It’s one thing to read about research in books, but firsthand accounts from people who actually experienced the situations being researched can really drive the knowledge home. Homosocial reproduction is a tendency for a group to reproduce itself in its own image (Kanter, 1977 as cited in Northouse, 2016). You can see examples of this by performing a simple google search on key leaders for different organizations. For example, when I did this for some of the main financial institutions in the nation, white males clearly dominate the higher echelons of the banking industry. This is because; “People prefer similar others and report the most positive decisions about the evaluations of people who are most like them, biases that can clearly disadvantage women when male are looking for replacements” (Northouse, pp. 405-406). This was made astonishing clear to me when one of my previous female managers made an offhand comment about how different things were in the 90’s. She then recollected about when she was a manager attempting to climb the ranks in a corporate banking environment.
The example she used was centered on bourbon (of all things). According to her, it was very common for senior managers to have fancy decanters of bourbon in their office. She recalled that she would frequently see other male counterparts who held equal (or sometimes even lower) roles than her sharing a drink with her direct manager. However, even after working for him for several years, that manager never once offered her a drink. There were even situations where she was called into the office and two or more male managers already had drinks, but one was not offered to her even though some of the meetings lasted hours. In her opinion, it was because she was there to represent women and not to truly be a leader. Her description made think of “tokens” which are women who occupy executive positions by the male dominants (Kanter, 1977, as cited in Soklaridis & Lopez, 2014). These women may feel like outsiders (which my previous manager did) due to exclusion. When I asked why she didn’t just ask for a drink rather than waiting to be offered one, she said that she wasn’t comfortable doing that since it was clear to her that she wasn’t included. Her response made me think of Babcock and Laschever’s research that suggests men are more likely than woman to ask for what they want. Personally, if I liked bourbon as much as she (2003, as cited in Northouse, 2016) does (it’s her favorite drink), I would have outright asked for one.
Keep in mind her example was from more than twenty years ago. When I asked what she thought about the environment today, she scoffed and made a comment about how leaders are not nearly as macho as they used to be. With all of the changes in society, it’s hard to argue that we (at least in America) are slowly starting to close the gender gap in leadership which is a global phenomenon in which men hold a disproportionate amount of leadership roles (Powell & Graves, 2003, as cited in Northouse, 2016). It is easy to speculate that millennials have a hand in this shift towards a more gender-neutral society. With all of the news headlines over the past few years around gender neutrality, it’s clear that the current white male dominated society is being challenged from new angles. To definitively move the needle, there are several things that companies can do to help.
To assist with creating gender neutral leadership roles, organizations should remove present barriers such as a higher standard of performance for women, inhospitable corporate culture, preference for gender similarity in promotion decisions, and developmental opportunities for women (PSU, 2020, WC, L.13, p.4). To ensure an equal playing field, job performance should be rated equally for both genders. This could be established by implanting a gender-diversity policy that reflects the organization’s commitment to maximizing female talent and can provide measurable e objectives for achieving gender diversity (Soklaridis & Lopez, 2014). Not only can policies like these help promote gender neutrality for leadership roles, there is also research to support they increase innovation over companies with a high concentration of one gender (Ostergaard, Timmermans, & Kristinsson, 2011 as cited in Soklaridis & Lopez, 2014).
In addition to organizational barriers, there are interpersonal barriers as well. These include gender prejudice, lack of emotional support/access to informal networks, and lack of white male mentors (PSU, 2020, WC, L.13, p.4). This can be addressed several ways. First, the organization can make it known to the company how females are valued during things like announcement boards that celebrate women’s achievements and highlight important leadership qualities other than masculinity. Doing this will help erode gender prejudice. Organizations should also set up networking opportunities which are mandatory for current leadership to attend. This would provide more opportunities for women to obtain additional insight around things like potential career opportunities and organizational direction. Finally, a formal mentorship program should be established and accessible to all employees looking to further their leadership career.
The last barriers are personal and tied to the individuals themselves. While organizations can help with things like parental leave, others must be addressed by the individual themselves. Examples of these would be improving their political savvy so they can better navigate the corporate leadership world. One page from my own personal book is the importance of learning to assimilate those around you. For example, when at work, I observe things like social interactions, likes/dislikes of peers, and how to dress. Then, I change how I project myself to ensure I fit in better. According to our lesson material, women must walk a fine line and it wouldn’t be beneficial to act too much like a man. Highes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2012, as cited in PSU, WC, L.13, p.4) identify several things that women can do to be seen as effective leaders which are to take risks (but not be consistently outstanding), be tough (but not macho), be ambitious (but understand they may not receive equal treatment), and to take responsibility (but still follow others’ advice).
Woman face a double standard in the leadership role because not only do they have to be competent (as all good leaders should be), but they also have to be appropriately “feminine” which is a standard which men are not held to (Eagly & Carli, 2003, as cited in Northouse, 2016). “Although the gender gap in influential leadership positions remains clearly visible, there is evidence it is starting to close” (Northouse, p.411, 2016). To quicken this pace, and eliminate the glass ceiling, organizational, interpersonal, and personal barriers must be overcome. Only then will we truly be able to close the gender gap in leadership.
References
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2020). PSYCH 485 Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2040131/modules/items/28001830
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 7th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Soklaridis, S., & López, J. (2014). Women for a change: closing the leadership gap. Academic Psychiatry, 38(6), 731-736. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40596-014-0215-7