The Difference Difference Makes: Women and Leadership - Essay Example

Section I: Introduction by Deborah L. Rhode Deborah L. Rhode points out in her introduction that there are thousands of scholarly works on leadershipand hundreds of courses at colleges and universities (she cites the time up to the early 1990s, so there must be double that number by now). These numbers can’t account for the explosion in leadership courses, blogs, forums, and websites which have blossomed on the Internet. Still, we are no closer to a clear definition of leadership than we were when The Difference “Difference” Makes was published. While some of these leadership courses address the particular problems women have in attaining and maintaining leadership roles, they are usually more general in nature. Rarely do authors and instructors address the social perceptions of women in leadership roles; the general feeling is that there simply isn’t a problem to be addressed. Just follow the instructions (be assertive, state your mind, take the lead, expect people to follow you, search for common ground among disagreeing parties, etc.) and anyone, man or woman, can become a leader. Unfortunately, following the instructions in the real world brings women right up against gender bias. It is indeed difficult to determine the extent of the problem, or even if there is a problem. Rhode puts it succinctly, “Gender inequalities in leadership are pervasive; perceptions of inequality are not” (6). When looked at from the outside, especially with feminist eyes, gender bias is obvious and evidence-based. From the inside, for women and men doing their jobs, a snide comment can be overlooked, or the justification for being passed over for a promotion sounds reasonable, or raising the kids really is more important than the corner office. There are several root causes for overt or covert gender bias. Stereotyping plays a significant role. Lack of mentoring and support from female leaders stymies a woman seeking a more prominent position, because if she imitates a male mentor, she might be stereotyped as being aggressive. Workplace structures, entrenched for centuries, still encourage women to make their place in the home and family a top priority. Unequal opportunities lead to more unequal opportunities. A dichotomy emerges during the balancing act between the idea that gender should not matter when it comes time for promotions, and the fact that “gender differences do make some difference, and they need to be registered in leadership positions” (18). It shouldn’t matter when it shouldn’t matter, but it should when it should. During her discussion of leadership styles, Rhode points out those women in leadership positions sometimes have different priorities and commitments than male leaders, including the nebulous topic of women’s issues. While women leaders are often stereotyped as being empathetic and having good people skills, women who bring up the topic of women’s issues are perceived as having an agenda and an unnecessary agenda at that. Women with the most power (judges, politicians, corporate executives) try not to utter the word feminism and will often go to great lengths to dispel the fact that they are women. Priorities and commitments that are particular to women are disguised as equal rights for all, or excused by over-generalizations and justifications. It is a balancing act, to be sure, and it is impossible to please everyone. Separatism has advantages and disadvantages: there is strength in numbers, and when many women work together on a problem, good solutions are found. Bringing those solutions to the mainstream can be difficult when women leaders encounter resistance from men or women outside the decision-making process. Couple that with the idea that those feminists are making a big deal out of nothing and the obstacles to leadership equality multiply exponentially. The chapters following Rhode’s introduction examine the issue from all sides and attempt to find that happy middle ground where women can be leaders and still be women, and that’s OK. Section II: What Difference Does Difference Make? Kellerman makes the interesting point that being in a position of leadership and having actual power and prestige are not the same thing. This is interesting because there is a push in the women’s movement to simply get more women to the “top,” wherever the top might be. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to train women at all levels to exercise their power and prestige in productive ways to improve both the jobs of and recognition of women. It doesn’t really matter what a leader’s job title happens to be; leaders exercise their power to the fullest extent possible and create more opportunities for themselves and others by being leaders. Reskin speaks more in-depth on the topic of gender differences and gender bias. Socialization leads boys and girls to grow up with certain expectations regarding how they should act, and how others should act. These socializations are brought into the workplace and often result in stereotyping, consciously or subconsciously, positively or negatively. Reskin makes a key point when she says, “Although we may question mainstream [i.e. patriarchal] organizational values, few can become effective leaders without knowing what they are” (63). There are a few qualities that define leadership, and these should not be dismissed out of hand simply because they stem from traditionally male-dominated socialization. Mandel uses the word “leadership” in the sense that when a woman takes on a leadership role, she is automatically assuming the mantle of furthering the women’s movement; thus a female leader leads the way for other females. Women in politics especially are symbols and examples for other girls and women who follow. Conversely, Mandel points out, any change which has occurred so far has been within the patriarchal system, so rather than transforming anything, the system is merely altered while fundamentally remaining the same constricting system. What really needs to happen is to give women the individual freedom to choose what works for her at a given point in her life. The discussion of family-career conflicts is interesting in Herring’s essay because it is reported from a male perspective. He does not speak necessarily as one conflicted, but rather as one who has been involved in organization policies regarding a lawyer’s desire to work part-time or take time off from her career track to care for children, who then expects to remain on track for leadership and promotional opportunities. From his perspective, then, the issue leads to unfairness for everyone: full-time employees are angered because they work full time and must cover for absent employees; absent employees feel their pay is not commensurate with the actual job they perform for the firm. This scenario is played out in almost every organization where women are gaining a leadership foothold, and is not unique to law firms. A new generation of young women is entering the workforce armed with the idea that businesses should conform to their expectations, rather than the other way around. Not only do these young women need to learn to work within the traditional, mainstream patriarchal system, they need to transform it. This could prove interesting for the progress of the women’s movement. Young women, especially white women, are often brought up with the idea that of course there should be equality in the workplace, and there is no reason to consider it any kind of fight—it is just expected. A generation of liberal mothers has taught their daughters to expect leadership roles, and has prepared many of them to naturally assume those roles. It will be interesting to see if there is still talk of glass ceilings and overlooked promotions in another ten years. Unfortunately, as the essay later in this book from Patricia Ireland points out, progress does not necessarily translate into equality. Section III: When Does Difference Make a Difference? Schroeder opens this section of the book with a witty commentary on how women leaders can make a difference in the fight for gender equality. She tongue-in-cheek suggests that women vote with their wallets, so to speak, and shop their way to freedom. This essay is fresh and funny and a nice addition to the heaviness of women’s issues. Wellington follows with a report on the study Women in Law: Making the Case. Second to politics, those in the judicial system wield the most power to make change. However, attrition is a serious problem in law firms, and talented women grow dissatisfied and move on in alarming numbers. This has several effects, not the least of which is lack of mentors for female lawyers. Hill makes a sharp point in her essay when discussing being celebrated as the first African American woman to do a number of things in leadership circles. She says straight out that we should not be celebrating “firsts” at this late date in the equality movement. Being put in the spotlight means a woman is not allowed to fail to achieve everything and more once given the opportunity, because her failures shout just as loudly as her successes. Women leaders are set up as examples, both positively and negatively, and acutely feel this role on center stage. Hill emphasizes the point that the first woman there must then turn around and bring up the second, and the third, until no one can recognize who was first anymore. Lillie speaks on the specific issue of multicultural women, and the various stories she uses to illustrate the problems specific to multicultural women are, unfortunately, not shocking. (They should cause outrage, but somehow they are simply more stories that cause head nods.) In this instance, “difference” makes a significant difference, with ethnically diverse women suffering under entrenched stereotypes which go beyond gender. Norton explains that women in leadership positions are examples for the average woman seeking equality. Those involved in politics carry a double burden: they are important agents of change, and they have a responsibility to women to further the rights of women. Political women must fight for family rights, education and fair wages because these are the priorities and commitments of women whom the politician serves. That equity in these areas is a benefit to all is secondary. A politician’s job is to serve her constituents. Kim Campbell, former prime minister of Canada, rose to the top of Canadian politics by trusting her own instincts and speaking her mind in a direct but not abrasive or apologetic manner. She says straight out, “Power is essential. Women cannot afford to shy away from the leverage that will change society” (125). That one statement speaks to the core of women’s struggle to attain and retain leadership roles. Instead of apologizing because she violates some sort of gender code, a woman must take every ounce of power available to her and use it to gain more power. Let the naysayers have their say, then go on with the business at hand. Women should not shrink from the risks of power, nor shirk their responsibilities once they have attained it. Multicultural women in particular must negotiate the treacherous waters of discrimination and bias. Workplace hostility is often open, and few take the energy to actively protest racial slurs; we live in a culture where it is still all right to make fun of the Mexicans and Jews. It is difficult for women of color to find a mentor of similar background when there are few ethnically diverse leaders and the demands on their time are incredible. White men and women must become aware of any undercurrents of discrimination in their behavior and make adjustments so women of color have the opportunity to be treated fairly. Section IV: Changing the Context and Changing the Cast: Breaking the Barriers to Gender Equality Meyerson and Ely begin this section of the book by discussing three traditional frameworks for understanding women and leadership: Fix the Women (educate and train women in leadership skills), which falls short by ignoring all but white professional women; Create Equal Opportunity (fix policies that overtly or subtly block women’s advancement), which falls short by creating an even bigger contrast between men and women, and promotes women based on their gender; and Celebrate the Feminine (use consciousness-raising exercises to create an accepting culture), which falls short because it has a distorted view of what constitutes feminine and plays into stereotyping. Meyerson and Ely suggest an alternative view in two parts: breaking down barriers which exclude all underrepresented populations, and not only adding but actually using different perspectives. This synthesis of outdated concepts could work better than any one of those concepts has worked on its own so far. There are flaws in any system, and only time and historical perspective tell us what we should have done differently. Linda Hill’s essay is incredibly insightful and to the point. She discusses useable strategies women leaders can apply to their leadership roles, and gives step-by-step advice on looking at a career of leadership over a lifetime and not as an isolated incident or title. Her practical advice expands and emphasizes the theoretical and rhetorical essays in the book, and is simply sound advice for all women at any level of a company. As head of the Legal Defense fund, Jones brings a unique and personal perspective to The Difference “Difference” Makes. She emphasizes that women who are in leadership roles must reach out to help others to achieve the same goal, and points out that each person must have a broad perspective on social justice and not confine herself simply to engaging in women’s issues, racial issues, religious issues, and so on. Jones re-emphasizes the point that we are all in this together, and must roll up our sleeves and continue the work. The seven questions Mayes poses each look at gender bias and the struggle for leadership from a slightly different angle. First, she asks women to determine for themselves what portions of their individual identities are non-negotiable. Next, she recommends that a woman closely examine how her organization views her as an individual. Third, women must establish their priorities so they know how far they are willing to pursue all their goals. Fourth, a woman should know her comfort level when it comes to risk-taking. Next, mentors are a vital component to a woman’s advancing career, and Mayes asks women to identify their mentors and to seek out mentors immediately. Sixth, women must carefully and honestly ask themselves what their strengths and weaknesses are, and determine what should be fixed and what should be left alone. Finally, a woman must figure out her management style before she can proceed to lead. Each of these soul-searching questions could help a woman find out exactly where she wants to be, in light of where she actually is, and to move into a leadership role confidently. Speaking from her experiences with a San Francisco law firm and from her own heart, Cranston touches on important points in her evolution as a feminist, without coming right out and saying she was or is a feminist. She started as a rare woman in a law firm of “tall white men in gray suits” (176) and progressively became more angry and more engaged in women’s struggles. At some point she changed directions slightly from creating turbulence to creating alliances with men and women meeting on common ground, and figured out that she could be an agent of change by changing her own perspective on gender bias. She advises women to not get caught up in the equality fight, but rather to develop inner strength and go as far as that strength will lead. Section V: What About Men? White men, a distinct minority in terms of numbers, are almost always to blame for oppression, and Barnes calls upon white men to step up to the table and become catalysts for change. Barnes goes so far as to say, “If there is no man, and particularly no man of influence, to advocate on her behalf, [a woman] will not advance” (182). Women must identify and cultivate a white male champion in their organization who will commit to breaking the glass ceiling, mentor the woman, and share his influence with her. This white man is then tasked to support his “newfound goal” by emphasizing diversity especially as it pertains to women; supporting diversity training at all levels of the organization; changing practices that contribute to gender bias; ensuring that strategic plans specifically single out women for hiring and promotion; insisting on written policies and timetables for meeting specific roles regarding women; monitoring progress toward these goals; holding managers accountable and rewarding those who exceed the public goals, and making that recognition a reward rather than punishment; bringing women into influential committees; and supporting all leaders in their efforts to share power with women (183-184). That is a very long “honey-do” list. This essay suggests to this reader that women really don’t have the skills, ability, or power to advance on their own terms, and that women really can’t get anywhere without cultivating a man’s approval, specifically a white man’s approval. It is almost a slap in the face to men who do support the advancement of a woman to leadership positions based on her qualifications, not her gender (or color). It casts any man who has ever used his influence to help a woman advance in the paternalistic role feminists are so fond of railing against. Leadership courses teach every student to cultivate those in higher positions of power, to seek out mentors and influencers. For Barnes to say that women should seek out support or mentoring based on the fact that it comes from a white male is quite degrading to men and women, colored and white. That is just this reader’s opinion. There are a few obviously male voices in The Difference “Difference” Makes, and Shestack makes several important points from the male perspective. He states that men must accept that the playing field is unequal because of gender bias, that double standards positively exist and hurt everyone involved, that men must attempt to understand and empathize with the struggles of women both historically and currently, that men should provide “a variety of proactive and practical forms of support” (186), and that men must reconsider their perceptions of women leaders and their capabilities. Most interestingly, Shestack emphasizes that men must reorder their priorities and commitments to more closely align with those of women. That is an interesting concept. On the surface, it seems logical, if we really are all in this together, to have our priorities aligned whether we are male, female, white, black, powerful, helpless, or what have you. The trouble is figuring out the precise priorities to align to—which has caused the women’s movement no end of problems all through its history. Humans are inherently selfish and want what is ideal for themselves or their small unit (family, community, perhaps moving on to city, state and nation, depending on how much energy we have in a given day). One person’s priorities too often turn into another person’s oppression. It is not enough to say that everyone should honor and respect the priorities of everyone else; that is simplistic. A diversity of perspectives is healthy and stereotyping or gender bias is unhealthy. Male leaders, who might not normally consider the women’s movement to be something of importance, should simply open their ears, hear what women have to say, and do their best to integrate diverse thinking. Section VI: Meeting the Challenges The final section of the book contains two simple chapters which examine the history of women in leadership. Historical perspectives are often used by feminist writers to frame and justify the struggle for gender equality, and these two essays take an in-depth look at historical progress and continued slavery, respectively. Ireland’s conversational-style chapter focuses on the progress of the women’s movement through history. She states, “progress is not inevitable, progress is not equality, and progress is not irreversible” (193). Different points in the history of the women’s movement have shown that progress moves to a certain point and then tends to stall, for a variety of reasons. Something must push it forward, sometimes violently, in order for it to continue. Early in the history of the women’s movement, it became clear that not only did women suffer, but also people of color and those with disabilities, widening the net of the women’s movement to capture all who were oppressed in one way or another. After the amendment giving women the right to vote passed, about 130 years went by before the introduction of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. A few years later in 2003, the number of women who held Senate seats numbered a grand total of 16. Progress in the women’s movement has not been inevitable when viewed through an historical lens. Progress does not imply equality, either, Ireland points out. Just because a woman is appointed an important position in the government does not mean her priorities and commitments reflect those of the greater women’s movement. Nor does being male automatically make a man anti-feminist. Progress has been made toward equal pay for equal work, but women are still short 20 cents on the dollar. Progress is surprisingly reversible and dependent upon who is holding the most power in a given moment. Ireland points at Afghani women as an example. Resnik echoes this sentiment in her chapter. Women have been speaking out all along, and making whatever changes could be made through the course of human history, the last 200 years notwithstanding. Modern female leaders still must face the same obstacles their grandmothers did. Resnik points to the example of slavery, both literal and figurative, to illustrate how far the women’s movement still has left to go, and mentions that sexual slavery and violence are rampant in our modern-day world. Those who are still enslaved often don’t see themselves in that light, but can clearly see when others are, so the women’s movement has a difficult obstacle to overcome: showing women there is a problem that needs to be addressed, both for rape victims in war and for those women who are subtly sexually harassed in board rooms across the world. Priorities and commitments vary for all leaders. A woman on her way up the corporate ladder may not see herself as an advocate for the women’s movement, and might not want the burden of that association. She is, however, in the position of acting as a leader and as a woman in her powerful role. A woman should always remember, either openly or in the back of her mind, that whatever struggles she went through to secure a leadership position in her world, historical struggles have gotten her there. While it seems extreme to say she has an obligation to help other women, she certainly should. Progress does not mean equality until those who have progressed reach back to help those lagging behind. “Difference” Does Make a Difference Overall, the essays in this book are a good collection of “peeks” into the varying aspects of the women’s movement, always centering on the theme of women in leadership. It is written by women who have positions of power: politicians, lawyers, etc. These are women who are considered leaders in their chosen fields of employment and in the greater women’s movement, whether they set out on that road or just ended up there by virtue of being powerful females. Interestingly, there is little of the “academic” side of feminism, which is a refreshing change. We are actually reading the words of women who have “made it” somewhere, and hearing their unique and personal perspectives on the journey so far and the journey that still lies ahead. While no single essay goes into great depth and many are emphatically anecdotal, this book is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the contemporary status of women in leadership. A companion volume to this book might hear from a predominantly male group of voices, asking and answering the same questions from the “other” point of view. After all, if women operate within a patriarchal system, it would be good for us to know what’s going on in their heads so we can debunk myths, work together, and re-focus on the issues at hand without shrill jargon from radical feminism entering the conversation. It is impossible to condense an opinion of The Difference “Difference” Makes into just a few paragraphs. In fact, most of the essays reference Rhode’s introduction, so they seem to be responses to the ideas presented there. Perhaps a summary of such a useful book should be told in its authors’ own words. “Most obviously,” Rhode says in her introductory essay, women need to press for institutional changes that will help equalize leadership opportunities and promote socially responsible exercises of leadership. Women who have gained leadership positions need to mentor junior women and to support women’s networks, women’s causes, and women’s candidates. Women who are seeking such positions need to take advantage of the opportunities that are available. Demonstrating leadership abilities is the clearest path to greater leadership responsibilities (33). Different perspectives on the best way to accomplish those goals pop up throughout the succeeding essays. Shestack states, “But regardless of whether women leaders lead differently than men, diversity in leadership is a desirable value” (188). However, Mandel comments that simply because we strive to add more women to leadership positions, doing only this “would simply be an ‘add women and stir’ approach; the old soup would still be the old soup” (69). Leaders in the women’s movement have “fallen short of their transformational potential because their goals are focused too narrowly on women… [and are] too limited in scope” (136). Meyerson and Ely state that transformation of the biased system, rather than simple change, lies in the idea that promoting women to leadership positions “is not about gender alone, but about the ways in which differences of all kinds can become a resource for individual and institutional change” (137). Perhaps this speaks to the heart of the women’s movement, and moves beyond rhetoric into a framework women can use to take action. As Linda Hill points out so practically, “But the fact remains, if we want to lead, we need to take charge of our own development. No one can teach us to lead; we have to teach ourselves” (160). Taking action leads to progress; talking about taking action keeps the women’s movement stuck. Women must keep one point in mind while seeking leadership roles. Speaking specifically about African-American women leaving Chicago law firms, Muzette Hill surmises, “I suspect that they were gone because they were different, and the difference made a difference. . . . Their differences were misunderstood, punished, and ultimately used as a basis for their extinction” (99). All women must realize “difference” does make a difference, and if we don’t work together, we will become extinct in leadership roles. Reference Rhode, D.L. (Ed.) (2002). The difference “difference” makes: Women and leadership. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Read More