Women and Leadership: Transforming Visions and Current Contexts.

Abstract

Underrepresentation Women have increasingly moved toward greater gender equality at home and in the workplace. Changes in gender roles and lifestyles have occurred with men now sharing more in household chores and childrearing. Social rules of etiquette and gender roles are now more flexible and equity within the marital relationship more common. Women are more able to navigate life in and outside the home easily and freely. Many women now work outside the home; in the U.S., they comprise 46% of the work force. So much has changed; so much has not. Women are still underrepresented in leadership roles in corporations, institutions of higher education, and the political sector especially in light of the changing population demographics. In the U.S., women now make up 23% of American CEOs. Few women reach the top in higher education although women increasingly enter the ranks of academia. A total of 453 women, representing 16 percent of all presidents, now head U.S. colleges and universities; their share of college and university presidencies has more than tripled in the last 20 years (Touchton, J. G. & Iomengram, D. 1995). In 2006, 86% were white and 23% were women with the majority of women presidents heading up small, private four year universities or community colleges (June, 2007). Women are still considered an anomaly compared to men when in high positions of leadership. Contradictory portrayals of women leaders pose obstacles to how they lead, and often result in different standards than those applied to men. Women leaders are alternately portrayed as soft and ineffective or domineering and manipulative. This picture is complicated by its interaction with racial and ethnic differences. Is there difference between men and women in how they lead? The answer to this is complex; yes and no. Theories of leadership are typically neutral or absent in their attention to gender as if a is leader while studies on leadership typically ignore gender differences or mostly study white men. Popular wisdom and women's self-reports often identify distinct leadership styles and characteristics associated with gender while empirical studies on gender and leadership (e.g., Eagly & Johnson, 1990) often show that men and women leaders behave more alike than different when occupying the same positions. Why is it then that the strength of these perceptions persists? We often perceive traits associated with leaders that may not have much with to do effective leadership; these characteristics are often embraced by leaders themselves. Terms like looks like leader; he is presidential; charisma, visionary, are all terms used to define leaders. They often capture what followers want in their leaders--which, in turn, are influenced by social constructions of leadership which are associated with the social construction of gender roles and their resulting impact leadership styles. In meta-analysis of gender and leadership style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990), gender differences did not emerge in organizational studies between interpersonal vs. task oriented style. However, stereotypic gender differences did emerge in laboratory experiments and assessment studies, i.e., studies when participants were not selected for holding leadership position. Social perceptions and expectations apparently influence the leadership styles of women leaning toward being more relationship based when in situations of self-assessment or when appointed to leadership roles in laboratory studies. Men conformed more toward the social stereotypes of being more task oriented, self-assertive and motivated to master their environment while women conformed more toward social stereotypes of being more interpersonal, selfless and concerned with others. This is often distinguished as person orientation over task-orientation with women viewed as having an advantage (Bass & Avolio, 1994; McGregor, 1985). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 86 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.