The Future of Leadership is Female (Part I)

In my previous blog I explored the kind of leadership needed to enable a learning organisation : a relational leadership that taps into the expertise of the collective, establishing more fluid, two-directional patterns of influence and power and using difference-whether on cross functional teams or difference that comes from social identity-to challenge assumptions, learn, grow and innovate (1).

It is obvious that enacting the self-in relation stance in one’s interactions with others requires relational skills. 

The question is : 

HOW FAR WOULD INTEGRATING RELATIONAL SKILLS WITH TRADITIONAL SKILLS AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL WOULD SUFFICE?

In other words, 

"CAN AN OLD DOG LEARN NEW TRICKS?”

My humble opinion is that it will not suffice, as the new relational leadership requires a systemic change; a fundamentally different way of conceptualising growth, achievement, success and effectiveness. It needs shifting from a “male/masculine” to a “female/feminine” conception of leadership. 

Here below, I will explain what I mean:

Historically, leadership -its culture, discourse, imaging, and practice- has been construed as primarily a masculine enterprise.

Many theories of leadership have focused on the desirability of stereotypically masculine qualities in leaders . Such “male” qualities are considered to be rationality, instrumentality, individualism, control, assertiveness, and skills of advocacy and domination (2). This conflation of leadership with masculinity has also created the idea that feminine traits are of lesser value, subordinate, and suppressed with respect to masculine qualities (3). Schein, for instance, conducted extensive research on the relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. She found out that women, as well as men, promoted to senior management positions aspire to ways of managing which draw on styles widely perceived to be masculine rather than feminine. With specific reference to women, she found out that female senior managers were often more like men than men themselves (4).

In contrast, the traits associated with relational leadership are feminine 

Again, men or women can display them, but the traits themselves are “female”. Examples of such traits:

• Empathy, helpfulness, caring and nurturance; community, vulnerability, interpersonal sensitivity

• Attentiveness to and acceptance of others 

• Responsiveness to their needs and motivations 

• Orientation toward the collective interest and toward integrative goals such as group cohesiveness and stability

• Preference for open, egalitarian and cooperative relationships, rather than hierarchical ones

• Interest in actualising values and relationships of great importance to community - are socially ascribed to women in our culture and generally understood as feminine.

• Knowledge of what it means to “grow” people and living systems is located in women and is conflated with displays of idealised femininity(5), (6).

What we can deduce from the above is that

Leadership is not a neutral concept but it is gendered, it encompasses a power dynamic and has a sex.

• The existence of one gender excludes the other (i.e. those qualities belonging to masculine leadership are assumed to be inappropriate for the feminine leadership and vice versa)

• Feminine leadership is of lower value (power) than the masculine one (i.e. labor in the work sphere is assumed to be skilled, couple, and dependent on training, whereas labor in the domestic sphere is assumed to be unskilled, innate and dependent on personal characteristics)

• Leadership is sex linked (i.e. men and images of idealized masculinity are associated with one and women and images of idealized femininity are associated with the other) (7).

WHAT DOES THAT IMPLY FOR THE WAY RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP IS PRACTICED?

Two specific questions that arise from the above are the following:

1. COULD IT BE THE HIDDEN UNDER-EXPLORED NATURE OF THESE GENDER/POWER DYNAMICS THAT MAY ACCOUNT FOR MANY OF THE PARADOXES PEOPLE EXPERIENCE IN TRYING TO IMPLEMENT RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP?

2. CAN WE ENACT RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP IF WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE GENDER/POWER/SEX IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONS AND NETWORKS OF INFLUENCE?

And if this is not the case…then

WHY ARE NOT MORE WOMEN MAKING IT TO THE TOP?

And if this is the case…then

HOW CAN WE CHANGE BEHAVIOUR OF OUR LEADERS TO BE ABLE TO CREATE THE LEADERSHIP CAPACITY REQUIRED FOR THE NEW LEADERSHIP PRACTICE?

I will explore these questions in my next blog.

-STAY TUNED-

Selective Bibliography

(1) Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Women, men, and time in the new corporate world. Simon and Schuster.

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative science quarterly, 46(2), 229-273.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, 1-18.

(2) Acker, J. (2006). Gender and organizations. In Handbook of the Sociology of Gender (pp. 177-194). Springer, Boston, MA.

Blackmore, J. (2017). ‘In the shadow of men’: The historical construction of educational administration as a ‘masculinist’enterprise. In Gender matters in educational administration and policy (pp. 27-48). Routledge.

Cals, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1993). Dangerous Liaisons’: The “Feminine in Management Meets Globalisation”. Business Horizons, 36(2), 73-83.

Collinson, D., & Hearn, J. (Eds.). (1996). Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinities and managements. Sage.

Miner, J. B. (1993). Role motivation theories. New York: Routledge.

(3) Rosaldo, M. Z. (1974). Woman, culture, and society: A theoretical overview. Woman, culture, and society, 21.

(4) Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in management. Journal of Social issues, 57(4), 675-688.

Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of applied psychology, 60(3), 340.

(5) Calvert, L. M., & Ramsey, V. J. (1992). Bringing women's voice to research on women in management: A feminist perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(1), 79-88.

Fine, M. G., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2000). Walking the high wire: Leadership theorizing, daily acts, and tensions.

Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The leadership quarterly, 15(5), 647-661.

Fondas, N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 257-282.

(6) Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress: Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior modification, 11(2), 123-136.

Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1954). An object-relations theory of the personality .

Winnicott, D. W. (2018). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. Routledge.

(7). Fletcher, J. (1999). Disappearing Acts: Gender. Power, and Relational Practice.

Williams, J. (2001). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. Oxford University Press.