Gender and leadership is a topic that interests me a great deal. It strikes me as odd that the leadership skills of women are doubted or women are considered less likely to lead than men because in my experience, the women in my life are strong and ideal leaders. Increasingly, we are seeing more women moving into leadership roles and high-powered positions historically run by men. This shift has caused everyone to take a closer look at the men versus women gender dichotomy. Women are finally getting the respect they deserve. When it comes to notoriety and respect, there is no woman better known for leadership than Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

Clinton was born on October 26, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois and very likely could be the first woman president in 2016. This would be an amazing time in American history. American women were only allowed to vote on August 18, 1920, with the 19^th amendment of the constitution. The fact of the matter is that women did not have any rights until they started fighting for them. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a formidable leader by standards today, let alone in the 1800’s. Stanton was credited as initiating the first women’s suffrage movements in the 1800’s at a time when men and women alike thought a woman’s place was at home in the kitchen and as caregiver to the children. This gender discrimination did not stop Stanton from venturing out beyond the norms to become a leader of her time. Fast forward to the 20^th century when women are far exceeding men in certain college, masters, and doctorate programs and we can surmise that this is possible only because of Stanton’s leadership skills. We have women seated in the senate, the house, the Supreme Court and throughout the political world. What is left now, and only inevitable, is for a woman to be elected President. I believe that this will happen soon and it will be Hillary Rodham Clinton. Will the women of America unite as they did in 1920 and fight to get Clinton elected? We shall see.

Hillary would be the first woman to be a former first lady and subsequently to run for office if she were to get win the election. Even though she is not the first woman to run for office like Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming in 1924, who won her bid for Governor. Hillary has the potential to set her sights on changing where America is headed and to provide better protection against gender discrimination. Despite the recognition women are getting for their leadership abilities, they are still not getting the elite jobs. (Northouse, 2013.) The glass ceiling was and still is the biggest problem in America that women still grapple with. Having Hillary in the spotlight will give more power to women and bring changes in America. America is dominated by the rich white males who control top offices as well as elite jobs (Northouse, 2013.). If Hillary becomes president or even makes it to the final two candidates, she will be providing a powerful role model to the next generation of women. Our daughters will see the power and leadership potential and perhaps they will want to be a leader as a result of Clinton.

In her life, Clinton has had to work harder to become a respected leader than a man would have had to, simply because she is a woman. She was number one in her class at Wellesley College and the only person to ever do the commencement speech. Her classmates gave her a seven minute standing ovation after she was done. Her classmates thought she would be the first woman to become president and the odds are good on that one. “In a meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of female and male leaders, men and women were equally effective leaders, overall, but there were gender difference such that women and men were more effective in leadership roles that were congruent with their gender” (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). They found that women were “more effective than men were in education, government, and social service” (Northouse, 2013). This would support the idea that a woman president would be more effective than a man and arguably will be a better president. Unfortunately, however, “women were less effective than men were when they supervised a higher proportion of male subordinates or when a greater proportion of male raters assessed the leaders’ performance” (Northouse, 2013). This disadvantage does not offer proof that women are not effective leaders, but shows that men are not willing to accept the equality between men and women quite yet.

Northouse has pointed out several times in the chapter on Women and Leadership that the problem is the “Pipeline” for women. They haven’t been out there working enough to get into the elite world in America (Northouse, 2013.) Women have done less work, they say. I do not agree with this assertion. Women have been our primary care-givers for centuries. In the past, they have cared for the home and children. Now, they care for the home, the children and they are working outside the home. Caring for children is harder work than farming, business, or being a doctor or lawyer. I have experienced this myself. Society still believes, unfortunately, that a woman is not capable of being as good or a better leader than a man.

My mother is a brilliant woman. She holds a master’s degree in education from Harvard and is a respected artist. My wife is a respected lawyer who supervises a dozen attorneys, both male and female, as well as holds down the home. These influences in my life show me that women are effective, strong, and capable leaders. In some situations, better leaders than men. Women birth the children of the world. Men do not, but still this is not enough. Women are faced with the “glass ceiling” which is the “invisible barrier preventing women from ascending into elite leadership positions” (Northouse, 2013). White men, however, “appear to ride a glass escalator to the top leadership positions” (Northouse, 2013). This well-documented gender inequality should render it impossible for women to lead in American society, but surprisingly that is not the case. Despite the gender discrimination dichotomy, women are still forging ahead and surpassing men in some ways. Women are still successfully navigating their way to the top leadership positions, with one more stop to go; Presidency.

Hillary becoming president is more about smashing the glass ceiling that has been there for so long and opening the eyes of women everywhere. Having a woman in the biggest office in the world helps all the countries that still support the oppression of women, such as the Middle East. The Middle Eastern women need more rights and the world as a whole needs to change. Our society needs to go back to days of the “Woman from Willendorf” (from the Paleolithic period) where it was a matriarchal society and women were considered gods (Venus) for simply have the ability to give birth.

 

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (Sixth Edition).  New York: Sage Publications.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/brief-history-womens-rights-movements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

Growing up Catholic and going to church every Sunday of my young life transformed me into the person I am today. I find myself now thinking back on transformational leaders in my life and only one comes to mind. (Northouse, 2013.). There was a priest named Father Pistone who served in my church for more than ten years of my life. Father Pistone will never be famous like the pope or a bishop, but he should be the pope. He changed the status quo of the church by appealing to the values and morals of the churchgoers. (PSU, WC, 2015.). I was an altar boy for ten years under his tutelage. Pius, kind, and understanding comes to mind every day I was around him. The moral values he instilled in me every Sunday transformed me as well as the church that was dying.
Father Pistone’s strongest characteristic as a transformational leader was vision. Transformational leaders with vision are “future-oriented” and they “recognize the problems of the present system and offer a vision to overcome the problems.” (PSU, WC, 2015.). St. Mary’s church was one of the oldest churches in my town and was falling apart when Father Pistone took it over. The art in the church was in disrepair and covered with years of suet from candles and incent smoke. People also did not come to church. I recall sitting in church prior to father Pistone becoming our priest and there were ten to fifteen people at Sunday mass. From the moment Father Pistone walked in the church, the pews were full. The Spanish people of the area started coming to church to hear him talk. The sermons Father Pistone wrote were simple and littered with common sense things like, “be kind to ten people this week”. He always set up small goals for people every week. The biggest area he changed was the cultural diversity in the church. No one in my entire life ever moved more diverse people to support each other. My hometown had a huge community of people from Puerto Rico and Germany or Anglo- Saxon dissent. To bring together these two communities in one church was nothing short of amazing.
Father Pistone improved the church in very small ways to bring about huge change. Music was a big part of it. He befriended musicians, he convinced the estranged organist to come back to church, and most importantly, he brought singing back to St. Mary’s. Father Pistone’s personalized leadership skills were superb. He created such “strong, personal bonds with followers”. (PSU, WC, 2015.). The next thing he did was raise money to re-build the church. One of the most important abilities of a transformational leader is motivating followers to do more than the expected. (PSU, WC, 2015.). The church roof was leaking, the paint was peeling from the ceiling, and the floor was coming up. It was one thing to ask for help, but to get the help from the parishioners is another. People wanted to help Father Pistone transform the entire church system. Father Pistone put his heart and soul into St. Mary’s church. He built such trust in the followers through his self-sacrifice. (PSU, WC, 2015.).
My mother was a driving force for the Anglo-Saxon people of the church. All five of her kids took part in the mass as altar boys. My family ran the mass at least twice a month, or more if other altar boys didn’t show up. My brothers and I served a great deal. Father Pistone asked my mother to repair and repaint the station of the cross at our church. I was young when she first started repainting the church and was with her in the church for hours. I called her the Michelangelo of the church. She did not like this but, father Pistone did. He had found his next piece to re-building his church; an Artist. Our family were devout followers of Father Pistone and his transformational leadership abilities.
“Transformational leadership places a strong emphasis on morals.” (PSU, WC, 2015.). There is no doubt Father Pistone had morals and he instilled these morals in every decision he made to transform that church. He was a role model and involved himself in the culture of the church and helped to shape it into a diverse, supportive environment. (PSU, WC, 2015.). This was miraculous at the time because several churches in the vicinity had already closed. Thankfully, Father Pistone transformed everyone’s idea of the future of the church with his vision, social architecture trust, and creative deployment of himself (Northouse, 2013). The parishioners saw the church come to life every Sunday with music, art, and attendance. People got involved in the transformation of the church. Instead of this church closing down, it started to thrive. Every year the church improved through constant care from all the Father Pistone’s followers. He built the church again like Peter. “From this rock you can build a church” (Matthew 16:18).
Father Pistone put his faith in people like my mother who put her whole family at the forefront and created an image of faith from the heart. Although it could be argued that the followers in this relationship were religious by nature and perhaps easier to persuade to transform the church by appealing to their religious insecurities, I believe it was more than that. In this particular transformational leader/follower relationship, it was more about Father Pistone’s superb abilities to motivate and less about the religious nature of the followers that created this successful transformation.

References:
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
The Holy Bible. (2001).King James Version. Zondervan Publishing House. United States of America.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2015) PSYCH 485, Module 10: Transformational Leadership. Retrieved from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp15/psych485/001/content/10_lesson/printlesson.html (Links to an external site.)

Hitler lost his father at a young age. He was not a good student and dropped out of school to pursue art. He was obsessed with art, but did not get into art school. In fact he was rejected twice. He lived in a homeless shelter where he came up with his Anti-Semitism. He served in the military in WWI and his Anti-Semitism ideas grew stronger. After WWI, he started his political career and was later jailed for a year for the “Beer Hall Putsch” in Munich, where he wanted to start a revolution. In jail, Hitler wrote “Mein Kampf” meaning my struggles. This showed what he wanted to do with the German Society.( Adolf Hitler. (2015). The Biography.com website.)

Despite Hitler’s childhood and his rejections in life, he was a persuasive leader. He had complete power and influence over the people of Germany. How could someone who was unattractive, unsocial, somewhat of a failure, and extremely narcissist become such an effective leader? The answer is through power and influence. “Power is the capacity to produce effects on others”. (PUS, WC, 2015). Hitler was a failure in the beginning of his political career. It was from this failure that he learned to use his referent power to grow in the political world. With this growth, he began to influence those around him by strengthening relationships with his followers. (PSU, WC, 2015.) People became mesmerized by what Hitler was selling to them. Hitler continued to use his referent power to satisfy his incessant need to gain personalized power because ultimately he was selfish, impulsive and lacking in self-control (PSU, WC, 2015.). Hitler used his inspirational appeal to convince the Germans to annihilate an entire race of people. Hitler gave his speeches and arouse “enthusiasm and emotions” thereby convincing people that his decisions were based on the good of Germany (PSU, WC, 2015.). As a leader, his power came from what Hitler had around him and what he wanted to achieve as a country. He used his inspirational speeches to explain that Germany needed to be cleansed from all the people that diseased the pure race. This was not a novel idea. He took it from the Egyptian culture. He sold himself with great art and befriended incredible movie directors, who showed him as amazing and powerful. This became social proof to the German people and as a result they were influenced by his leadership despite his drug addiction (PSU, WC, 2015.). The German world only saw the great propaganda that Hitler advertised. The strength of Germany is what he wanted to show the world to try to gain further influence over people. After gaining a vast amount of followers, he used his coercive power to keep people in line whenever his motives or actions were questioned. Anyone who questioned him or disobeyed his orders were punished (PSU, WC, 2015.). He used the many different facets of power and influence to first gain control of an entire country, to maintain that power through coercion and fulfill his maniacal goals. He could not be a more perfect example of how power and influence creates a leader.

 

References:

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015). PSYCH 485, Module 7: Power and Influence.

Adolf Hitler. (2015). The Biography.com website. http://www.biography.com/people/adolf-hitler-9340144.

About twenty-five years ago, I was first introduced to Freud’s ideas. Although somewhat extreme at times, I thought he was brilliant. It was his original ideas and theories that fueled my interest in psychology. Conceptualizing the mind as having different layers was, and still is, an amazing concept even if there isn’t tangible proof. Using hypnosis to treat patients with hysterical paralysis is an antiquated treatment by today standards, but during Freud’s time it was groundbreaking medical treatment. (Northouse, 2013). It was only later Freud determined that “talking therapies” was sufficient. (Northhouse, 2013). He started a movement that has spawned people like Lacan (Female Sexuality, 1985) and countless others to think outside the box. It is not surprising that the works of Freud, and his discipline Jung, are credited with creating the psychodynamic approach to leadership.

The psychodynamic approach to leadership deals with looking at “personality types” and the presentation of proof that certain “personality types are better suited to particular leadership positions or situations.” (Northhouse, 2013). It involves the analysis of the direct relationship between the leader and follower, which is a more believable approach to leadership than the trait approach. (Northhouse, 2013). A leader and his subordinate does not need to be a match in order to be an effective relationship, but a leader is only as good as his followers. (Northhouse, 2013). To fully understand what makes someone willing to follow the leader, an analysis of the relationship between the two seems plausible.

During my adolescent years, my mother and father were the only two leaders in my life. I had a very isolated life. I was the youngest of five and we lived on a farm in the middle of the Amish people. The parenting in my family was of the very traditional, authoritarian kind. For reasons unknown to me, I was naturally drawn towards my mother’s leadership, but appreciated my father’s advice significantly. My father was controlling and obsessed with money. According to Freud, his leadership dynamic would be of the “obsessive personality” type. (Northhouse, 2013). My mother, on the other hand, was the opposite. She and I could talk for hours about anything and everything. She, having come from a wealthy upbringing, did not have monetary desires. Her personality type would fall into the erotic kind. (Northhouse, 2013). What I have learned from my earlier experiences and reading this chapter in Northhouse, is this earlier psychological development created my personality type. With this information, I recognize my tendency to follow leaders that are friendly, social and of the “erotic” personality type. Moreover, as a result of this personality awareness, I can better understand the implications on my work and everyday relationships. (Northhouse, 2013)

I agree that the importance of parental models has decreased in modern families, and therefore, having only two potential personalities to gain leadership experience from is somewhat extinct. (Northhouse, 2013). Modern families are blended, or same-sex, some include working mothers and stay-at-home fathers, others have step-siblings and transgendered members, but my first leadership experience comes directly from only my mother and father. Therein lies my criticism with this particular approach to leadership. I had limited exposure to a variety of personality types and only two personality types to gain leadership experience from. From my limited childhood experience, I became more like one parent and less like the other. Why? What other factors could have played a role in my choice? Perhaps I could have rebelled, or become narcissistic. This approach to leadership does not provide a way to determine or explain why I was drawn to my mother’s leadership as opposed to my father’s.

Freud saw “infantile experience as dominated by raw sexual and aggressive impulses, culminating in the oedipal crisis”. (Freud and Beyond, 1995). Although modern thinking does not support this view directly, it cannot be argued that understanding the parental role is key to understanding leadership. An effective leader will not just understand his leadership style, he will understand how the style came about.

 

References

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015). PSYCH 485 Module 3: Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1486679/modules/items/15958888

Mitchell,S.A., Black, M.J.(1995) Freud and Beyond. New York: Basic.

 

Prior to reading Northhouse’s theory on Trait Approach, I may not have been able to pinpoint what makes a good leader. When I apply the topics and ideas from the reading to my experiences I have a better understanding of which leaders have made the most impact on me in my life. Northouse describes the major traits related to leadership as determination, integrity, sociability, intelligence, and self-confidence (Northouse, 2013). A leader does not need to possess all of these traits, but in my opinion a great leader must exhibit sociability and determination.

Formerly, I worked on an upscale golf course in CT. The budget was in the millions and celebrities were our members. My boss, who led a team of 20 individuals, was self-confident to say the least. He moved forward without question or doubt and never failed in his duties. He did, however, lack emotional intelligent, either by default or intentionally, I can’t say for sure. He simply did not care what his subordinates thought or felt, and he rarely expressed emotions. He was, however, a decent leader regardless of this lack of emotional intelligence. In my mind, this settles the debate regarding the importance of emotional intelligence and contradicts Goleman’s suggestion that emotional intelligence plays a “major role” in whether people are successful at work. (Northouse, 2013). This guy was successful. There was no doubt about that, but he showed no feelings and lacked empathy. Over time, I began to dislike him and although I may not have been able to articulate why at the time, I now know it was because of his dark-side personality trait (PSU WC, 2015, M. 2, p. 5). He was narcissistic. In response to his narcissism, I exerted less effort towards my work (PSU WC, 2015, M. 2, p. 5). I think I wanted him to fail. Perhaps because of his self-confidence, it was easy for many to overlook his lack of emotional intelligence. This only lasted for so long. Once I realized I was compromising my own integrity, it was time to move on. This guy was neither a great leader, nor an effective leader. Over the years, I have heard that workers have come and gone. It is like a revolving door at his golf course. Despite this revolving door of assistants, he is still in charge. He possessed such self-confidence and produced quality work that his cold exterior was easy to overlook. His work was his own self-centered approach to being a leader (PSU WC, 2015, M. 2, p. 5).

Years later, I started a new job in another state. I worked for an extremely successful leader and who was known for his “sociability” (Northouse, 2013). He would always find time to make life better or easier for his crew or “followers” (Northouse, 2013). Judge et al. found extraversion as the trait most strongly associated with being an effective leader and neuroticism as the least (Northouse, 2013). There is definite truth to this research. He was the kind of guy that everyone knew and everyone liked, but he was neurotic. It was subtle at first, but I could see he had an intense fear of failure and as a result of this fear, he had a tendency to self-medicate. For many years, he was quite successful in our community and had it all. His ability to influence his crew was almost hypnotic. He was very positive and protective of his “followers” or workers (Northouse, 2013). He did possess other strong leadership traits, but nothing overshadowed his sociability. I left the job after a few years for a better position, but stayed in touch with my former supervisor. Over the years, he slowly let his neuroticism overcome his mind and he lost his job, along with his wife, his kids, and his freedom. Last I heard, he was serving time for selling narcotics. I can’t help but think he was probably very successful at that before he was convicted.

I could probably find many more examples of leadership in my life, but what makes a great leader is a very subjective question. Most of my former supervisors have had faults or dark sides which prevents them from ever becoming anything but average to me. Anyone can be a leader, if he or she can find followers. Not everyone, however, can be a great leader. This is where I have gained the most benefit from Northhouse’s reading. The great leaders in my life have been the people who exhibited sociability, determination, and emotional intelligent. These were the leadership qualities I respected the most. I emulated these traits the most in my own experiences as a leader. Overall, the reading has helped me narrow down what I believe makes someone a great leader as opposed to an average leader or just a boss. I have the most respect for the leaders in my life and those throughout history that are known for their sociability and determination. That is clear. I could not explain why I relate to these leaders the most, but at least I now understand that I do.

 

 

References

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015). PSYCH 485, Module 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp15/psych485/001/content/02_lesson/toc.html