Blog #30

Conventional views of leadership clearly associate men with roles of power. Just the idea of women in roles of power is limited in American culture. Dr. Rhode, the Stanford Law professor gave a one minute review of American history pointing out how long and how limited the association of women with roles of political leadership has been. She noted that it was 100 years into the history of this country before a woman ran for president and even today, since a black man and a white woman have run the association of woman with weakness and conformity continues to limit what people have as expectations for women. For example, the idea that tearing up was a female sign of weakness when seen in Hillary Clinton as opposed to a sense of passion or concern when seen on Ronald Regan’s face is still common. The media storm of discussion of tears and its meaning for a woman was absurd. There is clear evidence in the business world that the integration of women into business improve profits. The Economist was cited for its commentary on business outcome. It had noted in the fortune 500 businesses that included women there was a significant financial gain. Madeline Albright attributes this to the difference in leadership styles and purports that the combined leadership is the strongest. She notes that women leadership styles often include increase in building relationships and teamwork and feels that enhances the outcomes of male leadership styles common today.
The traditional masculine style tends toward assertive and task-based behaviors, while a feminine style is more relationship oriented and collaborative. Men tend to take risks and may have higher self esteem and a sense of entitlement to leadership. Terms like strong, arrogant, intelligent, driven, assertive, focused and direct are often used to describe the masculine approach. Women tend to be more demeaning or self depreciating. They values efficiency, multi-tasking, emotional, empathetic, intuitive, compassionate, relationship building, verbal, consensus building problem solving styles. The cultural acceptance of competition and the cultural values of the free enterprise system clearly favor the masculine roles of American men. Independence, drive and being self- made are values of both or economic system and political history. As a country based on making new rules and forging into the unknown the masculine roles are more highly valued that the female ones.
Gender expectations put women in a position that no matter what she is doing she should be doing something else. Women still shoulder the burden of the home and are judged according to their home and children. The advances of technology and the lengthening of work day responsibilities pressure them to continue work productivity into their hours at home. There are not many social supports for relieving home, child or wider family responsibilities. Secondly, there is a sense of honor for men who shoulder home responsibilities while there is frequent disparaging of women who dare to request or demand time for their other than work responsibilities. It is readily assumed a women leaving work to attend child care responsibilities are common and because of the stereotype when they work long it is not recognized.
Stereotypes are held quite close and generally reinforced in most of the prejudice women face. In terms of employment and promotion the concept of In group favoritism continues as men in power hire and promote people like themselves. The numbers are clear in government where there is only 15% of the electorate is female despite 50% of the voters being female. Both Madeline Albright and Dr. Rhode point out there is even greater disparity noted in education and the business world. It was very resonant to hear Ms. Chaves describe what it was like running for office in 1997. She described to bias that women showed her because she kept her maiden name. It was assumed she was inadequate as a woman and thus she lost the vote of other women who valued a traditional role. Even the women involved seem limited in their expectation. It was pointed out that men in politics often network with men in business and that women in politics and business do not have theses associations that might strengthen their support systems. In the end, the stereotypes clearly further limit understanding between people and reinforce the prejudices they hold.
While there are different leadership styles that are considered feminine or masculine both have advantages and disadvantages. Aggression and drive can move and organization rapidly and direct it sharply but it can misdirect the course as easily as direct it profitably. Cooperative models move much slower but they have a broader view and with inclusive efforts they can get input that may improve quality. At the same time they can get bogged down and self absorbed and fail to achieve goals in a timely manner. As Albright pointed out the combination of styles provides a better outcome and apparently increased profits.
For my own leadership, I think the most important is to use oneself honestly. Trying to be someone you are not is too difficult to sustain and is not likely to succeed for long. My character is pretty rapidly driven and I tend to attract other by my enthusiasm toward a goal. I am only marginal at consensus building because once I have a clear concept of the goal I am inpatient to move toward it. I can get into conflict if bogged down too long in consensus making. My style while feminine in terms of multitasking and intuitiveness it is more masculine in terms of directness toward the goal. I would put my leadership style somewhere between participative—that leans on consensus with other and pace setting that is very focused on the end goal. I think most people move between styles but have a typical approach. I would agree with Albright that a team approach with both masculine and feminine styles combine provide the most likelihood of success.