exclude women from them; it is most likely hard to get an adequate sample size from the small percentage that you listed.
This brings me to the practical side of why I believe many woman have not yet had the chance to take some senior leadership positions. These of course are of my opinion, but I believe it is that most people responsible for hiring those positions come from a very old school way of thinking. Even if they don’t admit it they are probably sexist or racist to some extent. An example of this would be the NFL, where a rule had to be implemented to give African-Americans a chance to be interviewed for coaching jobs. While there was no proof that they were better or worse coaches, all of the owners came from an old wealth point of view that was extremely racist and they did not believe they were fit for the job. Since they had these beliefs it seriously hindered the chance for an African-American coach to get a job in the NFL. Even now that there has been some successful African-American coaches there still aren’t that many since there are many of the same owners, who most likely have the same prejudice. The same can extend to the military which for most of its existence has been exclusively male in all command positions. So to change how the people who make decisions think will take awhile to happen.
One thing I would like to add, is that I believe it is alright for a scientific textbook to not have different chapters based gender, race, religion, or sexual preference, as it helps avoid generalizations based on those factors. Psychology is the study of the human mind and the psychology of leadership is how leadership can be explained using the practices of psychology As such, to have individual chapters for how a man leads, how a woman leads, or how a homosexual leads, is inherently saying that each one is superior or inferior to the others in some way. Not only that, but it is also saying in general that all men do X while all women do Y. In the context of a history book it would outrageous to not include a chapter of how each group has done in their leadership roles but not in a book looking to explain what is leadership scientifically.
I do believe that as the people of different thinking start to become responsible for hiring senior staff members that there will be more and more equality in those positions. Then there can be more equal representation in all fields.
As a female, I would agree with you that there is are significantly less resources and opportunities available. However, I would agree with Thomas that there are many situations and even laws that have open doors to ensure that females have the same rights as males (equal opportunities). One example would be the right to for active duty military females to participate in front line combat. I personally do not agree with this, but now this opportunity is there; this will now afford more opportunities down the road for females to earn higher ranks in the military (in support of your statement above).
I am also taking a course about work and family here at Penn State. We explore a lot of issues surrounding women in the workplace as well as men. Recently we went over the idea of how men face issues when it comes to struggling between being a breadwinner and also trying to be the number one dad. After reading the portion of your post that says “In addition to that, while there are plenty of men in the academia, married or single, women, after their post doctorate, decrease their chance of ascending to more prestigious and influential positions if they have children,” I recalled reading from Resphaping the Work-Family Debate by Joan C. Williams. In the chapter titled “Masculine Norms at Work” it states that men as well as women struggle because of stereotypes and expectations. How would a man avoid such things as being degraded or lose out on a promotion if they also need to help take care of their children. One point made was that men also find themselves struggling when they get a call from the school that their child is sick. Some bosses would say, “Can’t your wife pick up your child.” It is truly a struggle for both men and women.
You are definitely right about the underrepresentation of women in the leadership studies community, as well as in practice. It’s common knowledge that these days, women are generally paid less than men for doing the same work, and this is a discrepancy that many lawmakers are trying to address. However, the problem is that most of the lawmakers, too, are men, that is, women are vastly underrepresented in the lawmaking community, too. Thus, it is a bit of a catch-22, especially with the allegation that many males aren’t too interested in equality of women.
Of course, this is a bit of a conjecture, but it stands to reason that if we are in a society that has historically favored the majority over the minority (with respect to race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual preference, etc.), there would still be some vestiges of that left, despite policies that have been enacted to establish equality. You can also make the argument that the very need to establish laws for equality is evidence that there are some who are opposed to it, either overtly or covertly, and the only reason why they support equality is simply because it’s the law and they are forced to do so.