Mai Dolinh

Where are the women?

November 23, 2014 by Mai Dolinh

_____________________________________________________

transcript: http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_
too_few_women_leaders/transcript?language=en

Fifty-seven percent of Bachelor’s degrees are earned by women, 60% of master’s degrees are earned by women, and 46.7% of women are in the U.S labor force (Northouse, 2013, p.352). These are incredible numbers that show the progress we’ve made as women, and a society within the last century. However, when we look at women in leadership, the numbers paint a less impressive picture. Out of 190 heads of state, only 9 are women; in global parliament, only 13% are women; and in the corporate sector, women in top positions (c-level jobs, board seats, etc) max out at 15-16% (Sandberg, 2010). Why are women under-whelmingly represented in leadership positions around the world, when our education and workforce numbers are competitive to that of our male counterparts? Northouse (2013) explains this leadership gap through what he calls the leadership labyrinth, which is comprised of human capital, gender differences, and prejudice. These issues are not new, and it’s easy to blame society and male counterparts for this leadership gap. However, Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook offers a refreshing look into how these issues of the leadership labyrinth can be addressed through women themselves. She gives three messages on how women can close this leadership gap by staying in the workforce through: sitting at the table, making your partner a real partner, and not leaving before you leave.

Eagly and Carli (2004,2007) state lack of human capital as a reason for the leadership labyrinth, saying women have less human capital investment in education, training, and work experience than men (as cited in Northouse,2013, p.354). However, this “pipeline problem” is weakly supported with more women earning undergraduate degrees than men, and earning professional and doctorate degrees at a greater rate or nearly equal to that of men. So filling the pipeline is not the problem, a closer look reveals a leak in the pipeline is to blame. Research by Keith and McWilliams (1999) show that women are more likely to quit for family-related reasons than men, and women have less work experience or employment continuity than men, due to the disproportionate responsibility women assume for child rearing and domestic purposes (Bowles & McGinn, 2005; and Eagly & Carli, 2007). Sandberg’s support for this is staggering, stating, in a household where both partners are working full-time, the woman does twice the amount of housework and three times the amount of childcare the man does (2010). This is where Sandberg’s “making your partner, a real partner” comes into play. Husbands and wives need to support each other equally, women should not shoulder majority of home life responsibility, and stay-at-home dads should be more commonplace than it is. It’s not all up to the men to make this change, Sandberg talks about her mommy-and-me classes where there is only one father there, and the other moms sort of reject his presence. As women, we need to celebrate these types of actions and behaviors and present them as standard and expected. By striving to extinguish gender roles, and simply supporting each other in a true partnership manner, we can began to plug the leak in the pipeline problem. In fact, studies show households with equal earning and equal responsibility have half the divorce rate and more intimacy (Sandberg, 2010).

Other arguments that seek to explain this leadership gap are gender differences; simply that women are different than men, e.g leadership style, effectiveness, and traits (Northouse, 2013). However, Eagly and Carli (2007) found effective leadership is comprised of androgynous traits such as intelligence, social skills, initiative, and ability to persuade (as cited in Northouse,2013, p.357). Empirical research by Bowles and McGinn (2005) indicates that men are more likely than women to promote themselves for leadership positions; and that women are also less likely to negotiate than men are. Though there may be minute differences between women and men, these differences are not to blame for the leadership gap. Women, differences and all, have the same ability to emerge as leaders as men. The true issue in gender differences can be explained through Sandberg’s message of “don’t leave before you leave.” Women may be getting in their own way of leadership emergence, and it may be subconscious. Sandberg explains, the actions that women are taking, with the objective of staying in the workforce, ironically lead to their eventual leaving. The issue here is that we as women, start planning so far into the future, that we subconsciously start “leaning back” or stopping ourselves from moving forward, in the anticipation of our future family. Why is this detrimental to women emerging as leaders? Well, if a woman were to choose to go back to work, after having a child, the job must be inspiring, challenging, and rewarding (Sandberg, 2010). The problem is that women may never reach that point in their careers because once they start out in the workforce, they are already making subconscious decisions to leave, or what Sandberg calls “leaning back.” If you are not constantly moving forward, making decisions to further your career, you will ultimately be bored or unsatisfied with your job, making the decision to leave when you have a family, fairly easy. Sandberg urges women to “keep their foot on the gas pedal”, climb the corporate ladder, be selfish, take chances, and then when the time comes, when you need to take break to have a child, then make your decision. Give yourself a fair chance in the workforce, and strive to fulfill your highest potential until the absolute last minute that you must make decisions based on raising a family. Don’t let the anticipation of having a child kill your chances of having a career before it even starts.

The most popular reason for this leadership gap is prejudice. Hoyt and Chemers (2008) believe that the leadership gap revolves around gender biases stemming from stereotyped expectations that women take care and men take charge. In terms of leadership, these stereotypes can be damaging to women. The agentic qualities believed necessary in the leadership role are incompatible with the predominantly communal qualities stereo-typically associated with women based on the role congruity theory (Northouse, 2013). Sandberg (2010) talks about a famous Harvard Business School study done on Heidi Roizen, an operator at a Silicon Valley company, who used her contacts to become an extremely successful venture capitalist. In 2002, a professor at Columbia University took the case and changed “Heidi” to “Howard”. He then gave both the Heidi and Howard cases to two groups of students and surveyed them. The not so surprising result? Though all students thought Heidi and Howard were both competent, they did not have the same positive affection towards Heidi as they did Howard. To the students, Howard was a great guy, they wanted to hang out with him, they wanted to work for him. However, with Heidi, they felt she was too “political”, and maybe a little narcissistic. This just goes to show how deep rooted these gender prejudices run; so much so that women themselves are becoming victims to this self-fulfilling prophecy. Believing that they are not as good as men, less intelligent, less deserving. This hinders women’s progress and the closing of the gap.

Sandberg tells a funny anecdote about a European Intellectual History class she took with her friend and younger brother in college. Her friend, an exemplary literary student, read every single book in original Greek and Latin versions and attends all of the lectures; Sandberg herself reads all the books in English and attends most of the lectures, and her brother, read one book (of 12) and attends a couple of lectures. After their exam, they discussed how each person felt they did. Her friend Carrie says “Boy, I feel like I didn’t really draw out the main point on the Hegelian dialectic,” to which Sandberg says “God, I really wish I had connected John Locke’s theory of property with the philosophers who follow;” however, her brother says, “ I got the top grade in the class.” This is a humorous display of a more serious issue- women are systematically underestimating their own abilities.Thus Sandberg’s final message, “sit at the table.” Don’t sit on the sidelines. Women need to be confident in their roles in the workplace, and continue to reach for opportunities. After a recent lecture at Facebook, one of Sandberg’s listeners, a young woman approached her with the idea that she should keep her hand up. What she was referring to, was after the lecture, Sandberg said she would take two questions, which she did. At that point, the young woman put her hand down, as did the rest of the women in the crowd. However, Sandeberg went on to take more questions from those that still had their hands raised- the men. It is astonishing the number of little events like this that exist everyday. If women don’t pay attention, they will never be able to overcome these gender stereotypes, or even give themselves a chance to compete equally with men. This is why “sitting at the table” is so important, women cannot get to the corner office by sitting on the side, they cannot get the promotion if they don’t think they deserve or even understand their success (Sandberg, 2010). If we, as women, don’t believe in ourselves, how can we began to convince society and the corporate world? Through Sandberg’s messages of sitting at the table, making your partner a real partner, and don’t leave before you leave, we can address the issues of the leadership labyrinth; human capital, gender differences, and prejudice. Through staying in the present, believing in our potential, ignoring gender stereotypes, and viewing our relationships as partnerships, we strengthen our pipeline by remaining in the workforce, and slowly but surely, close the leadership gap.

-Mai Dolinh

references:

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sandberg, Sheryl (2010, December) Why we have too few women leaders [Video file]. retrieved November 18th, 2014 from http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_
too_few_women_leaders/transcript?language=en#t-576000

Atypical theory-Servant leadership, and why it works.

November 9, 2014 by Mai Dolinh

____________________________________________________________________

transcript: http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_you_feel_safe/transcript?language=en

The paradoxical idea of servant leadership brings to mind the phrase, “so crazy, it might actually work.” In the traditional view of leadership, service is the job of the follower. However, servant leadership puts the leader at service. In servant leadership, the leader focuses on servicing their followers; they empathize, nurture, and provide attention so that the followers can develop their full personal capacities (Northouse, 2013). Spears (2002) identified 10 servant leader characteristics: Listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, and commitment to the growth of people.

Listening involves the interactive process of communication between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2013). In the traditional world of leadership, we think of leaders as instructing, ordering, or ruling. In servant leadership, leaders listen first to understand and acknowledge their followers. Empathy is the ability to put ourselves in someone else’s position and see where they are coming from. This makes the follower feel unique and validated (Northouse, 2013).Healing does not involve mystical powers, however it does involve offering support to followers by overcoming their personal problems and caring about their well-being (Northouse, 2013). Awareness is similar to emotional intelligence in that it includes the understanding of oneself and the impact one has on others through being attune and receptive to one’s physical, social, and political environments (Northouse, 2013).

Persuasion, not coercion, is a servant leadership quality. Persuasion involves the use of gentle non judgmental argument, not force-like coercion (Northouse, 2013). Conceptualization and foresight are similar in that they both require a looking into the future. Conceptualization is visualization to help prepare for complex organizational problems, while foresight involves the ability to predict the future through analizations of the past and present (Northouse, 2013). Stewardship is when the leader takes responsibility for their role as leader. It requires taking on the responsibilities of a leader and holding the organization in trust for the greater good of society (Northouse, 2013). Lastly, commitment to the growth of people is a dedication to each person in the organization and commitment to helping each individual grow both personally and professionally.

Simon Sinek, a management theorist discusses what makes a great leader in this TED talk. Sinek explains why good leaders make their followers feel safe and secure which can inspire cooperation, influence, and create a strong bond. This talk really helps to illustrate how efficient leadership can be achieved by putting the followers first.

Servant leadership is successful when leaders truly believe and act upon a desire to make their followers successful, through being honest and treating them as partners (PSU, 2014). Sinek gives us a great real world application of this by telling the story of Charlie Kim, the CEO of Next Jump. Next Jump is a tech company, of which there are thousands in the US, but what makes Next Jump stand out is it’s policy of lifetime employment. That’s right, no one gets fired. ever. In fact, if your performance is weak, extra time and resources are dedicated to coaching and helping you improve. As a leader, what better way to demonstrate your belief in and desire to make your followers successful, than a no fire policy? This upfront honesty and trust given to employees the moment they are hired show how servant leadership creates performance and growth. Charlie Kim grew his company from a one man operation to a multi-layered corporation. Both Charlie and Sinek talk about viewing leaders and followers as analogous to parents and children. If our child brings home a C or acts out, we don’t fire them, we help them. This philosophy of not abandoning our followers as a leader, no matter what, instills a strong sense of mutual trust and respect.

Servant leadership only works when leaders have a humanistic philosophy and altruistic tendencies (PSU, 2014). Sinek talks about how banking CEO’s violated the definition of leadership, breaking the social contract involved by sacrificing so many of their followers during the recession, so as not to affect their own income. These acts of greed by leaders have been seen throughout history and have created a distrust and fear among leaders and followers. The banking industry will now have a hard time retaining hardworking, loyal employees. As Sinek says, “Great leaders would never sacrifice the people to save the numbers, they would sooner sacrifice the numbers to save the people.” This is an idea rooted from servant leadership, the idea of putting others first.

How does putting others first benefit the leader? Sinek tells us about Bob Chapman, the owner of a manufacturing company in the mid-west. His company was hit hard by the recession in 2008, losing 30% of their orders overnight. They were in a ten million dollar hole. Staying true to the model of servant leadership, Bob refused to lay off any of his workers. Instead of cutting jobs, Bob announced to the company that he would rather everyone suffer a little, than to have one person suffer a lot; and inducted a furlough program. All members of the organization from the CEO to floor workers were required to take a 4 week unpaid vacation. The trust that results from servant leadership (Bob not laying off any workers) encourages followers to grow as servant leaders themselves while maximizing their potential which in turn benefits the organization (PSU, 2014).

The workers maximized their potential, saving the organization, not ten but twenty million dollars. The idea of this trust encouraging followers to grow as servant leaders themselves was illustrated in what happened during this furlough program. The employees who could afford to take more time off, traded with those who could not, helping lighten the financial impact of their own colleagues. This natural development and passing on of leadership shows the long reaching influence servant leadership has.

So crazy it might just work. A perplexing theory such as servant leadership takes radical ideas like a lifetime employment policy, or employee-wide furlough, to illustrate how putting the leader at the service of their followers can result in ethical and efficient leadership.“When individuals engage in servant leadership, it is likely to improve outcomes at the individual, organizational, and societal levels (PSU, 2014)”.The servant leadership actions of Charlie Kim and Bob Chapman depict how the proper use of servant leadership creates trust, and inspires productivity; benefiting their organization, their employees, and those around them.

-Mai Dolinh

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PSU WC. (2014). PSYCH 485: Lesson 11, Servant leadership. Retrieved November 8th, https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/toc.html

Sinek, Simon. (2014, March). Why good leaders make you feel safe [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_you_feel_
safe#t-627531

Redefining “Career Experiences”

September 20, 2014 by Mai Dolinh

transcript: http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_dudley_everyday_leadership/
transcript?language=en
__________________________________________________________

The Skills Model, a recent version of the skills approach to leadership is comprised of three components: individual attributes, competencies, and leadership outcomes (PSU, 2014). Individual attributes build off of traits or intrinsic qualities one is born with, as building blocks to learning effective leadership skills. Competencies, unlike individual attributes, are actual learned skills. These competencies are made up of problem solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge (Northouse, 2013, p.48). These learned competencies allow for effective leadership through constructing and applying solutions, teamwork, understanding human behaviors, and ability to define and resolve complex organizational behaviors (Northouse, 2013, p.51). Leadership outcomes, the last component of the Skills Model, involves effective problem solving by providing unique and quality solutions, and performance-how well a leader performs their given duties (Northouse, 2013, p.55).

There are two other components to the Skills Model that support overall leadership performance: career experiences and environmental influences. Career experiences have a significant impact on a leader’s characteristics and competencies (Northouse, 2013, p.54). Career experiences advance one’s job growth and skill building necessary for effective leadership. But how does that relate to some of us who are in school, and have very little career experiences to help develop a strong leadership skill set? The problem with this part of the theory is the word “career” limits our thinking regarding these useful experiences that help build our leadership skills. These so called “experiences” should not be limited to a “career environment.” In fact, these experiences can happen in our everyday lives.

Drew Dudley, a leadership educator from Toronto, gives a great talk on TEDx about everyday leadership. He asks us to purge the notion that calling oneself a “leader” is arrogant or cocky. Dudley believes we should all celebrate the amazing leadership moments we experience in everyday life. He tells a story about a moment where he positively impacted a young girl’s life, through a small action. He had given her motivation and courage to do something significant with her life. This small act of leadership did not happen “on the job” and she was not one of his employees. This was a “career experience” of some sort, which no doubt, enhanced his motivation and intellectual ability. It helped Dudley strengthen his motivational and social judgment skills- both an individual attribute and competency, two major components of the Skills Model.

Benefits of the Skills approach are its focus on developing leaders, it’s accessibility to those who want to learn, and it’s applicability to different leadership situations (PSU, 2014, p.7). To enhance and build on these strengths, we need to modernize the definition of “career experiences” to include those leadership moments in our daily lives that help improve our leadership skills and knowledge over time. Students who have never worked before should not wait to have a job title in order to participate in these “career experiences.” They can develop leadership skills in everyday life- problem solving, motivating, and performing; using each scenario or experience to help develop these leadership skills further.

Written by: Mai Dolinh

References:

Dudley, Drew. (2010, September). Everyday Leadership [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_dudley_everyday_leadership?language=en#t-355238

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PSU WC. (2014). PSYCH 485: Lesson 4, Skills Approach. Retrieved August 31st, 2014 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/04_lesson/05
_page.html

Key to leadership…in our genes?

September 13, 2014 by Mai Dolinh

Are leaders born or made? (2014); Image source: Leadaprenuer.com
_____________________________________________________

This week’s discussion of the Psychodynamic theory got me thinking about a commonly asked question in leadership, are leaders born or made? The ideas underlying the Psychodynamic theory lean towards, made. The first two concepts in the Psychodynamic theory, family of origin and maturation or individuation support the idea that a leader is made. These concepts revolve around the idea that one’s leadership skills start the day they are born with their parents being their first leadership example (PSU, 2014, pg.3). In the maturation or individuation stage, key developments are made in relationship to authority figures and intimacy, reflecting ones’ leadership styles in the future (PSU, 2014, pg.5). Psychodynamic theory supports that leaders are “made”, made through their upbringing, their relationship influences, and through psychological understanding, aka repression and the shadow self.

In researching whether leaders are born or made, I learned about genotype rs4950. Dr. De Neve (UCL School of Public Policy) and his colleagues analyzed and compared approximately 4,000 genetic samples with jobs and relationships. They concluded that a significant relationship existed between rs4950 and leadership (University College London, 2013). What does this discovery for the “leadership” gene mean? This could change the world of recruitment and hiring. In a weak economy and high unemployment, competition heightens. Applicants could get tested for this gene and add to their resume.

This discovery could also change how we choose our mates. An international team composed of academics from Harvard, NYU, and University of California using a large twin sample, predicted that a quarter of the observed variation in leadership behavior between individuals can be explained by genes passed down by their parents (University College London, 2013). People with the genotype rs4950 could now began seeking each other out, mating exclusively to create genetically superior children with this leadership gene.

Though much research needs to be done on this topic, this discovery is exciting to the world of leadership theory. Perhaps we will find more genotypes that are significantly linked with good leadership behaviors. This could help identify good leaders earlier; helping give them the “environment” needed to nurture and grow their innate leadership abilities, producing a top breed of leaders.

Psychodynamic theory has caught a lot of slack, due to fact it is not “testable” or its inability to operationally define traits and characteristics. For example, how does one scientifically test for a “warrior” or a “magician.? It would be interesting to see what the critics of the psychodynamic theory have to say about rs4950. Testing for a gene and comparing it to specifically defined leadership traits should satisfy their need for a more modern scientific link. Technology is changing the development of theories. Perhaps one day, future students taking this course will have a new theory to study- one involving how leaders, are in fact, born.

Written by: Mai Dolinh

Sources:

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2014). PSYCH 485. Lesson 3:
Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/
psych485/001/content/03_lesson/01_page.html

University College London (2013). Born to lead? Leadership can be an inherited trait, study finds. Science Daily. Retrieved September 10^th, 2014 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130115111553.htm

Emotional intelligence and why women are headed to the top.

September 6, 2014 by Mai Dolinh

Women in Leadership Roles (2012): Image source: BusinessInsider.com

_________________________________________________________

According to Northouse (2012), emotional intelligence is one way to assess the influence of traits on leadership. Emotional intelligence involves the interplay between our thinking and emotions; specifically, the ability for one to perceive and use emotions to express, facilitate thinking, understand, and reason (Northouse, 2012, p.27). There has been much debate about emotional intelligence and its significance on leadership. Northouse (2012) points out several researchers such as, Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) , who see a weak link between emotional intelligence and leadership. An article, The future of work, Times Magazine (2009) breathed new life into this debate. As one of the “10 ways your job will change”, Shipman and Kay (2009) write explicitly about why women will rule business in the future and how emotional intelligence plays a role.

Catalyst, a workplace research group found Fortune 500 companies with the most women in senior management, had a higher return on equities- by more than a third (Shipley & Kay, 2012). This provides pretty convincing evidence that women are making a change in the future of business, and for the better. When exploring why this is so, what makes women leaders so special? Shipley and Kay (2009) found one of those factors to be emotional intelligence. CMI (Chartered Management Institute, UK) predicts women will be moving rapidly up the chain of command with their emotional intelligence skills in high demand (Shipley & Kay).

What does this all mean? For one, that emotional intelligence is an important tool that can be used to assess how traits are influencing leadership. This has been shown in many studies unexpectedly, such as Catalyst’s study mentioned earlier. Catalyst set out to look at the positive correlation between company success and women employees, however unintentionally linking the traits women have to their success in the corporate world.The idea that women tend to be more nurturing, and too in touch with their feelings, in other words more emotionally intelligent than men, have now become a powerful tool in the corporate world, specifically, in leadership. Emotional intelligence is making a splash in the future of leadership and we have women to thank for it.

Written by: Mai Dolinh

Sources:

Kay, Claire Shipman and Katty. “The Future of Work.” Time. Time Inc., 14 May 2009. Web. 06 Sept. 2014. retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages /article
/0%2C28804%2C1898024_1898023_1898078%2C00.html.

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.