It’s no secret that that today’s pop culture is challenged with facing new ideals concerning sexual orientation versus gender roles, however, corporate America could also use some schooling on the effects of gender prejudice in the workplace. To examine a few explanations pertaining to what researchers call the Leadership Labyrinth, we look to Leadership expert, Peter Northouse for clarity.
Northouse (2016) reports that there are three general possible explanations commonly agreed upon concerning women’s underrepresentation in upper levels of global management. The first implication is that women have less of a human capital investment in education, training and work experience than men. Note the term implication. It is implied; commonly believed; assumed. Statistics actually tell us that this is nonsense. Women obtain 57% of the Bachelor’s degrees in the U.S, 60% of the Masters and over half of the Doctorates earned. I would say this seems like a solid human capital investment from women pertaining to all of the aforementioned categories. Oh and let’s not forget the human investment of our actual physical, emotional and spiritual selves in childbirth and rearing, noted as a “work-home conflict” in the Labyrinth model, which could be the reason that women’s developmental opportunities are stunted in business.
Next in the maniacal maze, Northouse (2016) points to gender differences. Women are noted to be more transformational leaders (Northhouse, 2016) and thus remain at mid-level management disproportionately to men, changing everyone’s lives but their own while male counterparts climb the corporate ladder. It seems that some elements that we associate with influencing followers, for example, empowering followers and nurturing change, or the female affiliated style of democratic, inclusive leadership (Northouse, 2016) are viewed as feminine attributes. While this may be the case, they are not the only skills that give value to female leaders and conversely, men should probably take offense to this as well. Meta analysis show men and women as being equally effective leaders, but denote evidence of gender differences. Both sexes are more effective in leadership roles that are congruent with their gender, and women who evoke a more masculine style are actually disliked and undervalued for it. On the contrary, more feminine styles could be regarded as not being authoritative or tough enough. “Women represent only 4% of Fortune 500 CEOs, and hold only 16.9% of the Fortune 500 board seats and a mere 14.6% of the Fortune 500 executive officer positions” (Northouse, 2016). The most obvious solution to this problem is not forcing women to change, its to change the cultural perception of gender congruency.
Northouse (2016) notes that women were less effective in roles that were considered masculine, such as high ranking military leadership, but more effective than men in education, government, social service organizations, and as mentioned, middle management, where interpersonal skills are highly valued. It seems ludacris to think that with the evidence of vast general cognitive knowledge and social influence that women contribute to the workplace, we are still regarded as the sex that lacks commitment to employment and would sooner abandon duties to be home with our families (Northouse, 2016). On the contrary, research indicates that men show the same level of identification and commitment to paid employment roles, as well as the view of their roles as workers to be secondary to their roles as parents and partners (Northouse, 2016). Why are women singled out in this context as though taking time from work for family is a negative thing, while men’s leaving the workplace for domestic duty is minimized even though, men might actually face worse consequences? Further, un-like men, self-promoting women are seen as less socially attractive and less hirable (see previous stats regarding development opportunity), face greater social criticism for initiating negotiations and are often hired under risky conditions for success (Northouse, 2016).
Finally, we come to the third of explanations concerning the leadership labyrinth; prejudice. Just to re-cap, women are silently assumed to abandon their work in lieu of taking care of domestic duties, without the condition of returning to work with previous or at least equal status or pay (Northouse, 2016), not self-promote or ask for promotion, not be “too masculine” in their leadership style, but also not too feminine, or simply be happy maintaining the mid-level management positions where they are appreciated for developing the male CEOs of tomorrow. The really interesting part about this whole archaic concept of gender roles in the workplace is that they are not conditioned to one sex. The general workforce is comprised of followers, both male and female. They are the ones who allow us as individuals to progress through success in meeting company goals and allowing us to inspire them. Society is beginning to see the effects of rigid gender roles on mainstream culture. This evolution needs to turn into a revolution and a lot of the responsibility falls on the women and men already in upper level management to not just break the glass ceiling, but unweave the web of gender barriers so that that society is at least more equally represented by those most qualified. Once this is accomplished, women can start feeling more confident in their abilities and styles in pursuing higher level leadership and an out-dated culture of masculine and feminine stereotypes will dissolve.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.