Gender, Women and Leadership Author(s): Cheryl de la Rey Source: Agenda, No.

65, Women and Leadership (2005), pp. 4-11 Published by: Agenda Feminist Media Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4066646 . Accessed: 05/01/2014 16:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Agenda Feminist Media is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Agenda.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Gender,women and leadership

Cheryl delaRey

abstract
Thereis an ongoing debate which focuses on the questionof whetherwomen have differentleadershipstyles from men. This article offers an overview of currentperspectiveson gender and leadership. Two opposing the view that there is littledifference between women views of women and leadershipare presented:Firstly, and men in leadership and secondly, the opposing argumentthat women have differentleadership styles from men. The article suggests that the dominantview is that there are gender differences in leadership styles. It then examines explanations for these differences. By pointing to research on institutional culture, men and masculinities, it argues that gender differences in leadership are not reducible to biological differences, nor can these be adequately explained by socialisation practices and sex roles. Instead, we need to look at how some forms of gendered behaviours become dominant and privileged within organisational contexts that are masculinist.Finally,it is suggested that feminine attributesmay provide a source of alternativeleadership more appropriatefor a new morality.

keywords
leadership,women'sleadership,gender and leadership,organisational culture

Internationally, women are still underrepresentedin positionsof power,responsibility and leadership, despite the dramaticincreasein their formal employment over the last five decades.InSouthAfrica, even thoughthere have been remarkable increases of women in positions of power in the post-apartheidera, this trend is still evident. The most marked change in gender representationis perhaps in parliament, where women comprise 32.8% of parliamentarians, placing South Africa I Ith in In the global rankingof women in parliament. the private sector,the picture is less positive. Women comprise 41% of the South African paid labourforce but only 14.7%of executive managersand 7.1% of directorsin the country (SucceedMagazine, July/August, 2004). One of the frequently used strategies to increase the number of women in leadership positions takes the form of leadership and
4 Agenda65 2005

professional training programmes. In my research on leadership and gender and leadership,I have found that there are two prevailing assumptions: the first is about leadershipin general,that it is a constructthat can be learned,and the second is about gender and leadership,that women have a different leadership style comparedto men. Inthis article, I examinethese assumptionsand ask how they resonate with our understanding of gender

Leadership as learned
In organisational psychologyand management on the topic of studies,there is a vast literature leadership, but it is a concept that has proved to define. A continuingthread in the difficult manydebates about the definition of leadership is a prevalentassumption that leadership can be taught and learned.This assumptionhas given

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Article

womenand leadership Gender,

rise to a burgeoning industry in leadership trainingprogrammes.Such trainingis typically that are designedto teach focused on activities or train the participantsto exhibit the traits believed to be synonymous with leadership. Although in earlier writings leadership traits the currentview is were regardedas inherent, that these traits may be learned (Mitchiner, 2000) and,therefore,the claim is that effective leadership training can enable anyone to become a leaderThese programmesare based which argues on the trait theory of leadership, that leaders possess certain traits or characteristicsthat contribute towards being an effective leader The traits commonly associated with leadership include: effective task completion, responsibility, communication, problem solving, originality,decision making, selfpassion,vision,ethics,humour, actiontaking, awareness,confidence,courage,experience and power (Foster,2000; Whitten, 2000; Withers, 2000).

skills, being excellent listeners and showing tolerance and empathy. Women are also described as more likelyto lead from behind, comparedto men who lead from the front,and to be encouraging of participation,sharing power and information. The notion that women's leadership is different from that of men has been examined in several studies.Eagly systematically and Johnson (I 990) conducted a meta-analysis of these studies and they reported significant evidence for gender differences in leadership styles.They concluded that women adopted a more democratic or participativestyle while men adopted a more autocratic or directivestyle.Thistrend in favourof gender differencesin leadershiphas been supported in more recent study researchsuch as the Australian on senior women executives If women's (Chesterman et al, 2004), which reported that women encouraged leadershipis more collaboration, greater how different, Women leaders as different? consultative decision-making and is it to be There is ongoing debate on whether women more collegialworkplaces. have differentleadershipstyles and traits from The two schools of thought on explained? men.The one school of thought advocatesthat gender and leadership are often female leaders are not different from male visible in newspaper articles that leaders.Thisschool proposes that women who questionwhether women bosses are role of a leaderreject better than men. The oft-explicit pursuethe non-traditional feminine roles and characteristicsand have assumption is that women are to those of male leaders. expected to be more caring towards their needs and stylessimilar The argumentis that leaders in an organisation colleagues and employees. In earlier published are socialised and selected into their research on South Africanwomen's leadership role and that this overridestheir training needs, the majority of respondents organisational gender role. This results in little difference endorsed the notion that women possess et al, between male and female leaders (Korabik unique leadership qualities (de la Rey et al, and Newton, 1986;Powell,1990). 2003).The prevailing perspectiveamongstSouth 1993;Kushnell The other school, a much larger voice, African women seems to be that which proposes that women have differentleadership advocates the existence of a feminine style of perspectivepointsto leadership. stylesto male leaders.This a distinctive leadership style associated with difference that include being Explaining women, with characteristics how is it to be democratic,more sensitive, Ifwomen's leadershipis different, more participatory, nurturing and caring. Other characteristics explained?Feministtheory would seem to be associated with women's leadership include the obvious source of explanation, but as good conflict management and interpersonal feminist scholarship has developed over the
Agenda65 2005 5

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

womenand leadership Gender,

Article

decades, so has feministtheory become more complex. Contemporary feminist theory is multifaceted and complex, comprising competing perspectives and worldviews. Identifying points of convergence or commonalityis not a simpletask as the various feminist disputesand tensions that characterise to derive a simple theorising make it difficult Even the concept agreed-upon understanding. since 'gender'does not permit easy definition, gender itself is a contested concept.The onceaccepted distinctionbetween sex as biological and gender as social construction has been blurredby numerouscritiques. At the height of the gender and difference debate, Flax (I 990) posited that the single-most achievement of feministtheory has been that it has problematised is usefulas it allowsus to genderThis Women's access broadlydefine feministtheory as all to leadership theoretical perspectives that share positions has the beliefthat gender is conceptually in the analysisof society significant been hindered and that the relationshipbetween by discrimination the sexes/gendersmust be problemand stereotyping atised. We can then accept that within the broad scope of this definition there are severalideas and tendencies that sometimes may be in contradictionand in interlocking, parallel. Rather than classifyingthe different perspectiveswithinfeministtheory into schools of thought or differenttheoretical strandsand then adopting a particularstance, it is often theoreticalstrandsin usefulto draw on different such as gender to an issue, explain order in leadership. differences What is evident is that equal opportunities feature discourses(often noted as the definitive of liberalfeminism)or simpleclaimsfor equality of women and men may have been necessary. However, these are insufficientfor achieving dramaticchanges in gender representationin South Africahas been able to move leadership. of women in parliament up in the globalranking and not interventions because of gender-specific
6 Agenda65 2005

on proceduresthat regardwomen as by relying the same as men. It is doubtful whether the same gender outcome would have been achievedifthe rulingparty had not insistedthat shouldbe at least one-thirdof its representation female. In a hierarchicalsociety, equality of translatesinto women having opportunityrarely an equal chance. There is no doubt that women's access to leadership positions has been hindered by discrimination and stereotyping. One for gender differencesin leadership explanation is that knowledgeand experience learnedfrom overcoming these difficultcircumstances has resulted in women developing a more cooperative and flexible model of leadership. associatedwith women's Certaincharacteristics interpersonal such as communication, leadership as well as a greater and conflictresolutionskills, capacity for prioritising than their male counterparts, may stem from gender-specific a household and experiences such as managing a while at the same time juggling children, raising career (Helgesen, 1990). This explanationfor gender differences in leadership is not, therefore, rooted in the biological sphere. Instead,the differences are attributed to gender-specific socialisation practices and life experiences. For example, Rosener(I1990)reportedthat a second wave of their way into the women leaderswere making top leadership positions by drawing on the unique skills and attitudes that they had and from developed throughtheir socialisation their experiences.Thesewomen leaders sharing were demonstratingthat women can achieve successfulresults,but the path they take might be differentfrom that taken by men. This is supported by researchfindings- for example, Rosener (1990) reported that women leaders were characterisedby a style of interactive, 'transformational'leadership and that they worked to make affirmative interactions actively with their subordinates and create a work environment where everyone is involved. Although research like the work done by Rosener (1990) points to a differentstyle of

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Article

womenand leadership Gender,

>N.

_S~~~~~

z Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

leadershipin women, other researchhas found that some men are perceived to be demonstrating this transformational style (Clark et al, 1999) and, of course, there are cases of women leaders who do not exhibit such behaviour,thus supporting the view of no gender differences.How then do we explain gender and leadership? Historically, the characteristics associated with good leadership have been traits and behavioursassociated with masculinity. In the vast literatureon leadership, gender has been ignored. In reviewing the literature on leadership, discernible patternsbecome evident. With reference to management, Hearn (1999:167) made the point that the 'historical development of management cannot be understood without namingmost managersas men', but this is often ignored and the topic is then treated in a gender-blind way.The same appliesto the general literatureon leadership. Searches for studies on gender and leadership reveal that when gender is considered, the on tendency has been to focus overwhelmingly

women. As has been stated, considerable attention has been given to the question of whether women display different leadership traits and behaviours.A second burgeoning strand in this literaturerelates to leadership trainingprogrammesfor women in an attempt to address the skewed gender representation. Far less attention has been given to questions is perhapsa relatedto men and leadership.This reflectionof the gender bias in the literature as on leadership a whole.There is a vast literature and since most leaders have been and continue to be men, it may be safelyassumed that this literature pertainsto men,yet this is rarelymade explicit.What is implicit in the research on is that it relieson a point women and leadership of departure that marks women leaders as differentfrom a norm based on the leadership behaviours of men. Fromthe early 1990s to date, many of the connectionsbetween leadership, and masculinity men have been made explicit through the applicationof more complex understandings of gender The concept of institutional culture
Agenda65 2005 7

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Gender, womenand leadership

Article

has gained wide usage and many organisations have been criticised for having a masculinist culture. But, what does this mean? In her analysisof interviewswith seven women who were high level education administratorsin Australia, Blackmore (I1993) elucidated the meaning of 'masculinist culture'.Her point of departure was the conceptualisation of organisations as contested cultural sites in which certain cultures become hegemonic and other cultures are subordinate and positioned as 'other'. Drawing on Connell's (I1987) work on gender and the state, she argued that the discursive practices of contemporary educational management are constructed by particularhegemonic masculinities, while women's interests are Institutionsof marginalised, particularised or ignored. She proposed that recent highereducation are hierarchically reforms in Australian educational governance have led to the organised in emergence of a new form of ways that masculinity epitomised in the notion of the'multi-skilled manager'. privilege By examining the institutionalised hegemonic discourses, she revealed that masculinities dominant the hegemonic masculinity was associated with rampant individualism, competitiveness, authority and technical competence. Although Blackmore was referring to managementand not leadership, her researchis stillrelevantas managementand leadershipare not conceptually distinct.Although there are debates about the differences,leadershipand in managementare often used interchangeably the literature as it has been accepted that there is a wide degree of overlap. Where has been attempted,attentionhas differentiation been drawn to leadershipconnoting charisma and creativity compared to the technical functions of managers and the idea that leadershipcan exist independentlyof a formal organisation,but the same can be said of management (Hughes et al, 1993). For the
8 Agenda65 2005

purposes of this discussion, ideas from the literature of managementare referredto where relevant, such as the study by Blackmore. Each of the participants Blackmore interviewed talkedabout a dominantmasculinist culture, which was given form through behavioural norms and images of good managementand leadership.The women in the study describedsymbols,ritualsand mythsthat shaped the organisational culture. These included the use of sportingmetaphorsto refer to models of leadership, ritualssuch as meeting for drinksafterwork,specifictypes of dress and body image and myths about women and indecisiveness. All participants were reportedly aware of the importance of impression managementfor their credibility, for example fittinga particular stereotypic female image by dressing for the job was seen as criticalto establishing credibility. Several studies have subsequently further of highereducation described how institutions are hierarchically organisedinwaysthat privilege hegemonic masculinities. However, most have done so from the perspective of women. In contrast, Hearn (1999), using his personal experience as head of department,described how universities are sites for the productionand and men's reproductionof certain masculinities cultures. It is importantto note that it is certain forms of masculinity that are identifiedas good leadership and management. The research conducted by Clarket al (1999) showed that certain types of macho management are but that some associatedwith male behaviour, men are perceived to manage in the transformative style associated mostly with women and femininity. From both a theoretical and activist perspective,the findingsby Clarket al (1999) are significant. the findingssuggest Theoretically, that gender differences in leadershipare not reducible to biological nor are these differences, merely explained by socialisation practicesand we need to look at how some sex roles.Instead, forms of gendered behaviours become dominant and privileged in ways that work

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Article

Gender, womenand leadership

against women and favour men. Through practicesof self-selection, the majority of leaders and managersin an organisation are likely to be those who display the forms of masculinity (assertive individualism, competitiveness, and technicalcompetence) that shape authority the cultureof an institution.Thus the institution is a site for both the construction and reproduction of hegemonic masculinitiesand these, in turn, shape and are shaped by the institutional culture. in the Clark et al study,both Interestingly, men and women staff (who are managed) preferredthe transformational leadershipstyle associatedwith women.Thisis hopefulin terms of the prospects for change. In recent years, many organisationshave started to adopt a flatter organisational structure, where interpersonal and participatory skills are required.Thus it may be an indicationthat modern workplace environments are increasingly relying on characteristics and behaviours associated with feminine roles in society. Consequently,the implicationis that organisationsand communities would benefit immensely from selecting and promoting women to higherleadershippositions.

Alternativeleadership
Inthe aftermathof severalhighprofilelapses of good corporate governance and management accountability (such as the Enroncase), and in the wake of conflictsand wars such as that in there is a questioningof dominantmodels Iraq, of leadership.This has led to a search for alternative models of leadership and a reexamination of values of cultures that are relatively marginalised withinthe contemporary and economic orderAn exampleof this political is the approachoffered by Bordas(2001), who describeda model of leadership growingout of Latinohistory and values. This model points to three dynamics - firstly, personalismo, the concept that requiresthat a leader embodies the traitsthat will earn the respect,confidence and trust of his/her community; secondly,

tejiendo lazos, or weaving connections,that is the abilityto bringdiverse sectors together to build the fabric of community;and thirdly, desorollando or developingskillswith abilidodes, the most important skill being strategic communication. Bordosarguesthat this model is responsive to the challenges faced by Latino leaderstoday. Are women leaders more likelyto display the kindof leadership needed to establish a new moral order? The trend seems to suggest so. In addition to the research already discussed, Stanfordand Oates' (1995) heuristicmodel of female leadership points out that women leaders in general are characterised as participative leaders and encourage a high This results degree of employee involvement. in a team-based management approach, and fosters a relationship based on mutual trust and respect. Woman leaders are acknowledged as possessing entrepreneurialvision and effective communication skills, and operate from a reward power base, which results in a work atmosphere where all individualsare motivated and work together to achieve the organisation's mission. But, it is very difficult for individual women leaders to achieve this. A recent Australian study (Chesterman and RossSmith, 2004) showed that women seniorexecutivesare more likely to make a difference in organisational c culturesif they were present in a criticalmass.Althoughthey found e instances where a single strong woman had made an impact,they for generallyfound that it is difficuft an isolatedwoman to do so. 65 2005 Agenda

z
>

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Gender, womenand leadership

Article

Conclusion
In our search for alternative models for leadership, we should not, however, pay exclusiveattentionto leadershipas a qualityof the role of this is important, individuals.Although distributive leadership and social structure, systems and processes are equallydeservingof analytic scrutiny As Montiel (2001) argued, when positivechangestend to be more resilient leadership is diffused throughout a collective ratherthan beingvested in a singleperson.In a recent paper,Leigh (2002) drew attention to the importance of leadershipas a process. In of the theory of motivatingfor the application adaptive leadershipto the issue of present-day reconciliation in society,he arguedthat the Australian most relevant leadership for this Positive context is not leadershipas influence or vision-setting but creating an changestend environment that gives people the to be more space to do adaptivework, referring resilientwhen to a process of dialogue between groups. leadershipis One of the most important diffused challenges we face today is the throughout a not transformationof relationships, collective only gender relationshipsbut also relationships across other social boundariessuch as race and ethnicity The role of leadershiDis of critical importance - not only leadership in formal positions but leadership that is distributed throughoutcommunities. What kind of leadership is required in societies undergoing transformation of relationships between groups? What is the role of leaders in such contexts?Some point to the one that is need for an alternativeleadership, not based on dominance and material superiority,but new values of sustainability, diversity and human rights (Ndebele, 2003). What is interestingabout these suggestionsis that there is remarkableoverlap between the kinds of traits posited as desirable for this alternative leadership with the characteristics typically associatedwith women's leadership.
10 Agenda65 2005

References
Blackmore J (I 993) 'Towards a postmasculinist institutional politics?' in D Bakerand M Fogarty (eds) A Gendered Culture: Educational Managementin the Nineties, St Albans, Victoria: VictoriaUniversity. Bordas J (2001) 'Latino leadership: Building a humanistic and diverse society', in Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, 21 12-23. Chesterman C and Ross-SmithA (2004) 'Senior Women Executives and Culturesof Management', available at http://www.uts.edu.au/oth/wexdev/ research/outomes.html,site accessed 23 May 2005. ClarkH, ChandlerJ and BarryJ (I1999)'Gender and in P Fogelberg,J managerialism' Hearn,L Husuand T Mankkinen (eds) Hard Work in the Academy, Helsinki Press. Helsinki: University the Connell RW (1987) Genderand Power:Society, Personand SexualPolitics, Cambridge: PolityPress. de la Rey C, JankelowitzG and Suffla S (2003) A 'Women'sleadershipprogramsin South Africa: strategyfor communityintervention', injournal of Prevention& Intervention in the Community, 25, 1,49-64. Eagly AH and Johnson BT (I1990) 'Gender and in Psychological leadershipstyle:a meta-analysis', Bulletin,108,2, 233-256. FlaxJ ( 1990) 'Postmodernism and gender relationsin feminist theory' in LJ Nicholson (ed) Feminism/Postmodernism, NewYork Routledge. Foster R (2000) 'Leadership in the twenty-first to builda civilsociety',in National century: working CivicReview, 89, 1,87-93. HearnJ(I1999) and 'Men,masculinities, managements in P Fogelberg, gender equalityin UKuniversities' J Hearn,L Husu andT Mankkinen (eds) HardWork in the Academy, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Women's Helgesen S (i990) The FemaleAdvantage: Waysof Leadership, NewYork:Doubleday. Hughes RL, Ginnett RC and Curphy GJ (I1993) the lessons of experience, Leadership: Enhancing Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Sydney: Korabik K,BarilGL andWatson C (I1993)'Managers' conflict management style and leadership the moderatingeffects of gender',in effectiveness: Sex Roles,29, 405-420. Kushnell E and Newton R (1986) 'Gender, leadership style,and subordinatesatisfaction: an experiment',

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Article

Gender, womenand leadership

in Sex Roles,14,203-208. Leigh AK (2002) 'Leadership and aboriginal in Australion reconciliation', joumal of SocialIssues, 37,2, 131-152. Mitchiner M (2000) 'Leadership skills: the overlooked in South Carolina training', Business joumal, 19, 1, 10-12. MontielC (2001) 'Toward a psychologyof structural in DJ Christie,RVWagner and D peacebuilding' DuNannWinter (eds) Peace,conflictand violence: Peace Psychology forthe 2 Ist century, New Jersey: PrenticeHall. Ndebele N (2003) 'The "War on terror" and the

AfricanRenaissance', UKUZAlecture,CapeTown. PowellG (1990) 'One more time:do femaleand male managers differ?', in Acodemy of Management Executive, 4, 3, 68-75. Rosener JD (1990) 'Ways women lead',in Harvard BusinessReview, 68,119-124. Stanford JH and Oates BR (1995) 'Women's leadershipstyles:a heuristicanalysis', in Womenin ManagementReview,10,2,9-17. Whitten C (2000) 'Thevalueof leadership in training', Public 7 (2), 24-26. Relations Tactics, Withers P (2000) 'Birthof a leader',in BC Business, 28(l) 20-28.

Cheryl de la Reyis currently Professor of Psychology andDeputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of CapeTown. Formore than 10 yearsshe servedas a memberof the AgendaCollective and then the AgendaManagement Board. Her published researchhas focusedon genderand race and her recentworkis on genderin highereducation. Email: delareyc@bremner.uctac.za

Agenda65 2005

/1

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 16:00:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions