Thousands of studies have already been published about leadership. And the phenomenon has been researched since the 1930s. In most of these studies, the focus point of the issue has been the leader and his relationship with the followers (House, 1997, p. 409). Since women have not been well represented in areas of leadership study in business (Padavic, 2002), the military (http://www.army.mil/women/profiles.html), and the academia (http://www.aaup.org/article/so-few-women-leaders#.UZ50Er_XbLg), it is apparent to me that leadership research has been mainly made from men to men.
Leadership studies have been made principally from a Western Industrialized perspective. More than 90% of the empirical leadership evidence has an American character and illustrates its cultural concerns of individualism, responsibilities, hedonism, etc (House, 1997, p.410). Furthermore, most of the leadership theories I have studied so far are business and management oriented (Northouse, 2010). For example, Robert Katz’s Three-Skill Approach was made in the 50s, based on field research in administration and first hand observations of executives in their work environment (Northouse, 2010, p. 44).
The problem with this is that women haven’t been well represented in the managing industry for a long time (Padavic, 2002). In 1960, 15.6% of all “Managers and administrators, except farm,” positions were held by women (http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-management-united-states-1960-present). As today, women’s representation in Fortune 500 leadership positions is significantly low, 14.3%, and only 1.2% higher than in 2009 (http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workplace). Gender hierarchy does exist, it benefits men (Padavic, 2002) and it is plentiful in the top management business positions.
Leading research about leadership was also made in 1990, such as the Mumford’s skill-based model of leadership. This research was made with funding from the U.S Army and Department of Defense, based on problem-solving skills in organizations (Northouse, 2010, p. 47). However, women are also underrepresented in the highest ranks of the military. Until 2011 there had been no African-American females with the rank of major general in the Army. The first time a female led a major Army command was the year 2008. Until 2009, there has not been any female commandant of the Drill Sergeant School at Fort Jackson, S.C. King. And until 2011 no female ever became surgeon general of the Army (http://www.army.mil/women/profiles.html). Then, we could say the Mumford’s skill-based model of leadership has been based on male leadership.
In addition to that, while there are plenty of men in the academia, married or single, women, after their post doctorate, decrease their chance of ascending to more prestigious and influential positions if they have children (http://www.aaup.org/article/so-few-women-leaders#.UZ50Er_XbLg). Consequently, I am not surprised when men have conducted most of the leadership research I come across.
Then, if leadership research works on, and from, areas or studies were women are underrepresented in senior positions, how much do we really know about human leadership? Only one of the 16th chapters of Northouse’s Leadership book is about woman leadership. That is 0.6 % of the book.
Reference:
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?. Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Padavic, I., & Reskin, B. F. (2002). Women and men at work (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Penn State World Campus (2012). PSYCH 485 Lesson 1: Introduction to Leadership. Retrieved on August 30, 2012, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/002/content/01_lesson.html.