Let's Talk About Women and Leadership

The realm of leadership and who holds the title of leader has significantly changed in the last three decades. Leadership today does not belong to one specific gender, it belongs to both.  In recent times, more and more women are moving into the role of leader. This is particular true in the academia setting. Personally, I can say that during my collegiate years (undergraduate and graduate); I have had twice as many female professors than male. Additionally, I have had more female supervisors/managers than males. At first, I never paid any attention to this, but as this topic surfaced in my class assignment(s) this week, it really got me to thinking and reexamining this subject matter.  Are women leaders here to the stay or this just a facade?

According to Northouse (2013), women are inexplicably concentrated in more lower-level and lower-authority leader roles than males (354).  In other words, while women are making strides in attaining leadership roles, the majority of the roles are lower level leadership roles.  This means that there is still a leadership gap and that women are underrepresented in higher-level leadership positions. For years, the glass ceiling has been the barrier that has prevented women from ascending into the exclusive and elite leadership positions.  Presently, the leadership labyrinth has taken the place of the glass ceiling and it encompasses hurdles and challenges that women have to undergo in order to attain that top position. The two biggest challenges women face are gender differences and prejudices.

Gender Makes a Difference    

      

The biggest argument to evolve the leadership conundrum is the concept that women are different from men.  The commitment and motivation to lead is presumed to be a huge gender difference for women than that of men. Yet, there is a great deal of research to support that indicates women tend to show just as much commitment to their roles of employment as men do and that they treat their parental roles as secondary (Northouse, 2013, 357).   Yet, when it comes to promotion of oneself as a leader, women strongly lack in this area.  In other words, men are more likely to self-promote themselves for a leadership position than women.  It is because of this informal approach that many women are viewed as less hirable.  

Another gender difference is that women are not viewed as having “effective leadership traits.”  What exactly are effective leadership traits? Furthermore, how can one assess based on gender if one has effective leadership traits? Northouse (2013) noted that one advantage men have in attaining a leadership role is that they are more likely to ask for what it is they want than women do.  Because women don’t directly ask for what it that they want or even in some cases, bargain for it, they tend to miss put on advancement opportunities. 

Perhaps the biggest explanation for the leadership gap stems from stereotyped expectations of women. The norm has always been for women to stay in the home and take care of the kids while the husband goes to work.  This preconceived notion/expectation of women has spilled over in the workplace and this may serve reason for why women are underrepresented in elite roles. The annoying thing about stereotypes is that they are just there and tend to lead to unfair and unwarranted judgments. Gender stereotypes are quite damaging to women in leadership roles.  Additionally, this prejudice against female leaders is expletive of the less than favorable attitudes toward female leaders than male (359).  So, what can women do about these aforementioned challenges?  They can roll up their sleeves and get ready to rumble  J   

Women Can Tackle the Labyrinth Head On

There a number of women who have successfully navigated the labyrinth and this trend are on the rise. Take Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama for example.  All three of these women have defied the odds and risen to the top.  The dynamics and culture of many organizations are changing and this plays a huge role in the career development and advancement of women in leadership roles. One example of this is organizations that are now offering work-life support.  Yet, despite this method being in place a lot of women still tend to shy away from this.  The following link discusses this in detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPrxFwUOCtI

As women, if we take a more direct approach in removing the barriers, we can achieve a lot.  First and foremost, we will be living out the promise of equal opportunity for everyone.  Secondly, the promotion of women in leadership positions will substantially contribute to the productivity, innovation and success of organizations.  Not to mention, the ethical standards too. Thirdly, as organizations change their organizational culture and structure, the gender/leadership gap will one day become nonexistent.

I want you (women) who are reading this blog, to stop for a moment and ponder this thought: What if Hillary Clinton had decided because of her husband’s past indiscretions in the White House, not to run for President in the 2008 election?  It is quite possible that she would not have been afforded the opportunity to serve as the 67^th United States Secretary of State.  This is by far one of the greatest examples that come to mind of a woman who wasn't afraid to tackle the labyrinth head on and win. 

Northouse (2013) stated that women who are aware of the labyrinth may elude those preset barriers by beginning their own ventures (361).  SO, Ladies what are you waiting on? Lace up the sneakers, put on the boxing gloves, put on a pair of sweats, throw on a dab of lip gloss and march into that office and self-promote and negotiate your way to that new promotion.   If your supervisor doesn't nudge throw him a jab or two, to let him know you aren't playing around, lol.  Okay, what I just said may cost you your job, so take it figuratively, not literal.

In closing, there still is a great deal of speculations and uncertainties surrounding the question of who is the better leader: male or female?  To find out, check out this article featured on Forbes website. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/26/the-results-are-in-women-are-better-leaders/.

Reference: Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. (6 ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing.

Team Leadership, Ready for Take Off.....

The focus on leadership in many organizations today falls into a category of its own---Team Leadership.  As you’re reading this, you may be asking yourself, “What is team leadership?”  Team leadership is exactly what the name implies, leadership as it pertains a group or team within an organization.  Typically, these teams are referred to as project management teams, quality teams or task forces just to name a few.   Organizational development and its correlation to leadership have been the focus for many researchers since the 1960s and 1970s (Northouse, 2013).   Since the early 90s, much of this research has been centered on just how effective organizational teams are and the effectiveness of resources, better quality products and services and innovation that have developed from this.

 

Have you ever stopped and wondered why is it that success appears to come easy for some organizations and their organizational teams?  It’s not that it comes easy for them; it just means that the culture of the organization encourages and fosters the involvement of the employees. Other organizations function in the traditional authority structure that does not promote communication amongst one another, nor does it support decision making by employees at the lower level.  Perhaps by changing the organizational structure of these traditionally authority structured organizations, can yield the success that is seen in other groups.  However, this will not happen overnight and a great deal of effort will be needed (Northouse, 2013, 288). 

The team leadership model serves as an informational guide for leaders as well as those who serve as leaders within a team, and assesses any problems at hand and how to handle them. Hill’s Model of Leadership that is shown below is representative of the notion that it is the leader’s job to monitor the team and then take action as necessary to warrant team effectiveness.  At the top of this model are the initial leadership decisions that then move towards leadership actions and ends with those factors derivative of team effectiveness.  In looking at this model, leaders can improve the effectiveness of the team by adhering to those internal and external actions listed.  Additionally, this model is meant to break down the complexities of team leadership (290). The question is whether or not this can actually be done. 

 Leaders are faced with the question of whether or not to monitor the team as the above shown model calls for, or to take action.  Leaders have a very distinctive role and it’s not always as glamorous as it may seem.  The video adjacent explains the importance of effective decision making.

 As problems emerge within an organization, the leader can decide to continue to monitor the problem or based on what they know and have learned of the problem thus far-----Act.  The decision whether or not to act is solely the decision of the leader.

So, how effective are the decisions of the leader? What about the overall effectiveness of the team?  After all, the desired outcome relies on this information.  Nevertheless, the two crucial functions in regards to team effectiveness should be noted: performance and development.  Team performance is defined as the ability to execute decisions in conjunction with the quality of decision making and the outcome.  Team development is simply the unification of the team; each member plays a role in the development of the team.  Also when team members are able to

meet their own needs and work with other team members, this contributes to team development (Nadler, 1998).

 It is these two functions that yield the way to team excellence. There are eight characteristics which are frequently associated with team excellence. The chart to the left lists them along with the five conditions of group effectiveness. 

For my sanity and your peace of mind as you’re reading this, I will expand on three of the characteristics of team excellence: 1) clear, elevating goal, 2) collaborative climate and 3) standards of excellence.  

1)      Groundwork: It is important for any team, group or organization to lay the foundation. First and foremost, goals have to be established. These goals have to be clear, involve all team members and motivating.  If the goals aren't set from the start or if they are but they fail to include all involved, then the performance objective of the goal(s) are missed and the organization fails.  Who wants to be a failure? NO ONE!! With that being said, organizations have to step up to the plate and provide clear, let’s get down to business goals.

2)   What’s the temperature like?  A collaborative climate is just as essential as defining the goals.  The environment of the team must be fostering and subjective.  In other words, the environment must welcome ideas, exchanges of ideas, a few risks and a willingness by all participants to work together. Yet, before we get to being all mushy and whatnot, trusting relationships have to be established between team members .  As aforementioned, each member plays a contributing role in the development of the team and the organization. Therefore, every member has to do their part in order or a collaborative environment to exist. 

3)  Benchmarks:  Effective teams have a standard to uphold. They want and strive for the best.  The performance of team members is regulated and their actions fall in line with getting the job done.  In other words, there are no games being played here, it’s Showtime.  Similar to setting the goals, these standards must be clear and concrete (Northouse, 2013, 301).  The team leader is the facilitator  and holds everyone accountable.

The only thing left to do now is apply the team leadership model in your organization.  This can be done in a variety of ways and will without a doubt increase the effectiveness within your organizational teams. Now, you’re probably wondering “How do I get started?”  It’s simple. Take a survey. At the following link: http://www.sagepub.com/northouse6e/study/materials/Questionnaires/03409_12lq.pdf, you can assess the Team Excellence and Collaborative Team Leader survey for your organization.  All team members, including the team leader are to take the survey and share the results with each other.  In doing so, you will be able to pinpoint areas of greatest strength and weaknesses within the organization.  From this discovery, the team can prepare for reconstruction and knock out the minor kinks and get down to business.  Hope you all enjoyed the blog this week, and feel free to leave a comment or two.

Vision & Insights: Transformational Leadership

 As individuals, we are all striving to leave our mark on the world.  For activists, teachers, public officials and administrators just to name a few, this kind of comes with the territory.  Over the last 50 years, there are have been some outstanding leaders that have left their marks with us and transformed our lives forever; their efforts and strives will inevitably never be forgotten.  Transformational leadership is an approach of leadership that leads to positive changes in those who follow.  Transformational leaders are focused on helping followers succeed and treating them as human beings fully. This concept and its emergence came from political sociologist, James MacGregor Burns.  In his book Leadership (1978) he wrote of leaders in conjunction with the influence that they tended to have on followers (as cited in Northouse, 2013).  Burns also named Mohandas Gandhi as a classic example of transformational leadership because of the role he played in cultivating the hopes and demands of his people, while unknowingly, he changed himself.  Yet, this is not the only transformational leader of our time.  


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is one of the most transformational leaders for my generation.  This year, 2013, commemorates 50 years for my hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, when the world took notice of events, some heinous and violent, that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The year 1963 is not only significant to just Birmingham, but the nation as well.  It’s also the year that Dr. King, led the March on Washington and gave his infamous, “I Have a Dream” speech on the Lincoln Memorial.   The commemoration of the past and the motto “50 years forward,” has sparked the interest of many young individuals and even me.  This has led me to stop and ponder on the impact that Dr. King had on the lives of many.

As an advocate for equality and desegregation, Dr. King exuded all the characteristics of what a transformational leader is.  Similar to Mohandas Gandhi, Dr. King believed in nonviolent tactics to get his point across.  Through the many protests and rallies, Dr. King had a vision that inspired his followers to change their expectations of the world and embrace the vision that segregation does not have to be a way of life.  As Northouse(2013) mentioned, transformational leaders often have a strong set of internal values and ideals, and they are able to motivate their followers to align their actions to support the greater good rather than their own self-interests (191).  Furthermore, transformational leaders are viewed as role models by their followers. This tile of role model entails that a leader is confident, articulate and expresses strong ideals.  Dr. King was a role model to his followers and many wanted to and have even tried to emulate him.  There are many local leaders, who also are considered role models and exert the characteristics of a transformational leader.

Kerri Pruitt serves as the executive director of the Dannon Project in Birmingham, AL.  The Dannon Project is an organization that was founded by Kerri Pruitt and her husband Jeh Jeh Pruitt in 1999. This organization was created to help individuals in transition, particularly those in recovery from incarceration, unemployment, underemployment and at-risk youth.  Kerri’s reasoning behind the development of this organization and all that she does with this organization is what makes her a transformational leader.  As a result of  learning of the death of her brother-in-law, Dannon Pruitt, by a young man that had been released from prison on a non-violent offense, Kerri established this organization.  It is her belief that had there been a program in place for that young man after being released, he would've made better decisions and Dannon’s death could’ve been prevented (http://www.dannonproject.org/history.php).  When I first met Kerri, three years ago, I had no idea the type of person she was, but I was immediately taken with her genuine concern for others and the need to uplift our at-risk youth.  After learning of the history of her organization, it became clear to me that Kerri was a charismatic and visionary leader.  It is her vision that led to the Dannon Project and it is the focal point of that organization.  Since, its start, Kerri has fully immersed herself in the culture of this organization and has helped to shape it.  Kerri is constantly networking and meeting new people and encourages others, especially the at-risk youth that she works with. Most of her coworkers that I have had the pleasure of getting to know and worked with at my former employer, Jefferson County WIA office, would always tell me how appealing it is to work for her.  Additionally, Kerri challenges her employees and the participants of her program to change the status quo.  For example, if an at-risk youth sat down with Kerri and told her that his/her mother had them at 16 and didn’t graduate from high school. Kerri would challenge that youth to defeat the odds and attain your GED and an allied health certification that is offered through Dannon.  In other words, Kerri was letting this child know that “you” determine your outcome and I believe that you can do it.

Kerri Pruitt & the Dannon Project   - Video link 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not live to see the impact and change that came about as a result of his transformational leadership, but as aforementioned it’s forever a part of our lives.  His transformational leadership set the tone and path for others like Kerri Pruitt and even President Obama.  It is his charismatic approach that led to desegregation in the South, in schools and in general.  Kerri Pruitt, on the other hand, is still carving her mark on the world and transforming everyone she encounters along the way.  My challenge for you is to think of those individuals in your life that could be considered a transformational leader and assess the impact they have had on you and others. Perhaps a family friend, church member, teacher or manager, fits the description. 

References:  The Dannon Project. http://www.dannonproject.org/index.php

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. (6 ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing.

A Look at Contingency, Path-Goal and Leader-Member Exchange Theories of Leadership

     Leadership and being a leader can be categorized by several different styles and theories of leadership.  The relationship/ exchange between leaders and followers (subordinates) play a huge part in the leaders being effective and subordinates being equally effective. 

     This week in class we examined the following leadership theories: Contingency theory, Path-Goal theory and the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.  Each of these theories offers their own insights and discernment regarding leadership.  Some of the previously mentioned leadership styles and concepts discussed in leadership recur here.  Additionally, these theories lend way to assessments of the roles of both leaders and followers.

     Contingency theory, which is best known as a leader-match theory, tries to link leaders to appropriate situations.  In other words, this theory is primarily focused on styles and situations.  Also, the framework of this theory is centered on task motivated or relationship motivated leadership styles.  Leaders who are task motivated tend to place their interest and focus on reaching a goal and completing the task at hand.  Relationship-motivated leaders on the other hand, tend to focus on forming close interpersonal relationships. The best way to assess and measure leader styles is by using the Least Preferred Coworker Scale that Fiedler developed (1967).  Fiedler’s Contingency model is indicative of the notion that situations can be depicted in relation to three factors: leader-member relations, task structure and position power as shown below. 

  

     The situational variables illustrated above in the contingency model help to determine which situations are favorable in organizations.  According to Northouse (2013), situations that are most favorable are ones that have good leader-follower relations, tasks that are defined and strong leader-position power.  The LPC score is beneficial in predetermining how effective a leader is going to be in certain situations.  Therefore, the contingency theory points out that a leader will not be effective in all situations thrown at them.  This theory provides reasoning for why a leader who may be conscientious and hardworking is ineffective in a particular area of their job.  If you’re curious to see how you would score on the LPC scale feel free to take it yourself.  I’ve provided the questionnaire below. 

     The Path-goal theory focuses on the role that leaders play in motivating followers (subordinates) to accomplish tasks.  This theory differs from contingency theory because it places emphasis on the relationship of the leader’s style and how this characterizes subordinates and the work environment.  In other words, this theory gives leaders the challenge of selecting/tailoring their leadership style to one that will best serve the motivational needs of subordinates.  I particularly like this theory because it is fully indicative of just how effective a subordinate can be with the right amount of guidance and motivation.  In the structure of organizations there are employees that can be better than they ever thought if managed correctly.   From a personal standpoint, if my manager/supervisor can clearly define the goals and provide me with the support needed to get my job done, this motivates me to not only get the job done, but to seek out other tasks that I can assist with.   The leader behaviors visible here are: directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented.  Yet, this theory leaves itself completely open to other variables and behaviors too.  The diagram to the right provides an illustration of the major components of path-goal theory. Similar to the contingency theory, path-goal theory also lends itself to a questionnaire that can be very instrumental in measuring the styles of leaders.  You can assess this questionnaire at: http://www.slideshare.net/LeanaPolstonMurdoch/path-goal-questionnaire.  

     The third and final theory that my class discussed this week is the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory.  This theory takes a different approach to leadership.  Instead of examining it from the viewpoint of the leader or the follower and the environment, it examines it based on the interactions between leaders and followers.  In other words, this theory assesses the relationship that an employee has with their manager and vice versa.  Secondly, this theory puts followers in one of two categories: in-group or out-group, based on how well they work in conjunction with their leader.   Those subordinates who become a part of the in-group go over and beyond their job duties require of them.  If a subordinate shows lack of concern for taking on more and different job responsibilities, then they become a part of the out-group.  The in-group receives more influence and more confidence is exuded to them by their leader.   The response that out-group members receive from their leader is equivalent to that of just the standard benefits of their job duties, nothing more.   Of the theories discussed thus far, this one is the only one that fully assesses the dyadic relationship amidst leaders and followers.  

     Perhaps a general way to look at this theory is as followed:  If a leader and an employee have a great working relationship and said employee exudes potential and not only does what is required of them, but that and more, when a better position becomes available, that leader will inevitably look out for them.   If a leader and an employee have an okay working relationship and the employee comes to work daily, does the job, does not interact with the leader or fellow employees and frowns whenever asked to anything out the norm,  when a promotion comes alone, the leader may not even consider them.   As somewhat childish as the last scenario sounds, this is an all too familiar scene in most organizations.   It should be noted that just because the leader does not consider the second employee does not mean the leader does not like them, it just means the relationships between each employee is different.  Furthermore, research on LMX theory stresses that leaders should put forth an effort in developing high-quality exchanges with all of their subordinates (Northouse, 2013).  More so, these exchanges develop over time and involves a stranger phase, an acquaintance phase and a mature partnership stage.  As employees, accomplish new responsibilities, they move through these stages and in return form a better working relationship with their leaders.   This theory utilizes a questionnaire, referred to as LMX 7 to measure the respect, trust and obligation that leaders and followers have for one another.  You can assess this questionnaire at http://www.sagepub.com/northouse6e/study/materials/Questionnaires/03409_08lq.pdf and you can see where you and your current leader stand.  

Reference: Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. (6 ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publishing.

A Closer Look at Style and Situational Approach

     As individuals, we encounter different aspects of leadership every day.  However, we never fully take a look at the core of what truly makes a leader, nor do we look at the approach that leaders have to being a leader or how they adapt to situations they find themselves in.  In class this week, we learned about the style approach and situational approach of leaders and were asked to think of situations when we were leaders or followers and what approach did we take in them. Also, we were asked to identify the best leader or worst leader we know and to elaborate on their leadership styles and highlight the differences between the two.  Initially, I pondered on this assignment.  Over the years, there have been numerous individuals in my life whom I would consider some of the best leaders around and others that in my opinion, should never call themselves a leader. 

     For the purpose of our assignment, the style approach focuses totally on what leaders do and their actions. Situational approach, on the other hand, pertains to how leaders behave in situations. Research suggests that task behaviors and relationship behaviors are the primary basis for the style approach of leadership. Essentially, task behaviors aids goal accomplishment and helps group members to achieve their objectives.  Relationship behaviors allow subordinates to feel comfortable with themselves, others and the situation that they may find themselves in.  Over the years, several studies have been done to examine the style approach.  The most notable studies are the following: The Ohio State University studies (1940), the University of Michigan Studies (1960) and Blake & Mouton’s Managerial (Leadership) Grid (1960s).  All of these studies are indicative of the notion that behaviors of leadership are closely related to the style of leaders.   The Ohio State studies and the University of Michigan studies developed complete questionnaires that allowed subordinates and leaders themselves to rate their style of leadership in various areas. 

The Managerial Grid, which has been renamed the Leadership Grid (Blake & Mouton) is perhaps the best known model of managerial behavior.  This model was designed to explain how leaders are able to help organizations to attain their purposes through two primary factors: concern for production and concern for people.  The Leadership Grid depicts five major leadership styles: authority-compliance (9, 1), country-club management (1, 9), impoverished management (1, 1) middle-of-the-road management (5, 5) and team management (9, 9).  The chart below further explains each of these styles.   

Retrieved from http://coachingcosmos.com/34.html.

     In looking at the various leadership styles, it is easy to figure out where I would fall at on this grid.  Presently, I would have to say that my leadership style is team management and this is the style that I look for in those who are my managers and supervisors.  At my part-time job, my supervisor falls into this very category.   She makes the job of working in retail and fun and is always thinking of ways that we can grow together as a unit. Recently, she had the company, New York & Company, to sponsor a bowling night out for our store.  The purpose of this activity was to boost the morale of the associates and to give the newer associates a chance to meet the other associates and vice versa.  Although, everyone did not participate because of personal obligations, those that did learned a lot about each other and our store sales and credit sales have been up since.  My store manager has a personable attitude and never asks us to do any task that she wouldn't do herself.  I really admire my manager because of this and I am always willing to do whatever it is she asks of me.  I strive to be a mixture of task and relationship-oriented on both of my jobs.  The relationship aspect of it allows communication and works well with my developmental levels as a subordinate.  

The situational leadership approach of leadership stresses the importance of a leader being able to change their leadership style to match the developmental level(s) of their subordinates.  In other words, sometimes, a leader may need to be more supportive than task-driven to get the point across to subordinates.  The chart to the right illustrates the various leadership levels and developmental levels of subordinates. By far, I believe that a S2 style, also known as a coaching approach tends to fare better in the context of my aforementioned part-time job.  This approach allows the leader to place focus on both the job at hand and the socioemotional needs of the employee.  However, it should be noted that in order for the situational approach to work, it is the responsibility of the leader to first assess and determine the nature of the situation. Secondly, the leader has to adapt his or her style to the correct developmental level of the employee(s).  One of the impressive things about this type of approach is that it can be applied across a host of settings: work, school and family.   The pros of the situational approach outweigh the cons of it. The pros are that 1) it has stood the test of time and is well-known in the realm of leadership, 2) its applicability, 3) its prescriptive value and 4) the flexibility it affords the leader in any given situation. 

Although both the style approach and the situational approach do not have substantial amounts of research to support their meanings, these approaches yield the way for effective leaders and effective leadership.  One thing that’s for sure is that as I continue the duration of attaining my MPA, working and applying for better employment in the government, I will emphatically apply these concepts.