Trait-Based Perspectives of Leadership - Essay Example

? Women must demonstrate male characteristics in order to succeed as leaders and must cast aside feminine qualities BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Women must demonstrate male characteristics in order to succeed as leaders and must cast aside feminine qualities Introduction There is ample evidence that the role of leaders within the organisation requires a more traditionally-masculine approach in order to gain followership, trust and allegiance. This is largely due to the fact that long-standing, cultural connotations of what constitutes effective leadership are borne of conviction that effectual leadership involves traits such as being despotic, assertive and ambitious. In many cultures, these traits are fundamentally associated with the male persona, driven by enduring social beliefs that make distinctions between male and female behaviours in which females are believed to be more submissive, compliant, and empathic as part of women’s inherent biological make-up (Eagly, Wood and Diekman 2000). Not all researchers or organisational practitioners support the ideology of domination and assertive behaviour as being vital to gaining followership, with some offering that effective leadership consists of such behaviours as compassion, nurturing and helpfulness. At the sociological level, again based on long-standing cultural distinctions between typical male and female behaviours, such leadership traits are largely associated with the feminine personality. In order to fully understand whether women can maintain their innate, feminine attitudes and personality traits, it is necessary to examine the conceptions of what constitutes successful leadership. This essay examines the distinctions made by many in society and within the organisation of what comprises typical male versus female behaviours and how these traits translate into positive leadership capability. Based on the research findings, this work will illustrate that in order to gain followership as a leader, women must abandon their feminine qualities and utilise male-oriented strategies even if such philosophies conflict with inherent personality factors. What is meant by the term “gender?” One can first make the argument that there are distinct biologically-driven differences between the male and female that determine social conceptions of gender. Campbell (1989) offers research describing the differences between male and female brain structure in which the female maintains distinct hemispherical structures known to be related with superior verbal and linguistic skills. Male brain biology, in opposite accord, is structured in a fashion known to support aggression and assertiveness (Gorman 1995). Science supports that women are more likely to be passive, inherently, than their male counterparts based strictly on the genetic differences between the sexes. Science would seem to support the notion that women must make radical adjustments to their innate personality traits if they wish to adopt male-oriented characteristics in the role of organisational leadership. However, there is much more to the debate when attempting to explain the difference between sex and gender. According to Oakley (1972) gender is a socially-constructed concept deeply engrained in time-honoured cultural values and principles. Gender is “constructed through situational and institutional processes” and such beliefs can be regularly subject to change and variable among international cultures (Oakley 1972, p.41). In most Western cultures, as one relevant example, distinctions between men and women are made under social identity theory, a psychological model which iterates that one builds their own self-concept based on membership within a relevant social group (Hogg 2001; Turner and Oakes 1986). If the dominant group prototype suggests that the female gender should maintain such characteristics as submission, empathy or nurturing behaviours, compliance with the social ideology of male versus female attitude and personality becomes a sociological consideration and is therefore not dictated by science and tangible genetic differences between both sexes. Determining what is actually meant by gender, then, requires analyses of how science supports distinctions between the male and female persona as well as the contributing factors of the social order. In the pursuit of justifying the notion that women must abandon their feminine qualities in a leadership position, gender should be primarily considered through a sociological lens as theory associated with organisational culture supports the importance of intergroup attitudes as significant influencers associated with what constitutes acceptable female versus male leadership behaviours. Organisational influences on leadership and gender Cultural groups often vary when determining what actually constitutes effectual leadership. In some cultures, decisiveness and aggression are considered to be a prerequisite for quality leadership in order to gain followership (Den Hartog et al. 1999). In different cultures, sensitivity and consultation are the most important qualifications to achieve success in gaining dedication, commitment and general followership in a leadership role (Den Hartog et al.). Cultures that appreciate taking decisive, aggressive action usually have group prototypes that believe sensitivity is a sign of managerial weakness (Den Hartog et al.). Why, though, is the aforementioned so critical to understanding whether women must abandon their inherent feminine characteristics in the role of organisational leader? In some organisations, there are strict, bureaucratic hierarchies of authority that support primary goals in leadership as compliance and strict conformity to established organisational policies and regulations. In this type of structure, an individual maintaining a leadership role must maintain autocratic characteristics in which employee control becomes an imperative (Goodnight 2004). In this type of organisation, such characteristics typically associated with the female gender, such as empathy and compassion, have no place and would complicate the process of establishing a compliance-based leadership structure. Whether the leader is a male or female, typical masculine-based traits would be the most appropriate philosophy of control. In opposite accord, there are also decentralised organisational hierarchies in which autocratic leadership philosophy would be deemed inappropriate and, instead, a leader must take a softer approach to the human resources function that focuses on building consensus, shared-decision-making, and opening effective lines of mutual communication between the leader and the organisational population. This type of structure is generally supportive of transformational leadership style, one in which managers coach or mentor employees to build their talent competencies and where inter-organisational communications are supported (Fairholm 2009). The role of leader in this type of organisation is to break down the barriers that can lead to change resistance, focusing on the psychological and sociological needs of employees to gain their long-term dedication and motivation for top job role performance. Transformational leaders work consistently to build interpersonal relationships with employees, regardless of whether the leader is male or female. It is important to understand the dynamics of the organisational culture to explain how women in the role of leader should approach their function. The autocratic organisational culture which is built on sustainable compliance and conformity as primary goals would not be supportive of typical feminine-like behaviours such as empathy and might view such behaviours as weak and ineffective. At the same time, the more liberal, consensus-based organisation supportive of transformational leadership style would more likely applaud empathetic behaviours and the culture would likely follow such guidance regardless of whether these traits radiate from male or female leaders. When considering the influence of the social group and organisational culture development, it would not appear that female leaders would have to abandon any of their inherent, feminine-like behaviours in cultures that require recognition of psycho-social needs of employees. Two of the main imperatives of establishing a transformational leadership style, or other, similar models of liberal leadership is building trust between the leader and the follower group and authenticating relationships. “Building such a relationship in the workplace is a reciprocal process with both the employee and the employer voluntarily assuming responsibility for its initiation, development, and maintenance through high levels of affection and respect” (Starnes, Truhon and McCarthy 2010, p.5). It was previously established that most cultural connotations associated with male versus female behaviours typically assign such conceptions as empathy and sensitivity to the female personality. In organisations that require trust establishment and authentication of relationship quality between leader and follower, the leader would have to utilise more feminine-oriented behaviours and ideologies regardless of whether the leader is male or female. Thus, in this type of organisation with more liberal and mutually-rewarding policies, women in the role of leadership would theoretically prosper and gain effectual followership simply by drawing on their inherent personality traits as supportive tools in the objective of improving inter-organisational relationship development. In this context, men in leadership roles, if they sustain typical masculine-oriented behaviours inherently, might have to adjust their personality in a way that defies genetic constructs of attitude in order to adopt a transformational style of leadership. Therefore, it would appear that in a more liberal, decentralised organisation where soft human resources policies are necessary to gain trust and followership, women require little adjustment toward a masculine-oriented approach of leadership. Farrell and Knight (2003), however, would strongly disagree with the aforementioned assessment, with these authors suggesting that trust is not socially-driven, rather it is imbedded deeply in the rules and regulations established in the organisation. “Institutions create rules, incentives and sanctions for people to behave in a trustworthy manner, thereby fostering trust” (Farrell and Knight 2003, p.542). In this case, the more autocratic or generically less-liberal leadership structures in the organisation would be supportive of masculine-oriented behaviours closely associated with such attitudes as authoritarianism and establishing compliance-driven policies and regulations. If we are to assume that trust is not socially-constructed in the role of leadership, then women would, theoretically, have to abandon feminine-oriented attitudes and behaviours in order to gain long-term followership and commitment. This assessment is strongly supported by Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995, p.712) who iterate that trust is defined as “a willingness to be vulnerable”. Why is understanding the importance of establishing trust important for understanding whether women should utilise feminine-oriented or masculine-oriented behaviours in a leadership role? In the organisational context, when trust begins to decline, employees become much more hesitant about taking risks and establish defences to protect themselves against the potential for inter-organisational betrayal (Kramer and Tyler 1996). Whether the leader is a male or female, when the goal is to build trustworthy relationships, there must, according to theory, be an open expression of vulnerability. In most cultures, such open expressions of susceptibility can be considered weaknesses for the male leader and are usually assigned to the feminine persona. Therefore, it would seem that females maintaining a leadership role in an organisational structure where building socially-mutual trust is a primary objective have a significant advantage over their male leader counterparts simply by drawing on inherent personality traits that have been scientifically verified as it pertains to the biological differences between men and women. Should the female leader, in trust-requisite organisations, abandon their feminine-oriented traits? Theory would seem to support that doing such would ultimately lead to lack of trust and inability to gain commitment from those within the organisational culture that demand closer relationship development with their leaders. What if men are the assessors of leadership prowess? So, ideologically, it does appear that women can maintain their inherent feminine-oriented personality traits in certain organisational environments, dependent on the level of controls established within the organisation or the liberalisation of human resources present within the organisational hierarchy. Not all researchers or organisational practitioners, however, would agree with this. Hopfl and Matilal (2007) describe a scenario where a male assessor of female leadership prowess met with mannish evaluation criteria by describing the successful female leader as being one with “balls”. There is a masculine-oriented set of values that exists in some organisational cultures in which metaphorical attribution of male characteristics is granted to women as a form of respect and honour (Hopfl and Matilal 2007). In opposite accord, female leaders that do not maintain quasi-male characteristics are often referred to under such negative connotations as battle axe or other derogatory evaluations (Buckmaster 2004), however this usually occurs when the male assessor of female leadership prowess perceives gender role violations occurring. What tangibly drives this male philosophy is largely unclear, however Hopfl and Matilal (2007) describe how long this male-dominating attitude has existed throughout history. Going back to the days of Plato, allowing women to represent the interests of a male in society was deemed madness. It has long been a social conception that women maintain the ability to rob men of their potency. According to Modleski (1989, pp.35-36): “The male subject has great difficulty reconciling himself to his lack of wholeness and so he projects it onto the female when he becomes aware of her anatomical difference: He needs to see woman as castrated in order to reassure himself that he is whole”. If this evaluation is wholly-justified both sociologically and psychologically, then the majority of men, based on long-standing cultural values and principles, will make comparisons to themselves when women are deemed effectual, but will chastise them for their feminine-oriented inferiority if they consider female leadership aptitude as threatening to their inherent ego or potency. This would be the most effective explanatory assessment for determining why such male-generated evaluations of female leadership prowess include such phrases as she’s got balls or the polar opposite of the battle axe when perceived gender role violations have occurred. There is not enough research evidence available to fully explore the dynamics of the specific foundations of this attitude, however it should be recognised that if this is a widespread phenomenon, women would be very hard-pressed to maintain positive colleague relationships with other male leaders if they utilise feminine-oriented behaviours within their chosen leadership model adopted for the organisation. Toward an effective model of female leadership Zaccaro (2007) describes trait theory, the belief that specific dispositions and attitudes are borne of inherent personality factors. Concurrently, some of the most desirable personality factors in the role of organisational leader include extraversion, conscientiousness and flexibility (Lord, De Vader and Alliger, 1986). Why is this important in attempting to determine a best practice model of female leadership? Extraversion, conscientiousness and flexibility are not isolated to a single gender and are characteristics present in both male and female leaders in many different organisational environments. There is simply not enough research data available on the inter-dependencies between feminine personality and effective leadership traits to determine whether extraversion, as one example, finds congruent success for the female leader when used in conjunction. Therefore, it should be recognised that what actually constitutes effective leadership is highly relative and certainly not homogenous in all organisational cultures, conflicting the process of understanding whether female leaders would benefit or lose by utilising feminine-oriented personality characteristics in a leadership role. What is abundantly clear is that there are a variety of diverse mitigating circumstances and cultural connotations existing within most organisational models that will determine how a leader, whether female or male, is going to be assessed. Geert Hofstede, a respected cultural researcher, describes the phenomenon of power distance, which is best defined as the degree of distance tolerated between authoritarians and less powerful individuals within the organisation (Leng and Botelho 2010). In cultures that demand shared decision-making and consensus, as only two relevant examples, it is likely that there will be much less tolerance for maintaining leadership characteristics more closely associated with typical masculine behaviours; such as dominance and establishment of rigid control mechanisms in the organisational model. However, in an organisation where significant disparities are tolerated by less-powerful members of the organisation, the female leader adopting aggressive or decisive behaviours and attitudes would likely be applauded for their leadership prowess whether the assessor was male or female; at least according to organisational and cultural theories. Farrell and Knight (2003) identified that trust, an important element toward ensuring proper followership, is actually embedded in the rules and regulations that drive organisational compliance and is not socially-driven. The specific mechanisms by which trust is guaranteed or created are not fully understood, however Mayer et al. (1995) considered the most primary element of trust-building to be an open expression of willing vulnerability which would seem to be more closely akin to the feminine persona. It cannot be stated and justified that male leaders cannot develop or utilise inherent vulnerability characteristics to achieve proper followership, thus an adequate comparison realistically cannot be made as to whether female or male leaders would find more social acceptance in the organisation when expressing an open willingness to be vulnerable. Henslin (2005) describes the emotional disparities that are present in diverse male populations, ranging from extremism in aggressive behaviour to more submissive personality characteristics closely aligned with what is socially-considered to be typical feminine behaviours. In order to propose a best practice model of female leadership, it would seem to be critical to understand what personality factors and attitudes, both learned and biological, are present in the male assessment group making either favourable or unfavourable assessments of the competency of feminine-based leadership dynamics. There are clearly a variety of sociological considerations that must be included in a hypothetical equation designed to determine whether female leadership can be deemed sufficient when utilising inherent, feminine qualities to supplement leadership philosophy. Research also identified the organisational-level characteristics that contribute to the depth and breadth of leadership that is considered appropriate and tolerable by the organisational population. Fairholm (2009) offered a model of transformational leadership that provides ample opportunities for relationship development, coaching and mentoring, and improving the quality and mutuality of communications designed to reduce power distance and facilitate more consensus-based organisational culture development. The human resources lens would indicate that this is an appropriate strategy to gain motivation and commitment, as transformational leadership tends to look toward meeting the psychological needs of employees as a primary objective of the model. However, what the transformational model does not provide is whether gender-oriented concerns maintain the potential to conflict the long-term success of attempting to create long-lasting and authenticated relationships between organisational groups and their membership. Will men working under the coaching tutelage of a female leader consider their inherent, feminine-oriented behaviours to be a detriment in leadership or does this really matter? Unfortunately, more research studies focusing on gender relationships along existing, liberal models of leadership must be conducted as there is not a wide breadth of literature illustrating whether transformational leadership success outcomes are contradictory to gender-related differences in the organisational culture. What is clear from the research is that there are many sociological influences in the organisation that will likely determine whether a female leader utilising feminine-based characteristics would be considered a success or whether they are violating some cultural model of male superiority by adopting a more aggressive, masculine posture. Hogg (2001) iterated the respected theory in psychology, social identity theory, which describes the importance of in-group opinion and influence on how an individual in the organisation moulds their self-concept. In a male-dominated business culture, as one example, majority group opinion in respect to belief in male superiority would likely manifest itself in the social order, conflicting the process of a female leader attempting to utilise their more feminine-based, inherent personality characteristics to facilitate a more effective leadership model. In opposite accord, the research evidence would seem to indicate that a less-cohesive organisational culture would have much less influence on sustainability of a feminine-oriented leadership approach, thus providing some support that women can utilise their non-masculine traits without risk of social backlash or criticism, at least in some organisational environments. Conclusion The most appropriate conclusion, based on all identified opinion and research stemming from experts in organisational theory, cultural theory, psychology, and human resources, is that women would have a much more efficient experience if they shed some of their feminine-based characteristics in a leadership role. Even though there was some support for the tolerated allowance of female leaders using their inherent, non-masculine characteristics, the dynamics of organisational structure and organisational culture conflict utilising feminine-like leadership philosophy. Coupled with existing, dominant male in-group presence in the organisation, it is likely that women leaders attempting to utilise their more womanly attitudes and personality constructs would be negatively assessed when the male in-group members perceive a violation of gender role acceptability. It was established that majority opinion in the whole of global culture as it pertains to femininity includes such concepts as being empathetic, sensitive, and nurturing. Though it cannot be said that men are unable to maintain these characteristics, it should be recognised that some liberal models of leadership in the organisation are highly dependent on these aspects to authenticate relationships and build effective trust. Thus, it would seem that whether they are being utilised by a male or a female is largely irrelevant so long as the organisational culture and structure are supportive of this liberalism that is often closely associated with femininity. In order to create an effective model of female leadership best practice, more research must be conducted on the explanatory factors within the organisational dynamic that either conflict or support utilising feminine-like leadership characteristics. References Buckmaster, S. (2004). Leadership and gender: Let me count the ways, Fielding Graduate Institute. [online] Available at: http://www.futureworksconsulting.com/resources/ka9leadership.pdf (accesssed 8 January 2013). Campbell, A. (1989) The Opposite Sex: The complete illustrated guide to gender differences in adults and children. Topsfield: Salem House. Den Hartog, D., House, R., Hanges, P. et al. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalisable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), pp.219-256. Eagly, A.H., Wood, W. and Diekman, A. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal, in T. Eckes and H. Trautner (eds.) The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. Mahwah: NJ Lawrence Erlbaum. Fairholm, M. (2009). Leadership and organisational strategy, The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1), pp.26-27. Farrell, H. and Knight, J. (2003). Trust, institutions, and institutional change: Industrial districts and the social capital hypothesis, Politics & Society, 31(4), pp.537-566. Goodnight, R. (2004). Laissez-Faire Leadership, Encyclopedia of Leadership. Sage Publications. Gorman, C. (1995). How gender may bend your thinking, Time Magazine, 146(3), July 17. Henslin, J.M. (2005). Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach. A&B Publishing. Hogg, M.A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), pp.184-200. Hopfl, H. and Matilal, S. (2007). The lady vanishes: Some thoughts on women and leadership, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(2), pp.198-208. Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (1996). Trust in organisations: Frontiers of theory and research. London: Sage. Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L. and Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leader perceptions: An application of validity generalisation procedures, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), pp.402-410. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organisational trust, Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp.709-734. Modleski, T. (1989). The Women who Knew too Much. New York: Routledge, in Hopfl, H. and Matilal, S. (2007). The lady vanishes: Some thoughts on women and leadership, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(2), pp.198-208. Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, Gender and Society. London: Temple Smith. Starnes, B., Truhon, S. and McCarthy, V. (2010). A primer on organisational trust, ASQ Human Development and Leadership. [online] Available at: http://rube.asq.org/hdl/2010/06/a-primer-on-organizational-trust.pdf (accessed 7 January 2013). Turner, J. and Oakes, P. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence, British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(3), pp.237-252. Zaccaro, S.J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership, American Psychologist, 62(1), pp.6-16. Read More