Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Gender and Leadership

by

According to Northouse (2018), the increasing numbers of women in leadership positions have brought about changes in American society and have fueled the now robust scholarly interest in the study of leadership and gender. The primary research questions are “Do men and women lead differently?” and “Are men more effective leaders than women?” (Northouse, 2018, p.403). These questions fall under a larger question: “Why are women underrepresented in elite leadership roles?” (Northouse, 2018, p.404). In this blog post, I will discuss how men and women differ in leadership styles, the effectiveness of women in leadership positions, and why women are underrepresented in elite leadership roles. 

There is a common negative stereotype about women in leadership positions. According to Heilman (2012), people view women in leadership positions as less assertive, active, and strong compared to men. One argument in this vein is that women’s underrepresentation in elite leadership roles is a result of differences in leadership style and effectiveness (Northouse, 2018). Contrary to stereotypical expectations, meta-analyses of research examining style differences between women and men found that women do not lead more interpersonally oriented and less task-oriented than men in organizational studies (Northouse, 2018). One gender difference found is that women lead in a more democratic and participative manner than men (Northouse, 2018). More research has examined gender differences in transformational leadership. A meta-analysis found differences between female and male leaders in that women tend to be more transformational and engage in more contingent reward behaviors than men (Northouse, 2018). I have had both male and female leaders in my life, and their leadership styles differed greatly. When I interned for Penn State Sports Properties, my boss (leader) was a woman. She was very democratic in her leadership style. Every Friday, my fellow interns and I would have a meeting with our boss. She always asked us what things went well, what things could have gone better, and what changes she could make to improve our working experience. She wanted our input so that we would be happier, more productive, and more efficient at work. Furthermore, towards the end of our internship, she told us that if we finished on a good note, she would throw us a pizza party. This was a contingent reward. If we were not productive, task-oriented, and efficient she wouldn’t throw us the pizza party. Compared to male leaders I’ve had, they don’t lead in a democratic or participative manner. When I interned for Town&Gown Magazine, my boss (leader) gave me the task at hand and a deadline to complete it. He didn’t ask for my opinion, input, or recommendations regarding work and my work environment. Furthermore, he didn’t have any contingent rewards. I was expected to complete my work by the deadline because it was my job. He didn’t bribe me with rewards to complete my work early or on time.

Women can be and are effective leaders. There is an increasing number of women in corporate and political leadership positions. It’s important to point out some highly effective female leaders such as former prime ministers Benazir Bhutton (Pakistan), Margaret Thatcher (UK), Gro Harlem Brundtland(Norway), and Indira Gandhi (India) (Northouse, 2018). Some current female political leaders include Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Beyond politics, there are a lot of examples of highly effective female corporate leaders. For example, General Motors Company’s CEO Mary Barra, Best Buy’s CEO Corie Barry, PG&E’s CEO Patricia K. Poppe, and CVS Health’s CEO Karen S. Lynch. Increasingly, writers in the mainstream press are asserting that women’s leadership is more effective in contemporary society (Northouse, 2018). In addition, the relative effectiveness of male and female leaders has been assessed in a number of studies. In a meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of female and male leaders, men and women were equally effective leaders (Northouse, 2018). However, there were gender differences such that women and men were more effective in leadership roles that were congruent with their gender (Northouse, 2018). For example, women were less effective than men in military positions, but they were more effective than men in education, government, social service organizations, and middle management positions (Northouse, 2018). Overall, women exceed men in the use of democratic and participatory styles. Women are more likely to use transformational leadership behaviors and contingent rewards, which are styles associated with contemporary notions of effective leadership (Northouse, 2018). 

“The gender gap in leadership is a global phenomenon whereby women are disproportionately concentrated in lower-level and lower-authority leadership positions than men” (Northouse, 2018, p.405). The invisible barrier preventing women from ascending into elite leadership positions is referred to as the glass ceiling (Northouse, 2018). Even in female-dominated occupations, women face the glass ceiling whereas white men tend to ride a glass escalator to the top leadership positions (Northouse, 2018). One prominent set of explanations for the barrier is that women have less human capital investment in education, training, and work experience than men (Northouse, 2018). “This lack of human capital is said to result in a dearth of qualified women, sometimes called a pipeline problem” (Northouse, 2018, p.405). The numbers reveal that women are in the pipeline but the pipeline is leaking (Northouse, 2018). Furthermore, there is support for the notion that women receive less work experience and more career interruptions than men. This is because women assume significantly more domestic responsibility compared to men (Northouse, 2018). Lastly, women receive less formal training and have fewer developmental opportunities than men. This is likely related to prejudice against female leaders (Northouse, 2018). Eyring and Stead (1998), conducted a study by surveying companies in Houston to develop corporate practices for shattering the glass ceiling. 

Based on their findings, their recommendations for shattering the glass ceiling included: 

“1. Develop a systematic, ongoing process for identifying and addressing issues important to women.

  • Establish a task force with men and women of different races/ethnicities to develop a long-term plan for developing and implementing this process.
  1. Ensure women’s programs explicitly include women of color – and ensure women of color are explicitly included in minority programs/support groups.

 

  1. Build succession planning processes to identify high-potential women early in their careers and track their development.

 

  1. Clearly communicate goals for the movement of women to the managers of the organization.

 

  1. Do not assume women are aware of glass ceiling activities – communicate these activities.

 

  1. Ensure individuals within the organization who are responsible for glass ceiling activities really understand the issues and assume a leadership role in promoting these programs/ initiatives.” (Eyring & Stead, 1998, p. 250). 

In conclusion, women are significantly underrepresented in major leadership positions. The barriers women encounter on their leadership journey have been called the leadership labyrinth (Northouse, 2018). “Removing these barriers will help ensure equal opportunity, access to the greatest talent pool, and diversity which has been linked to organizational success” (Northouse, 2018, p.424). Women are no less effective at leadership, committed to their work, or motivated to attain leadership roles than men. However, there is evidence that women assume significantly more domestic responsibility, which contributes to less work experience and more career interruptions (Northouse, 2018). Research looking at leadership effectiveness indicates a greater use by women of effective transforaminal and contingent reward behaviors (Northouse, 2018). Effective negotiations will help decrease the gender gap, especially regarding expectations at work and at home (Northouse, 2018). Lastly, the combination of “Warmth with agentic qualities and in particular the melding of individualized consideration with inspirational motivation can be effective for developing female leaders” (Northouse, 2018, p.425).

References

Eyring, A., Stead, B.A. Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Some Successful Corporate Practices. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 245–251 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017986811704

Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003 

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Gender and Leadership. In Leadership: Theory and practice (Eight, pp. 403–431). essay, SAGE Publications.

Leadership Diversity – Gender

by

When I was younger I worked at an ice skating rink and I believe there was a diversity issue there. The diversity issue at this organization was noticeable and it pertained to the women not getting as many promotion opportunities as the men that worked there. Many times throughout working for this organization I, and others, had noticed that whenever the managers needed someone to fill in and do a job out of their job scope, men were always picked, even if they didn’t have as much experience as some of the men.

The rink I worked at was very, so there were a lot of workers. There were 5 team managers that would each manage 3-5 workers, we’ll call them runners to make more of a distinction. While the runners were fairly even with the amount of males and females, the managers were all males. Whenever a manager was out, a runner would be called up to fill in that manager position for the day. I don’t remember one time where one of the female runners was ever called up and there are many reasons that this diversity issue occurred.

The first reason the females were not asked to step up into a higher position could be because of the organizational barriers. Particularly, preference for gender similarity in promotion decisions. This occurs when people prefer to work with others similar to them (PSU WC, L13, 2019). At my organization, it seemed as though the male managers would only call up male runners because they would prefer to work alongside another male rather than a female. This represents in-group favoritism because the male group of managers gave preferential treatment to the runner male group (PSU WC, L13, 2019). Another organizational barrier that may have had an effect on the diversity issues at my organization could be ignorance by male leaders which lead to a lack of developmental opportunities for the females. This problem occurs when leaders give less challenging tasks to the females to help them advance in the organization. This inadvertently leads to women achieving less (PSU WC, L13, 2019). At the rink, the managers often gave us male runners more difficult tasks and the gave the females easier ones. I think they did this so it could look like the females were performing well because they would be successfully completing every task, instead of being challenged with harder tasks. This definitely back fired for the females because when those manager positions opened up when a manager was out, the males always seemed more capable of more difficult tasks.

Another reason for the diversity issue at my organization was interpersonal barriers. Gender prejudice is one interpersonal barrier that caused the issue. Gender prejudice is when many people believe that a good manager is masculine (PSU WC, L13, 2019). This obviously was someone that caused the diversity because the managers seemed to not think the women wouldn’t be good fill-in managers because they weren’t masculine enough. This is clearly a gender stereotype, which can lead to biased decisions (Northouse, 2016). Another interpersonal barrier that led to the females being passed over was a lack of male mentors. Research shows that having a male mentor usually leads to more success (PSU WC, L13, 2019). At my organization, the females did not have male mentors because during work or downtime, the males always hung out together and excluded the females. This led to the women being in the out-group and not having as much job talk and a relationship with the managers.

A third reason there was diversity issues at this organization was because of the hiring process. When pulling up a runner for a day, the decisions were always made on a whim. The managers could just pick whoever they wanted because the highest up manager/owner did not care how the managers ran the rink, as long as it ran efficiently.  This process was unstructured which made it easier for the manager to make biased decisions, especially since there was no repercussion when those biases occurred (Northouse, 2016).

 

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2019). Lesson 13: leadership and diversity. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules/items/27074769

Women in leadership: Implementing change

by

As society attempts to adapt to the ever-changing perspectives of tolerance that we Americans have increasingly become aware of, it’s no surprise that there has been some resistance along the way. Whether it be expressed needs of diversity, political correctness regarding race, gender, sexuality, religious beliefs (or lack thereof) etc., we’ve encountered biases of the ‘old way of thinking’ that has prevented progressive developments of acceptance and tolerance the times are calling for. One particular area is gender-roles. In society, in the home, and in the workplace, gender-roles and societal expectations of these roles are changing and regardless of how far we might have come to implement changes, the biases of the ‘old days’ still remain.

Northouse (2016) notes that role congruity theory creates standards that favor men with specific manly traits required for fulfillment of successful leadership within the workplace. As a result, women and the traditional traits they are brought up to display such as warmth, friendliness, agreeableness, and expressive behavior (Moss, 2016), tend to create a double-edged sword for women in leadership or in addition, create a barrier to those who wish to be in leadership roles (Northouse, 2016). Traditional perspectives of leadership see masculine traits such as assertiveness and authoritativeness (just two of many masculine traits associated with traditional perspectives of leadership) as more appropriate for leadership roles (Northouse, 2016). Yet, when women display the traditional, masculine traits of leadership, they’re perceived as being less efficient and judged as not behaving in a femininely enough way (Northouse, 2016). So how can we overcome these more traditional, older lines of thought and bias to allow women to find equality and step into leadership roles if they so desire?

Northouse (2016) noted a few paths to change, one being for men in leadership to learn to overcome their biases and their tendency to  “succumb to homosocial reproduction,” meaning they need to overcome their desire to choose their replacements in leadership roles to be other men with the same lines of thought and beliefs as well as traits, behaviors, and even looks (pp.405-406). To help them overcome these biases, women can attempt to battle the double-edged sword by combining their “communal qualities such as warmth and friendliness with agentic qualities such as exceptional competence and assertiveness” (Carli, 2001; Rudman & Glick, 2001; as cited in Northouse, 2016, p.408). Northouse (2016) suggests that recent research has suggested that by doing so, women have helped shift leadership from the traditional perception of it needing masculine traits and behaviors to more androgynous, gender-fluid traits and behaviors.

Other ways these biases related to gender in leadership can be addressed are by increasing tolerance–seeing leaders as human rather than specifically of one gender or another, each “as deserving of respect and consideration as [the] other;” implementing policies and values, mission and vision statements that encourage dismissing the thoughts and beliefs that gender differentiates effectivity and ability to perform; and to remove the fallacy of gender wars and limited resources between genders, “[deconstructing] the narrative of limited good, or the idea that in order for women to gain ground, men must lose out” (Dzubinski & Diehl, 2018, p.59). Both men and women have the tendency as human beings to display both feminine and masculine traits and qualities within one single individual. We need to encourage the coming generations of leaders to embrace each other, learning to accept our differences as assets which contribute to a more diverse and collectively solid workforce capable of putting our differences aside and striving for greatness. We need to turn our focus towards greater successes as a team, transforming what has divided us in the past into successes for the future. We all have our differences, for once, let’s use them to our benefit and change our world as we know it.

 

 

References:

Carli, L.L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 724-741. As cited in Northouse, P.G. (2016).

Dzubinski, L.M., & Diehl, A.B. (2018). The problem of gender essentialism and its implications for women in leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 12 (1), 56-61. Accessed November 19, 2018, from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/doi/full/10.1002/jls.21565

Moss, S. (2016). Social role theory. Sico tests. [website]. Accessed November 19, 2018, from https://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=77

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice, (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Rudman, L.A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762. As cited in Northouse, P.G. (2016).

Female Leaders and Perception

by

Lesson 13 touches on what observers and workers think of women leaders and how they compare to men.  Alice Eagly conducted three meta-analyses on gender and leadership during a ten-year period from 1992 to 2002, and the findings suggested that women leaders should not act too much like men, nor should they act too much like women (PSU 2013).  Working a thin line between those two polarized ends, has there been more acceptance of women leaders since the meta-analyses were conducted?

A recent Gallup poll found that 35% of respondents would rather have a male boss than a female boss, 23% would prefer a female boss, and 41% had no preference (Gallup 2013).  This is a significant change from when these questions were first posed in 1953, when 66% of respondents preferred a male boss and only 5% preferred a female boss (Gallup 2013).  However, the percentages have been fairly steady over recent years.

Gallup 1.jpg

(photo credit: Gallup)

 

Having worked for excellent male and female bosses, I am encouraged that the majority of respondents don’t prefer one gender over the other.  Acceptance of women leaders is still trending upwards, albeit very slowly, as it has been for most of the timeline.  When drilling down into the data, I was surprised to see that 40% of female respondents preferred a male leader, whereas only 29% of men preferred a male leader.

Gallup 2.jpg

(photo credit: Gallup)

Since the rate of preference of female leadership has been rather stagnant, what can be done to improve the acceptance of women leaders at a quicker rate?  The commentary for Lesson 13 discussed many barriers that can be addressed, but one barrier in particular I think merits particular attention.  The Lesson 13 commentary listed “lack of white male mentors” as an interpersonal barrier, but a mentorship may not be enough.  Mary Davis Holt is an author and a partner of a consulting firm that promoted women and workplace advancement.  She proposes that sponsorship is much more effective than a mentorship (daSilva 2012).  What’s the distinction between the two?  Mentorship involves one person showing another the ropes of the job and providing career advice, whereas sponsorship adds a dimension of advocacy (daSilva 2012).  For women to be represented more in the highest positions and affect workplace culture, it is immensely advantageous to have someone sponsoring and advocating them to aid in obtaining higher positions.  This sponsorship can give women the support to be successful, overcome all organizational, interpersonal, and personal barriers, and break through the glass ceiling.  As more women become successful in the executive ranks, the broad perception of women leaders will change and there will be a higher rate of acceptance of women leaders.

 

REFERENCES

daSilva, J.  (2012).  Q-and-A with Mary Davis Holt: The state of women in leadership.  SmartBlog on Leadership.  Retrieved from http://smartblogs.com/leadership/2012/08/27/the-state-of-women-in-leadership/.

Newport, F. and Wilke, J.  (2013).  Americans Still Prefer a Male Boss.  Gallup Economy.  Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/165791/americans-prefer-male-boss.aspx.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2013). Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa13/psych485/002/content/13_lesson/printlesson.html.

Skip to toolbar