1

Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?

A Meta Analysis and Case Study

Valerie M. Constance

Dr. Ella Burton

EDLD 713- Field Based Research

Educational Leadership

December 2003

2

Table of Contents

Abstract------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 Theory--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 Methodology-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 History-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 Meta-Analysis of Leadership Theory--------------------------------------------------33 Figure 1 Trait Theory---------------------------------------------------------------------------36 Behavioral Theory------------------------------------------------------------------38

Contingency Theory---------------------------------------------------------------42 Matrices*

Figure 2 – Trait Theories Figure 3 – Behavioral Theories Figure 4 – Behavioral/Influence Figure 5 – Fiedler’s Contingency Theories Figure 6 – Contingency/Normative Decision Figure 7 – Contingency/Path Goal & Servant Leadership Figure 8 – Contingency Theory/Transactional Figure 9 – Contingency Theory/Transformational & Social Change

Review of Current Literature-----------------------------------------------------------54 Self-Reflection ------------------------------------------------------------------------------65 Case Study of My Internship Experience-------------------------------------------67 Conclusion----------------------------------------------------------------------------------111 Bibliography--------------------------------------------------------------------------------118

* All information in matrices cited in text

3

Abstract:

Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?

The world's most renowned and highly respected thinkers have tackled

the question about what is leadership. As a result, definitions of leadership

through the ages have grown in quantity even as they have taken on different,

sometimes oppositional meanings, leaving some doubt as to whether

"leadership" can be considered with "a hard," empirical methodology. Academics

and researchers alike have been known at various times in history to consider

leadership as a "soft science" because of its dependence on human subjectivity.

This hasn't prevented researchers from trying to scrutinize this topic from strictly

objective methods. The question is how valid are these methods in evaluating

what is essentially a social construction?

In this paper I use meta- analysis, a quantitative approach in which the

researcher synthesizes research articles to answer a research question. The

approach, fashioned after (Glass, 1976) and subsequently used by (Banning, et

al., 2000); (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001); and (Davies, et al, 2003) ". . . analyzes the

theory, method, and findings of a body of research, in this case, related to

leadership, especially gendered leadership. I examine past and present research

on leadership in its various forms and contexts, reflect upon and relate it to my

own leadership experiences, and attempt to answer the question whether in

reality there is any difference between male and female leadership.

4

Theory:

Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?

A Meta Analysis and Case Study

As I sit on a rock beside my pond and toss dried crumbs of fish food, I

study the reflection of the surrounding forest as it is beamed upside down upon

the glassy surface to my mind's eye. Suddenly beneath the water a movement, a

ring emanates across the surface disturbing the perfection of that watery image

with wrinkles and waves of distortion. Shortly later the inverted photographic

replica of the forest returns to its previous tranquil state.

Which is real? I wonder, contemplating the meaning of "social

construction."

Is the forest real or the image of the forest cast upon the pond? The

disturbance of the image suggests that the forest is real and the reflection an

imposter. Certainly from the perspective of the feeding fish below the surface

there is no reflection, further testifying to the forest as being real. Yet the

reflection is a darned good replica of what I see. What "I see" is key to the

meaning of "social construction" as I understand it. If the forest is real, then I

can't know it except through my own perception. There's no significance to me of

the "objective" reality of my property. My ability to perceive creates significance

and makes me the definer of what I see, and how I see the forest whether it is all

5

around me or in the inverted reflection of the water, I'm free to define it

depending on context. For example, if I were writing poetry, I might wish to

signify that the reflection is real for symbolic purposes. If I were surveying the

geological features of my land, I might wish to signify the percentage of land I

own in relation to the size of the pond. I might wish to use a "particle-wave"

viewpoint and see my property and this man-made pond as a member of the set

of all ponds located in forests worldwide; or I can see this pond as a microcosm

of man's world but with an ecological organization.

In The Constructivist Leader, Lambert et al (2002) say, “Constructivism

has become a theory of learning that has emerged from a theory of

knowing”(p.7). It is an epistemological concept that draws from a variety of fields,

including philosophy, psychology, and science. Fosnot (1992) qtd in Lambert et

al, points out that constructivism is at once a theory of 'knowing' and a theory of

'coming to know' (p. 167). The theory of knowing, as first articulated by Piaget, is

essentially biological in nature; that is an organism encounters new experiences

and events and seeks to assimilate these into existing cognitive structures or to

adjust the structures to accommodate the new information. The cognitive

structures or schemas, are formed and reformed based on experiences, beliefs,

values, socio-cultural histories and prior perceptions. Piaget noted that schemas

are "under construction,” meaning that the cognitive structures evolve as

individuals interpret, understand, and come to know (Piaget, 1971, in Duffy

Jonassen, 992, p.140 qtd in Lambert et al, 2002, p.7).

6

Organization is a social construct. People decide how they are going to

order their world. Learning is a social construct. People decide how best to teach

and learn based on the latest research. Leadership is a social construct, because

people decide how to signify its meaning. Gender is a social construct, because

people decide how to set expectations for behavior amongst the sexes in order to

aid communication. For instance, how could we possibly process and accept our

perception of a woman as a leader if our schema precludes the possibility? That

is the situation we find ourselves in right now. But we can no more ascertain the

objective over the subjective reality as perceivers and signifiers than can society

ascertain that gendered versions of organizations or leadership exist. In short, if

gender-linked organizations or leaders exist—we put them there and we can take

them away. The fact of the matter is that someone, somewhere, introduced the

notion of male superiority in some historical context and because of the male

dominant culture no one thought to question this reality until recently. Lambert et

al (2002) capture the essence of what this means to education when they say,

. . .these modes of sense-making bring with them what Camus calls "the

definitive awakening." They cannot imagine a retreat to outmoded

behaviorisms or to conceptions of truth as a correspondence with an

objectively existent reality. Crucial to their contemporary orientation is the

recognition that reality is socially constructed, and that a great number of

once silenced people (including students, teachers, and parents)

participate in the construction. (p. vii)

7

Likewise, in education, the educational model of the authoritarian teacher

and the passive learner is a hold over from a prior historical context. That context

is changing. Research is finding that a student-centered model that involves

active learning and the importance of significance to the student as he or she

compares it with prior knowledge and experience is a more effective way for

teaching and learning to happen. The point is that in a learner-centered world

context matters. Paulo Friere basically treated the passive model, or what he

called "the banking method" of learning as "bankrupt" when he illustrated the

student as the bank and the teacher the banker dropping coins of "truth" into the

empty vessel. All interactivity of learning is destroyed, not to mention the

unstated assumptions regarding the intelligence of our students. The student-

centered model is significant because like viewing organization, leadership, and

gender as social constructs, so too are we beginning to posit different paradigms

for learning.

Constructivism is the primary basis for learning for children, adults,

and organizations. Individuals and organizations bring past experiences

and beliefs, as well as their cultural histories and world views, into the

process of learning; all of these influence how well we interact with and

interpret our encounters with new ideas and events. As our personal

perspectives are mediated with the world through inquiry, we construct

and attribute meaning to these encounters, building new knowledge in the

process. This constructive, interpretative, work is facilitated and deepened

8

when it is undertaken with others and with reflection. (Lambert et al, 2002,

p.xvi).

The paradigm shift of moving power and authority away from a

hierarchical organization and towards non-hierarchical models such as

empowering student-centered learning is very much related to changes in the

larger society. Changes such as the increasingly diverse population of the United

States and the evolving roles of gender, culture, and ethnicity are gradually

altering the contexts away from homogeneity. Interestingly, our market-driven

economy may also be a source for society changing to a non-hierarchical model.

I say this because as higher education imitates a business model, they begin to

see the student as a customer. In this paradigm universities must be student or

customer centered. As they become more so, their tired old organizational

structures for faculty and administration become obsolete. Historical changes

that move away from economic models that feature manufacturing to a post-

industrial paradigm involving information in the age of technology are underway. I

see teacher as facilitator analogous to leader as visionary empowering followers

to achieve a shared goal. It all fits neatly together theoretically, except that in

actuality, since the revolution is incomplete, I still see many of the old structures

in place. I attribute this to basic leadership theory that states that if a culture is

fearful or needs a sense of control, then they will need an autocratic government,

which is precisely what we have in George W. Bush in the post 9-11 era. But

leadership theory also states that highly individualistic and autonomous

9

individuals need a more participative, read that democratic, government, which is

what we were prior to 9-11. If we are to evolve as a society to a higher, more

democratic level of existence as moral human beings, we must challenge

ourselves with new paradigms for seeing and perceiving reality.

A social constructivist viewpoint does this for us. Therefore, I use a social

constructivist theoretical model as basis for my arguments in this paper.

10

Methodology:

Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?

A Meta Analysis and Case Study

I have selected a meta-analysis across literature of the theory, method,

and findings of leadership as it pertains to gender as my quantitative method,

and the case study method to analyze a range of my leadership experiences as

my qualitative perspective.

The quantitative piece, a meta-analysis was borrowed from Timothy Gray

Davies, Clifford P. Harbour and James H. Banning's introduction to their meta

analysis study of 65 articles written over a ten year period (1990-2000) in the

"Community College Journal of Research and Practice" (CCJRP) asking the

question, "What have recent contributors to the Community College Journal of

Research and Practice reported in their research about persons from

underrepresented populations? (2003)" Their methodology calls for an approach

that posed a research question and identified all studies able to provide data to

answer the research question. Not to be mistaken with a qualitative method in

which themes are synthesized, this meta-analysis includes a synthesis, which

include findings, methods, and theories. The qualitative piece will include an

analysis of my experiences and reflections from my internship as they relate to

the literature.

11

The procedure I used to perform this meta-analysis involved creating an

annotated bibliography of all of the reference texts I used for this paper. I combed

all of the texts listed in my reference for five objective criteria: theory,

method, findings, researcher, and year. I placed the research into its historical

context by developing a tree chart that traces leadership theory metaphorically,

from simple to complex as symbolized by the tree, and literally, from early

contemporary to current time. In evaluating the theories that met my objective

criteria. I looked specifically for findings that would indicate leadership behaviors

that either a man or a woman could perform. I chart my findings based on the

research. If the findings showed behaviors either men or women could employ in

leadership situations, then I coded my answer “Yes—Gendered Leadership is a

Null Hypothesis” because in that particular study there was no differences

between gendered and non-gendered leadership. If the findings showed behavior

that only a man could perform, then I coded my answer “No—Gendered

Leadership is not a Null Hypothesis” because in that particular study there was a

difference between gendered and non-gendered leadership. If the findings were

too ambiguous to ascertain if either a man or a woman, or both could do the

behaviors, I coded my response “don’t know.” If the findings didn’t address the

issue at all, I coded my response “No answer.” Then a counted the results.

12

Introduction:

Is Gendered Leadership a Null Hypothesis?

A Meta Analysis and Case Study

Is gendered leadership a null hypothesis? To better answer my thesis

question, first let’s ask what is gendered leadership? Since the focus of this

paper is gender, let’s take a closer look at the differences between sex and

gender. Sex is the biological imperatives that create physical differences

between men and women, while gender is the social constructions people create

from this information. “Gender is a significant cultural rather than an individual

difference or demographic variable which has important implications for

individuals and organizations” (Klenke, 1996, p. xi). An example would be that

women shouldn’t be leaders because leaders have to be strong, intelligent, and

make tough decisions, and those characteristics are better suited to men.

When examining, analyzing, and evaluating female and male

leaders, gender operates as the first of a series of prisms. “Gender” refers

to the historical, social, and cultural construction of biological sex, and is

usually defined “by default,” since what we attribute to one gender is

typically denied to the other. It is a powerful symbol because the very word

“gender” encapsulates all the signs that a culture elaborates to account for

biological differences between women and men. (Gherardi, 1994, qtd. in

Klenke, 1996, p. 14)

13

So if we look closely, we realize that by strong, we don’t necessarily mean

physically strong, we could mean strong-willed, committed, and persuasive.

Women can have these qualities. By intelligent, we don’t necessarily mean in a

crafty or wily way, we could just mean smart. Women can be smart both

academically and worldly. By being able to make tough decisions, we don’t

necessarily mean that a person should not be a caring, feeling, person, we could

just mean that they can make tough decisions and have everyone involved

understand. Women can do all of these things. So by gendered leadership, I

mean the human tendency to identify stock characteristics found in the complete

set of possible human responses, dichotomizing them, and then attributing one

set to men and the other to women. For instance, objective, autocratic, and task-

oriented behaviors are attributed to men and considerate, democratic, and

collaborative behaviors are attributed to women. Furthermore, gendered

leadership means that as a society we agree with unstated assumptions about

these stock characteristics as they relate to men and women respectively. By this

I mean, because we acculturate boys to behave in typically masculine ways, and

girls to behave in typically feminine ways, we agree with the unstated assumption

that these characteristics have rigid boundaries and the behaviors cannot and

should not turn up in the behaviors of the opposite sex. But is this true?

Which brings us to the meaning of “null.” My use of the word “null” is

meant to be playful. I find it ironic that throughout time researchers have

searched for an “objective truth” with such earnestness using seemingly biased

14

questionnaires and self-reported data to merely establish “probability.” Null is a

statistical term used to describe whether, in fact, a body of research supports or

does not support a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is that men and women have

exclusive gendered leadership behaviors for their sex, and I say that there is “no

difference” between leadership styles we typically attribute to a man from those

we typically attribute to a woman, then I’m finding the hypothesis of gendered

leadership is “null.” “As transmitters of culture, women leaders are helping to

rethink and restructure our assumptions about leadership and leaders in virtually

every field” (Klenke, 1996, p. xi). In regard to typical masculine leadership

qualities, isn’t it all right if a man taps that set of behaviors typically ascribed to

women? And isn’t it a double standard that this is not okay for women leaders?

And isn’t societies attitude becoming more accepting of woman leadership, albeit

slowly?

Now why might we resort to gender identities? Well, for one thing, it aids

us in communicating with one another. The more prior-knowledge we have, the

better we can evaluate a particular situation quickly, and respond accurately and

effectively. Gender stereotypes perform this function in society. We could then

enter into a situation armed with a set of understandings that had been agreed

upon in advance throughout society, and then interpret meaning faster and more

efficiently. For instance, the idea that men are the breadwinners in the family

would result in the meanings, women shouldn’t work, or that men should always

earn more money than women. The problem with using gender stereotypes

15

arises when these “mental models” no longer accurately represent society. Still,

we, as a society, socialize and acculturate our children to behave in these gender

appropriate ways. Change, in our technological age, happens faster than

humans can respond and adjust their conventions. In this paper a meta- analysis

of the past and present literature on leadership and gender is combined with a

case study of my leadership experiences and reflections as an intern. I served as

an intern in the Vice-President’s office of University Relations at a medium-sized

comprehensive university in the Midwest. I served two female leaders, one white

and one African American, who are each minorities in the administration.

Although I didn’t know this when I started my internship, a fundamental premise

of this paper is that anyone can be a leader.

. . . leadership is a process and a role that can be assumed by

women and men, adults and children, leaders and followers; it is an

aspiration, opportunity, and inspiration. In this process, time, tradition, and

innovation are critical elements. Different times, both in history and our

personal lives, call for different types of leadership. This means that

leadership must be constantly examined, re-examined and reformulated

against rapidly changing sociocultural, political, economic, and

technological conditions that mark our times. ( Klenke, 1996, p. 12)

Through my analysis of the past and present literature on leadership,

together with my fieldwork in these various settings, I propose to answer the

16

research question:

Is Gendered leadership a Null Hypothesis? Or is there an empirical

difference in the way women and men lead?

History

In my study, I wanted to begin by understanding the history of

women's efforts to enter the once male-dominated workplace. In Women and

Leadership, A Contextual Perspective, Karin Klenke writes:

Many tasks in the workplace are gender-typed. Construction work

is typically considered "men's work," while clerical work is considered

"women's work." Therefore we may expect that the nature of the task is

likely to have an effect on the performance or effectiveness of male and

female leaders. More specifically, we would expect that males are more

likely to assume leadership roles when dealing with "masculine" tasks

while women are more likely to take the lead in situations involving

"feminine" tasks. Whether a task is gender-linked or neutral is likely to

influence people's evaluations of their leaders. (p. 152)

Women's vision involved not merely creating a woman friendly

environment, but to advance the human rights of women to work by moving

society toward a more neutral stance. “Women are no different than men in the

17

respect that both derive autonomy, satisfaction, feelings of self-confidence and

worth, from working” (Witmer, 1995, p.7). Likewise, women are likely to use

whatever skills, behaviors, and methods necessary in their leadership roles at

work according to evolving contexts, as will men. In other words, leadership

behavior comprises the complete "tool kit" of possible responses whether male or

female. And yet society continues to construct stereotypical gendered meanings

for leadership behaviors. For example, in a study, women's behavior of using

directives with their husbands while working on household tasks were acceptable

use of leadership in the home, according to empirical evidence from (Bass,

1965), the same approach became unacceptable leadership at the husband's

company. The significance of this study suggests that, "The nature of the task as

a potential source of bias is but one of many situational factors" (p. 152). These

situational factors are changing our social ecology requiring us to use a broader

conceptual analysis of leadership situations (p. 152).

The early women's struggle towards equity in access, pay, and

opportunities for advancement have moved us closer to a neutral model of

leadership by exposing bias, and has opened up untold economic and leadership

opportunities for women; and yet some ceilings remain glass and some doors

remain closed. I'm curious as to why the revolution has been so successful in

some of the previously less-tractable areas, such as in mining, manufacturing,

and construction, for instance, while Higher Education remains resistant. Take for

example in the book, Class Action, The Landmark Case that Changed Sexual

18

Harassment Law. (2002), authors Clara Bingham and Laura Leedly Gansler tell

the riveting story of Lois Jenson's 20 years of leadership in the 1984 Class Action

sexual harassment lawsuit against Eveleth Mines, located in Northern Minnesota.

In 1974, nine of the country's largest steel companies signed a "consent decree"

with the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Department of Justice,

and the Labor Department forcing the steel companies to hand over a historic

$30 million in back pay for past discrimination against minority and women

employees, and it also required the industry's mills and mines to provide 20

percent of its new jobs to women and racial minorities. "Just like that, affirmative

action had come to Iron Range, and it set the stage for Lois Jenson and a

handful of women desperate for a decent wage to walk into a place that had

been forced by the federal government to hire them" (p.8). Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 provided women with a tool to seek redress for sexual

harassment as a form of sexual discrimination at a time when it was so prevalent

as to be ubiquitous to most people, who claimed not to understand how to define

it (p. 70). We certainly know what it is now. Why do we tolerate it in higher

education? What larger pattern emerges that may be applied to leadership in

education that would erase differences in gendered leadership? What’s

preventing us from moving toward a neutral model? Historically, what steps were

taken?

In Alice Kessler-Harris' book, In Pursuit of Equity, women, men, and the

quest for economic citizenship in 20th - century America, women who had not

19

previously worked, patriotically filed into manufacturing jobs to help the war effort

when most of our American men were in combat. This was a time when men

wanted and needed women to work, and women answered the call. Working not

only made them patriotic, but made women feel pride and self-satisfaction from

receiving pay for their hard work, unlike their previous role as stay at home

mothers, which often was thankless and sometimes felt unrewarding. After the

war, although women conceded their jobs back to men, they did begin to

question the rationale behind women staying home, while men worked. Of

course the suffrage movement at the turn of the century represented the

beginning of the woman's movement, but feminism can be traced back to the

modern era when Virginia Woolf first wrote her experimental stream of

consciousness literature to illustrate the inner workings of a woman's mind. This

questioning was followed by the publication of Betty Friedan's, The Feminine

Mystique, a feminist treatise that dared to question the social construction of

gender up to that time. Friedan's questioning the underlying assumptions about a

woman's sole purpose in life being to marry a rich man who would "take care" of

her, opened Pandora's box and set in motion the post-modern woman's

movement.

As a result of the woman's movement, more women felt empowered to

enter the workforce and take on leadership positions. This was dubbed a

"Revolution in American Family Life," according to one magazine headline. The

number of women who earned wages doubled from the 1920's to the 70's, and at

20

a time when it was becoming increasingly more difficult for families to survive on

only one wage-earners pay. So this time, economic necessity caused women to

answer the call of their country. More women were in the labor force, some

dropped out to have children and never returned, but many not only returned but

took less time off to deliver and care for them, introducing an explosion of need

for childcare and other products and services to accommodate the needs of

working women. For example, there was a revolution in diaper services,

improved support in the form of portable equipment for pumping breast milk for

breast-feeding, superior formulas, food, and medication for infants and toddlers,

to the emergence of take-out food, family friendly environments, or simply video

or DVD rentals to enable women to enjoy home entertainment with their families.

Entrepreneurial women who stepped up to answer the call of their own changing

needs provided much of these goods and services. All of which suggests how

inappropriate it was to define women so narrowly (p.280). You could actually say

that men themselves may have unwittingly ushered in the woman's movement by

their war mongering; talk about unintended consequences!

But despite women's patriotism and economic contributions their efforts

would have gone unrecognized had their leadership not thought to link women's

rights to the civil rights of black people, they might never have obtained legal

standing for their efforts for economic equity. Congress passed an Equal

Employment Act in 1971 that gave the Equal Employment Opportunity Center

(EEOC) power to sue in court, which gave women a tool to enforce regulations

21

regarding sex discrimination. Despite the fact that women were themselves

divided (and remain so today) as to what the proper role of women in society

ought to be, some advocated preserving women's special status, while others

sought equality, the public slowly came to understand the legal meaning of

discrimination. The women's movement's demand for individual rights with

access to political and social citizenship eroded barriers to economic citizenship.

Interestingly, in respect to women in higher education, Senator Moynihan

suggested society get a "vocational return for the money we invest in women's

education and household appliances." He proposed the use of women as

teachers, government executives, and community workers, but only after their

children had grown (p. 220).

It seems reasonable that we should challenge Senator Moynihan's

unexamined negative assumption masquerading as positive “spin” that women's

education and presumably the household appliances that make it easier for

women to work outside the home are investments. Unfortunately this sort of

attitude prevails in higher education. Mary Ann Mason, dean of the graduate

division at the University of California at Berkeley and study director of another

study called, “Do Babies Matter?” said “she wanted to address the question my

women graduate students always ask me, Is there a good time to have a baby?,”

in a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. She found:

. . .the worst time for women who pursue careers in academe to

22

have a baby is within five years of earning a Ph.D.. . .Women who do have

babies then are nearly 30 percent less likely than women without babies

ever to snag a tenure-track position. And of those women in the study who

had babies early on, only 56 percent earned tenure within 14 years after

receiving their Ph.D. (2003, pg. A6)

Could it be that the hierarchical and rigid tenure system is outright hostile

to women, especially those with a family? Consider this systemic bias. Compare

the family status of tenured professors. 70% of tenured men are married with

children, whereas only 44% of women are. More women in academe are either

single without children or married without children, and more women reported

they either chose not to have children because of their career in academe or had

fewer children than they wanted. (2003, A8). This quote from Joan C. Williams,

the director of the Program on Worklife Law at American University, sums it up

the best. She says:

Academe is still based on a model in which men worked and their

wives stayed at home with the children. This is a job that systematically

excludes mothers . . .it shows that so long as we continue to identify the

ideal academic worker as someone who works full time, 60 hours a week

for 40 years straight—surprise!—that will overwhelmingly be men.” (2003,

p. A7)

23

Up until the present, research generated by white male students studying white

male leaders has formulated the theoretical bases of educational leadership.

However, they're quick to say they spot "cracks in the male-controlled

educational leadership establishment" (p.6). Sustained increases, they say, seem

possible because of the sheer numbers in graduate degree programs.

Demographics also play grandly in the scheme. Increasing school enrollments

will spur the need for educational leaders. But also retirements will play a role.

"More than half of today's high-ranking educational leaders, in their late 50's or

early 60's have adequate years of service to retire" (p. 18). Furthermore,

according to "The 25 Hottest Careers," (1993) in Working Women Magazine,

62,000 educational administrators with entry-level salaries from $45,000 to

$52,000 and top salaries from $55,000 to $90,000, will be needed within the next

few years.

Witmer (1995) claims higher education by virtue of its flexibility, is fertile

ground for a change to women's leadership styles and hence increased numbers

of women leaders. While it’s true, there is a higher percentage of women

attending graduate schools, receiving Ph.D.'s, and studying Educational

Leadership than ever before, Higher Education remains a male dominated

institution. Why is this? Especially when all of the latest research on Educational

Leadership points to “women's ways of leading—collaboration”-- as being the

preferred leadership style. Authors, Marie Somers Hill and Joyce Raglund

discuss this phenomenon.

24

Marie Somers Hill and Joyce Raglund (1995) say according to a 1992

study, 54% of the total student population in college was women (p. 34) and their

numbers, especially in graduate school, have increased since then (p. 25). The

authors support their assertion with these statistics:

Throughout graduate programs, Yeakey et al (1986) found a 20%

increase in women doctoral candidates and a 338% increase in female

enrollment in business courses. The portion of doctoral degrees conferred

on women has moved from 28% in 1979 to 39% in 1994 and is expected

to reach 45% by the year 2000. (Database, 1994 qtd. In Somers &

Raglund, p. 25)

In Moving up! A Guidebook for Women in Educational Administration,

Judith Thompson Witmer says, "Most women choose administration for the same

reason that men do: more money, more autonomy, more status and more power"

(p.7). Their motivations are not different from that of men. But according to the

book Women as educational leaders, opening windows, pushing ceilings, while

women represented in higher education administration roles grew from 8.5% in

1975 and 1980, to 38% in 1990 (p. 34); women in higher education still hold

disproportionately fewer administrative jobs. Wecan dismiss Patricia Sellers

claim that because 21% of college presidents are female that women are

experiencing greater success in academe because she narrowly focuses on just

25

presidents not other leadership positions. According to Sellers article in Fortune,

out of government, business, and academe, women represent 14% of

government, 8% of business, and 21% in academe, noting women have made

the most progress in academe with 21% of college presidents female (p.96).In

Marie Somers Hill and Joyce Raglund's preface, they note steadily increasing

numbers of women in educational administration, but assert that the field is still

dominated by men. They say, male dominance of key leadership positions

presents "a significant barrier for women moving into roles as educational

leaders. Traditionally, men have controlled the highest administrative jobs within

school districts." Universities too have perpetuated these male only schemes. Hill

and Raglund say,

In its role of training chief school executives, the university has for

years been an example of a closed fraternity. Traditionally, faculty

members in educational leadership departments have been male. This

dominance has influenced career paths and choices of women in many

ways. First, university faculty members initially encourage or discourage

prospective graduate students about pursuing a degree. Once admitted to

a program, faculty members foster and mentor future leaders. Finally, in

many regions of the country, departments play central roles in selecting or

at least nominating candidates for leadership roles (p. 10).

26

Phyllis Bronstein (2001), grants that change is coming slowly, in her study

called, "Older women in academia: contemporary history and issues [Part 1 of 3]

in the Journal of Women's History. She says that thanks to the women's

movement some women have attained tenure positions in academia and have

become influential in their field. She says that women themselves have continued

to work as research associates, adjunct faculty, and independent scholars

despite the lack of emotional or monetary support. They derive their legitimacy

and worth from their own sense of how important their work is. The author

interviews thirteen white, academic women and herself ranging from age fifty to

seventy-two. She then provides the reader with a brief history of what she calls

the “first and second wave” of women faculty entering academia. She talks about

the sacrifices women made for their husbands when it came to who stayed home

to raise the children and who quit their job if the husband received a promotion or

job offer, saying it was a surprise women ever got their Ph.D.’s at all. In her

discussion of “The Graduate School Years” she provides the reader with real

experiences from the women she interviewed as evidence of the both obvious

and subtle ways being older affected them.

Experiences such as women faculty using their positions of authority to

keep excellent women from being successful; either by failing to admit them to

their class or program or by purposefully excluding them from networks of

younger women. Male faculty used a parent-child model of mentorship, which

prevented most women from seeking a mentor. Financial- aid administrators

would readily accept women’s financial aid in full even as they short-changed the

27

woman candidate. Administrators’ hiring decisions, with assumptions regarding

the primacy of men in our culture, would frequently supercede even qualified

women’s right to academic employment when administrators hired younger, less

qualified men and women. Even Duderstadt (2000) in his book, A University for

the 21st Century, admits that faculty women suffered from the “glass ceiling” at

the University of Michigan, in a discussion about the Michigan Agenda for

Women, which sought to improve equity on campus for women faculty, staff, and

students. He acknowledges that faculty suffered because of hidden prejudice.

He noted how it was especially hard for women faculty to earn tenure from their

male peers. But he also noted that the university didn't do a good job of placing

women in key positions to step into leadership positions either. So although the

University of Michigan was one of the first to admit women, they remain to this

day resistant to female leaders and feminine leadership styles. What the

Michigan Agenda did was allow different strategies to emerge for different

departments. Each department was to submit specific plans for how it intended to

be more inclusive of women.

Competition in a male dominant environment is entirely predictable.

However something happens to women who are forced to operate in this alien

system. They become even more cut throat than their male counterparts at

holding other women back. To have women responsible for perpetuating the

male dominant system is both ironic and unfortunate. It’s a divide and conquer

strategy. As noted earlier, it seems higher education doesn’t have any trouble

admitting women to graduate school at some level—its only when women get

28

their first tenure track position and try to advance through the ranks that it begins

to become clear that the assumptions about what women should and shouldn’t

do in society are still prominent. Bronstein analyzed women’s credentials and

found that women hid their age and family status whereas men didn’t. If women

failed to hide this fact from search committees, they invariably were cut.

Frequently men who wrote women’s letters of recommendation were the ones

who embedded language revealing the woman candidates’ age, marital, and

family status, almost as if it were code for don’t hire this person. Bronstein

concludes by suggesting that if you’re a woman in her fifties with excellent

credentials, it’s likely you will be punished. After filing an age discrimination suit

with the State Department of Fair Employment, she asked “why they might not

want an older, highly qualified woman for the position” the answer she received

was:

If you don’t do things on a certain timetable, you get punished.

Academia is built to accommodate male career development. Also, people

don’t like to have a subordinate who is older than them. Being

‘overqualified’ really means you’re not a little cream puff. I’m not some

baby beginner who can just be pushed around. (p. 6)

Within the last ten years, as more women have chosen to work, women

have participated in actively constructing a gendered leadership model for

29

themselves. So economics were largely responsible for this rise in gender-

stereotypes. Perhaps you wonder why women would be instrumental in creating

gender identities. On reason is that women simply enjoy being different and

being treated special. Another reason is that it unified the two conflicting beliefs

regarding women’s proper role in society that women have fought about since

suffrage times—that women could retain their gender identity; yet still be leaders.

One reason, I think, women chose to create gender identities is they thought they

couldn’t compete directly with the dominant culture’s model. Indeed, they couldn’t

compete because men are very competitive and when only men made the

decisions, they were at a distinct advantage. But by constructing a separate

gender identity, women posed no threat to men. Men, who might otherwise think

twice about promoting women to leadership positions, did so, thereby allowing

the first woman to get her foot in the door. If you think about it, women couldn’t

have devised a more ingenious strategy for women to make headway into

leadership positions. This constructing of a gender-identity that is separate but

equal to men, I believe, is an essential phase through which women must pass in

order for society to move towards a neutral model. It is essential because in our

culture we define things in relation to other things. By defining one model as

masculine and one as feminine, we are better able to see not only the ways that

gendered distinctions serve us, but also the ways they can be a disservice. Our

examination of both phenomenon allow us to ask whether there is any credence

to separate gender identities and in turn, whether these boundaries are, in fact,

rigid.

30

In the spirit of this reasoning, Witmer is quick to describe power as

different from men's conception. My own best analogy to describe this is, for

men, power is a noun, something to be possessed to the exclusion of all others.

For women, it’s a transitive verb, an action process shared with others. The way

that Witmer deconstructs masculine and feminine styles of leadership, helps me

understand historically, how the masculine style has dominated in educational

leadership while the feminine style has dominated in educational practices;

perhaps because women were relegated the lower status teaching jobs, while

the men preserved for themselves the higher status administrator jobs. Witmer

says, "It could be said that "the masculine style uses structural power, which is

based on authority associated with position, title, and the ability to reward and

punish, while the feminine style relies on charisma, work record, and contacts"

(p.27). Witmer says,

Interaction, access, flow, conduit, involvement, network, reach—these are

the attitudinal words of women administrators. They are "process" words

all of which emphasize relationships. They are interactive words that are

favored by women and that reflect women's style of leadership. These

qualities specifically include encouraging participation, sharing power and

information, and enhancing other people's self worth. Women who make it

into the top executive spot according to Rosener (Men vs. Women," n.d.),

report that they "work to make their subordinates own self-interest work for

the good of the entire operation. (p.6)

31

A neutral model is some ways off in the future. You can see evidence of

women still finding use for a gendered identity. For instance, in an article in the

October 13, 2003 issue of Fortune called, "Power: Do Women Really Want It?"

the author says, "No, they do not want it" (p.86). I believe this is a deliberate

attempt to placate men who may feel threatened. What exactly is it that these

women say they do not want? The audience for seems to be men, because they

treat the words “leadership” and “power” as though they are interchangeable.

Perhaps for men they are, but savvy women have learned to substitute the word

“leadership” for “power” so as to deflect criticism that they are failing to fulfill

men’s gender expectation. Author Patricia Sellers bases her argument on the

unstated assumption that only the male-hierarchical versions of leadership count

in business. To her credit, she does redefine women's notion of power to one of

influence, which emphasizes relationships. But when Patricia Sellers claims the

most educated, accomplished powerful women don't seek the highest paid jobs;

she fails to mention that these women are rejecting the hierarchical leadership

model not power positions. The way to understand this distinction is to compare

management and leadership. Management is said to be driven by structure,

leadership by process. (Klenke, 1996, p. 97). Structure, the "formal pattern of

how people and jobs are grouped together in an organization"; and "process, the

activities that give life to a structure," are distinct because one has to do with

"position" and the other does not (Klenke, 1996, p. 97).

Hill and Raglund identify "conflicts between the role of leaders and

32

expectations for female roles" like those described in Patricia Seller's Fortune

article about whether women want power, as barriers to women's' promotion.

They list the following expectations as cultural barriers:

1 Male Dominance of key leadership positions

2 Lack of political savvy

3 Lack of career positioning

4 Lack of mentoring

5 Lack of Mobility

6 Internal barriers and bias against women

All of these barriers are a result of experiential deprivation resulting from

using gendered identities too rigidly. As women struggle to align their cultural

acculturation for gendered identities with a female leadership model that never

existed before, they experience conflict. For instance, lack of career positioning

refers to the way ranks of workers are closed, making it impossible for women to

move from a staff position to a line position (p. 11). They’re closed because

they’ve always been that way. So it becomes a matter of women forging new

models. Of particular interest to me because of my internship experience is "lack

of mentoring." Hill and Raglund cite women's inexperience and lack of

understanding power and processes as reasons some women don't mentor.

Another reason is if the administrator sees herself as a token, she'll be too

threatened to foster leadership in others. (p. 13.) Lack of mobility involves the

33

whole socio-economic structure surrounding women—that is their need for a

support network in child-rearing, especially if the woman is a single parent. This

need causes women to define their mobility in terms of miles from their homes

rather than pulling up stakes and moving to a new state. The internal barriers

include subtle verbal and non-verbal communication methods intended to

undermine a woman's authority and hence decision-making.

Meta-Analysis of Leadership Theory

In Figure one, you will find a metaphorical representation of leadership

theory. You’ll notice that the words, “Great Man Theory,” and “Military Theory”

appear beneath the ground, at the root level, for all other contemporary theories

arose from these. At the sturdy trunk level of the tree is the singular concept of

the leader. All studies about leaders from the leader perspective appear here,

including Behavioral Theory. The lower part of the tree, which usually branches

out into a few strong major limbs represent the three types of behavior identified

as Democratic, Laissez-faire, and Autocratic. I placed these traits so as to

coincide with traditional directions in ideology. Therefore, the democratic

leadership appears on the left-side of the tree, and the autocratic leadership

appears on the right side of the tree. The laissez-faire leadership style is placed

in the middle where it obtains all of the direct strength of the tree and therefore

doesn’t require much effort. The entire canopy of the tree represents the

34

Contingency Theories, including leaders, followers, and situations. So I’ve placed

the various names of the contingency theories all along the top to represent the

great complexity of Leadership Theory today. I place the names of theories to the

right, left or middle of the trunk as matches their ideology. Of course, the

implication of this metaphor is that as the tree, or Leadership Theory grows, and

as we all know, growth is a “process” so they will continue to increase in

complexity.

As for the meta-analysis piece of my research, after synthesizing the

readings down to core nuggets of information about the studies, I place them as

succinctly as possible into a matrix so the reader may quickly ascertain the

meaning of the findings. Then, I looked specifically for findings that would

indicate leadership behaviors that either a man or a woman could perform. I chart

my findings based on the research. If the findings showed behaviors either men

or women could employ in leadership situations, then I coded my answer “Yes—

Gendered Leadership is a Null Hypothesis” because in that particular study there

was no differences between gendered and non-gendered leadership. If the

findings showed behavior that only a man could perform, then I coded my answer

“No—Gendered Leadership is not a Null Hypothesis” because in that particular

study there was a difference between gendered and non-gendered leadership. If

the findings were too ambiguous to ascertain if either a man or a woman, or both

could do the behaviors, I coded my response “don’t know.” If the findings didn’t

address the issue at all, I coded my response “No answer.” Then a counted the

results.

35

Leadership Theory research from the oldest to the most current theories,

may be divided into three periods: Trait Theory which developed roughly

between 1910 to World War II; Behavioral Theory which developed from about

the onset of World War II and lasted until the late 1960’s; and the Contingency

Theories which developed from 1960 to present.(Chemers (1984) qtd in Wren, p.

83) Contingency Theory is both an overarching name for a series of theories as

well as itself a name for a particular theory. Early Leadership Theories tended to

be simplistic, but over time they have grown in complexity. In addition,

Leadership Theory has evolved over time from a static idea to a dynamic idea in

which theories related to the movement or exchange between leaders and

followers; leaders and situations; followers and situations; and the full tool kit of

behaviors leaders draw upon on which to be successful leaders are included.

Interestingly, Leadership Theory parallels other cross-disciplinary areas as well:

Organizational Theory, Learning Theory, Writing Theory, Feminist Theory, to

name a few. Researchers who have developed Leadership Theory have drawn

from many disciplines, and used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Most

of the quantitative methods involved asking a large population of respondents

using random sampling to answer a questionnaire or survey designed to highlight

the particular research question. The qualitative methods usually involved

interviews or case studies.

36

The Trait Theory

The Trait Theory is a holdover from the historical Military Theory and the

Great Man Theory, which date back to Plato’s Republic. In the Military Theory

“Each group member is responsible for following the member above him. ”(Faris

& Outcalt, 2001, p. 9). All eyes were on the leader, because the leader exercised

control over those beneath him in the hierarchy. I intentionally left out reference

to women, because in this early time period women were not thought to be

capable of leadership, only white males. The Great Man Theory shares some

features of the Military Theory such as the belief that some people have a greater

natural endowment of those characteristics. The Trait Theory assumes leaders

had physical and psychological traits, such as height, dominance, and

aggression, that made them natural leaders and these traits were inborn. Bass,

(1981), says “the Great Man Theory contains a thread of belief in Darwinism and

the notion that leadership ability is passed from generation to generation

genetically” (Qtd in Faris and Outcalt, 2001, p. 10). Faris & Outcalt reason that it

is elitist because it aligns with the ancient practice of leadership being passed

down to royal offspring. Trait Theory, according to Komives, Lucas, & McMahon,

(1998), asserts that “leaders are those individuals who have a “natural ability to

lead” (Qtd in Faris & Outcalt, 2001, p. 10). Traits were determined by observing

behavior or from self-reported data of men. The earliest research on Trait Theory

occurred in 1959 when R. Mann’s study, “A review of the relationship between

personality and performance in small groups” found that while “leaders tended to

37

be more intelligent, extroverted, dominant, masculine, and taller than non-

leaders” he found contradictions suggesting that “possessing these traits does

not guarantee leadership success” (Mann,1959, qtd. in Klenke, 1996, p. 59).

Following Mann’s study was Stogdill’s (1948) study in which,

A large number of studies were done in which leaders and followers

were compared on various measures hypothesized to be related to

leadership status or effectiveness. Measures of dominance, social

sensitivity, moodiness, masculinity, physical appearance, and many others

were used. (Chemers, 1995, p. 84)

An ‘individual differences’ instrument was used by both leaders and

followers and compared. After reviewing 120 trait studies for a pattern Stogdill

was left with inconsistent results. One of the problems with Stogdill’s research

was his methodology.

“. . .groups were artificially created in contrived settings, such as

laboratories, or based on classroom observations and other environments with

limited generalizability” (Stogdill, 1948 qtd in Klenke, 1996, p. 61). Stogdil

concluded that “A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession

of some combination of traits. . .; the pattern of personal characteristics of the

leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and

goals of the followers” (Stogdill, 1948, p. 64 qtd in Klenke, 1996, p. 60). Stogdill

unintentionally debunked the trait myth in his 1948 study and so he did another

38

study in 1974 which showed the trait theory did actually have some positive

potential; however he stuck to his contention that the situation would always

determine the traits a leader should use. In hindsight, realization of the

importance of the situation opened the door to women to serve in leadership

positions. In 1956, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) was the site of a

longitudinal study (Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974). Career progress of men and

correlations between traits and managerial success were drawn; however

questions arose as to whether managers were equivalent to leaders. So the

findings of Trait Theory point to some relevance of certain kinds of traits for

leadership but no more. “. . .assumptions that leaders are born and certain inborn

traits are necessary to lead effectively have not been substantiated after six

decades of research . . . ” (Klenke, 1996, p. 61).

Behavioral Theory

Behavior Theory shifts the focus from leaders to leader behaviors. “. . .the

behavioral approach assumed that leadership is learned by acquiring a set of

behaviors or leadership style necessary for effective leadership” (Klenke, 1996,

p. 64).The earliest appearance of a Behavioral Theory happened In 1939, when

Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White, trained graduate research

assistants in three leadership styles, 1. autocratic, 2. democratic and 3. laissez-

faire. The first leader made all of the decisions and held tight control of group

activities in the autocratic style. The second leader emphasized group

39

participation and majority rule in the democratic style. The third leader in the

laissez-faire group involved low levels of any kind of activity. The democratic

style was found to be the most effective on group processes (Wren, 1995, p. 84).

Over time apparently the laissez-faire leader choice dropped out of the

possibilities because it was seen as not leadership, leaving us with the dualistic

views we still hold today. I see this research as representing the beginning of the

dichotomy we now see in leadership theory, which we call gendered leadership.

In the following quote by Martin M. Chemers we see an introduction to the

research that results in two schemas, which we would later socially construct to

being that of male and female respectively.

The importance of this study is not so much in its results but in its

definition of leadership in terms of behavioral style. Also the emphasis on

autocratic, directive styles versus democratic and participative styles had

a profound impact on later research and theory. (Wren, 1995, p. 85).

The next to appear were Influence Theories. One such concept that

sounds very much like a “Great Man Theory” was the Charismatic Leader.

“Charisma” means “Gift of Grace” from Greek origins, and was used to describe

a person’s ability to prophesize, rule, teach, convey wisdom, and heal (Klenke,

p.76). Charisma began appearing in the work of Max Weber (1947), who

described these as “self-appointed leaders who attract followers in distress or

times of crisis” (Klenke, p. 76). Charismatic Leadership, which grew from

40

religious, social, and political movements in which leaders emerge during crises,

culminated in “. . .a testable set of variables meant to predict charismatic

personalities” (Faris & Outcault, 2001, p. 11). According to a study by Northouse

(1997), charismatic leaders possess these behavioral approaches: “They are

said to be strong role models, competent, have the ability to ‘arouse task-relevant

motives in followers that include power and esteem’ (Qtd in Faris & Outcalt,

2001, p. 11). The link between charismatic leaders and their followers is direct,

says Weber, because the followers are not part of any mediated organization. It

is by virtue of their seemingly magical abilities, revelations of heroism, power of

mind and speech, and not any basis of office, that these charismatic leaders

attract followers. (Klenke, 1995, p. 76). Charismatic Leadership, while still very

much a factor in Transformational Leadership which followed many years later,

fell out of use, dismissed as also being elitist (Bass, 1981; Northouse, 1997).

Independent researchers in the 1950’s used the “Leader Behavior

Description Questionnaire” (LBDQ) on large numbers of industrial and military

leaders. Their findings resulted in the creation of two clusters of behaviors. One

they described as Consideration behavior related to interpersonal warmth,

concern for the feelings of the subordinates, and the use of participative two-way

communication. Initiation of structure related to directiveness, goal facilitation,

and task related feedback (Klenke, 1996, p. 64). The findings showed difficulty in

relating behavioral factors to organizational outcomes, causing the relationship

between leader-structuring behavior and group productivity to have few patterns

41

(Klenke, 1996, p. 64). In another study in which these two types of behaviors

appeared was in a study between Ohio State University and the University of

Michigan. In this study similar broad leader behaviors called 1. initiating structure

and 2. consideration approach was developed through extensive research

between Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. The researchers

(Halpin & Winer, 1957) developed questionnaires that would identify task-or

relationship behaviors as they relate to attaining group goals. Their findings

showed: “leaders high on consideration tend to have more productive followers,

who are also more satisfied with considerate leaders than leaders low on

consideration; however the relationship between consideration and leadership

effectiveness varied substantially” (Klenke, 1996, p. 64). Again situational factors

figured heavily into leaders decisions regarding which behaviors leaders

displayed. Some of the more prominent researchers in this area and the years

they published included Stogdill, (1974); Katz (1960), Likert, (1961) White and

Lippitt, (1960),and Jago and Vroom (1982). Yukl (1981) said of Stogdill’s 1974

study, “both technical and administrative skills were added to the roster of

leadership traits as the research shifted more to applied contexts (Klenke, 1996,

p. 61). Stogdill concluded that “leadership is entirely situational in origin and that

no personal characteristics are predictive of leadership”(Stogdill, 1974, p. 72 qtd.

in Klenke, 1996, p. 61). Katz (1960) and Likert, 1961, said that follower-centered

leadership styles are related to supervisory effectiveness (Kenke, 1995, p. 65).

White and Lippitt said out of the three leadership styles authoritarian, democratic,

and laissez-faire, “followers preferred a democratic leadership style, although not

42

in all situations” (Klenke, 1995, p. 65). Personal experience tells us that in

situations of high stress and intensity, such as in an emergency room; autocratic

behaviors are more effective than democratic behaviors. So it’s no surprise Jago

and Vroom reported that “leaders use a democratic style when followers exercise

initiative and autonomy, but a more autocratic style when followers are passive,

depend on instructions, and need direction” (Klenke, 1996, p. 65). While an

improvement over Trait Theories because of their increased complexity of

looking at the various elements of leaders, followers, and situations, Behavioral

Theory did suggest that leadership styles could be learned. I assume if it can be

learned, it can be taught; and it can be taught to either men or women.

Contingency Theory

According to Contingency Theory “there is no best way to make decisions,

and that the most effective style will depend on the characteristics of the

situation” (Wren, 1995, p. 88). So Contingency Theory, defined as “those

theories which postulate that leadership effectiveness is dependent or contingent

upon the interaction between certain leader attributes and the characteristics of

the specific situation” (Klenke, 1996, p. 66), attempts to take in situations or

contingencies into consideration. The relationship between leader decision-

making and style to group performance and morale suggests, “certainty,

predictability, and control could well be the most critical factors in the leadership

equation” (Wren, 1995, p. 88). Much of the research in this area associates

43

highly structured, directive, and autocratic styles with task-motivated leaders and

attentive, responsive, and participative styles with relationship motivated leaders

(Wren, 1995, p. 86). Fred Fiedler’ spent fifteen years studying Contingency

Theory, and he was one of the first theorists to reliably predict the effects of

leadership style on organizational outcomes. As I mentioned previously in this

paper, his theory, called The Contingency Model, was named for the entire group

of contemporary leadership theories. Fiedler developed a measure called the

‘least-preferred coworker (LPC)’ scale. The relationship of the LPC to group

performance was determined by whether the rater gave a negative or positive

rating. A ‘task-motivated’ leader would give a negative rating to a ‘relationship

motivated person’ and a ‘relationship motivated’ leader would give a negative

rating to a ‘task motivated leader’ and visa versa. He found that “. . .leadership

style alone was not sufficient to explain leader effectiveness” (Wren, 1995, p. 86).

So he expanded his studies using a situational control scale, which included:

1. leader-member relations, that is the degree of trust and support

which followers give the leader

2. task structure, that is, the degree to which the goals and

procedures for accomplishing the group’s task are clearly

specified

3. position power, that is, the degree to which the leader has formal

authority to reward and punish followers (Wren, 995, p. 86)

44

Research findings showed neither style was effective in all situations. Although

Fiedler’s Contingency Theories resulted in a great deal of argument, Strube &

Garcia’s, “A Meta-analytical Investigation of Fiedler’s Contingency Model of

Leadership Effectiveness” (1981) demonstrated that the data supports the theory

(Wren, 1995, p.87). The importance of this research directly affects leadership

training because it implies that if you teach leadership then this results in

increasing leader’s situational control (Wren, 1995, p. 88).

Another kind of Contingency Theory is called, the “Normative Decision

Theory.” According to Martin M. Chemers, “As the word normative in the name of

the theory implies, the model specifies which of the styles is most likely to yield

effective decisions under varying situations” (Qtd in Wren, 1995, p. 88). Vroom

and Yetton (1973) identified the following range of decision-making styles:

• Autocratic Leader makes decision alone

• Consultative Leader consults with subordinates then makes decision

• Group Leader allows subordinates to share

in the decision-making responsibility (Wren, 1995, p. 88)

The situational characteristics include:

1. the expected support, acceptance, and commitment to the

decision by the subordinates

2. the amount of structured, clear, decision-relevant information

45

available to the leader

The following rules determine which styles will be most effective:

1. autocratic decisions are less time-consuming; therefore more

efficient

2. if the leader does not have sufficient structure and information to

make a high quality decision, he or she must consult with

subordinates

3. if the leader does not have sufficient support from subordinates

to assure they will accept the decision, the leader must gain

subordinate acceptance and commitment through participation in

decision-making

Both Normative Design Theory and Fielder’s Contingency Models make similar

predictions, but Fiedler’s Contingency Model, which is based on a belief in ,

stable, leadership personalities, says that styles are hard to change; whereas the

Normative Design Theory assume leaders are flexible and can change their style

at will. “Autocratic decisions are likely to be efficient and effective when the

leader has a clear task and the support of followers. Relatively more participative

decisions will fare better when either support or clarity is absent” (Wren, 1995, p.

89). Another giant of leadership theory is Bass and Associates, who identified

five leadership styles:

46

1. directive

2. negotiative

3. consultative

4. participative

5. and delegative (Wren, 1995, p. 89)

In this study, Bass and Associates surveyed several organizations using a large

survey that asked managers to rate whether decision styles affect a number of

features of the leadership situation. The findings, while inconsistent, did say that

effects of decision style on group performance and subordinate satisfaction

depend on the situation; but the more important finding was that “various

leadership styles were not independent of one another” (Wren, 1995, p.89).

Another Contingency Theory is the Path Goal Theory. This theory shifts

from the follower’s viewpoint to the leader’s viewpoint, because the leader has

“high clarity and follower support.” Unlike the previous theories, Path Goal has

nothing to do with decisions. Similar to a theory of supervision “The theory

predicts that leader-structuring behavior will have the most positive effects on

subordinate psychological states when the subordinate’s task is unclear and/or

difficult, that is, unstructured. The structure provided by the leader helps to clarify

the path to the goal for the subordinates” (Wren, 1995, p. 90). In a study of Path

Goal Theory, Ricky N. Griffin found that job characteristics, the needs, attitudes,

47

and expectations of the follower have an important effect on the follower’s

reaction to the leader. Managers who scored on a measure of the need for

personal growth preferred not to receive structuring supervision; conversely

subordinates low in growth need were not upset by a boring, routine job (Wren,

1995, p. 90).

While some Contingency Theories such as those discussed, deal with

either followers or leaders viewpoints; a very different type of leadership emerged

during the 60’s that would turn the hierarchy on its head. This was called Servant

Leadership. Robert K. Greenleaf defined it this way:

The servant leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling

that one wants to serve. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to

lead. The best test is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while

being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more

likely themselves to become servants? (Greenleaf, 1998, p.

Servant Leadership is important to this study because first, it ushered in the era

of student service learning, out of which The Social Change Model of Leadership

grew; but also because of the way it validated the ‘women’s way’ of leading as

okay for men. Servant Leadership grew out of the recognition in the value of

learning through experience advocated by Dewey. The student service learning

model (1980) became the name when service and experiential learning were

48

linked. “Servant-leadership advocates a group-oriented approach to analysis and

decision making as a means of strengthening institutions and of improving

society” (Greenleaf, 1998, p. 9) Larry Spears says in his introduction to The

Power of Servant Leadership (1998), that the time has come for the paradoxical

idea of putting together the words “servant” and “leadership,” because of a

monumental shift in thinking during this period in history.

As we prepare to enter the 21st century, we are witnessing a shift in

business and nonprofit organizations—away from traditional autocratic

and hierarchical modes of leadership and toward a model based on

teamwork and community; one that seeks to involve others in decision

making; one that is strongly based in ethical caring behavior; and one that

is attempting to enhance the personal growth of workers while at the same

time improving the caring and quality of our many institutions. This

emerging approach to leadership and service is called “servant-

leadership.” (Greenleaf, 1998), p. 2)

When you consider the power men wielded in these traditional hierarchical

structures you can almost feel their pain at being moved from the top to the

bottom of organization. “Servant-leadership holds that the primary purpose of a

business should be to create a positive impact on its employees and community,

rather than using profit as the sole motive” (Greenleaf, 1998, p. 9). You also don’t

see a lot of women showing much interest in this theory because this is the

49

model they had been using in their families and communities all along. It’s as if

the men came along and dreamed this all up themselves, and it never existed in

society prior to this introduction. Women and people of color, historically have

suffered under the two-tier system in which men’s lives and world were

hierarchically ordered; while women, especially African American Women

catered to men. Interestingly, Spears addresses these negative connotations of

the word “servant” for those workers, women, and persons of color who endured

them under the previous model, and urges them to move beyond these reactions

so that everyone is encouraged to seek opportunities to both serve and lead.

Transactional Approaches are more theories in support of the leader

viewpoint as it relates to the leader-subordinate relationship. Leadership

legitimation such as the controversial “Idiosyncratic Credits Theory,” developed

by Edwin P. Hollander, happens because a group bestows status upon an

individual when that individual demonstrates competence and shared values,

then the group will allow him or her to be a change agent for the group.

“Hollander’s work shows us that the legitimation of leadership is a process of

social exchange” (Wren, 995, p. 91). An example of this from my readings is A.

Kleiner’s article in the July 2003 Harvard Business Review titled, “Are you in with

the in crowd?” Kleiner argues that it’s human nature for companies to develop

core groups within organizations. These are usually people who control access to

some bottleneck. The example he uses is how inside the Coca-Cola Company

only a few people have access to the secret Coke recipe. He says smart leaders

50

are the ones who are quick to identify the “in-crowd” and lead according to his or

her perceived attitudes of the core group in order to be accepted. (p.87).

Interestingly, Kleiner claims we “can confer legitimacy on anyone but ourselves.

He says, “Indeed, what people conventionally call leadership is, at bottom, the

ability to get others to confer legitimacy on us—and thus to get others to put us in

the core group” (p. 89). A study by George Graen and associates disputes

Kleiner’s notion of “an in-crowd.” In this study using the Vertical Dyad Linkage

Model (VDL) Graen introduced a leadership training model in which the leader is

trained to assess his or her power to produce results valued by in-group followers

and negotiate the exchange of these outcomes for desired follower behaviors

and performance levels” (McElroy & Stark, 1992, p. 245 qtd in Klenke, 1995, p.

254). The study demonstrates that leaders develop specific and unique

exchanges with each subordinate and the more positive the interaction the

greater the subordinate will identify with an organization. There are many

theories in which subjects are asked to rate aspects such as their leader’s

behavior and their own satisfaction causing researchers to question whether

what they’re getting is subordinates subjective opinions or accurate reflections of

the construct being studied. Instead of dismissing these as subjective therefore

biased, we must remember that in transactional relationships subordinate’s

perceptions, biased or not, still compels leaders to conform to subordinate’s

expectation (Wren, 1995, p. 94).

Burns (1978) describes two types of leadership: transactional, which

represents the industrial models that distinguish between leaders and followers

51

like the one’s I’ve just described; and transformational leadership, which focuses

on the relationship and is more of a process for raising motivation and morality to

a higher level.(Faris & Outcalt, 2001, p. 13). During the past twenty years there

has been a decided shift away from “assumptions about scientific management,

rational decision making, positivist epistemology, and behavioristic psychology”

and towards a “more descriptive, naturalistic, phenomenology of leaders in action

(Starrat, 1993 qtd in Klenke, 1995, p. 75).

From this point forward, Leadership Theories would become known as the

“post-industrial” leadership models. Bass (1985) studied transformational

leadership by developing and using an instrument called the Multifactor

Leadership Development Program (MLQ) which classifies leaders as either

transactional or transformational. Bass found charisma to be the important part of

transformational leadership that causes followers to put forth extra effort. In

addition, Bass found that transformational leadership consists of three

components: charisma, which is described as a quality in “self-appointed leaders

who attract followers in distress or times of crisis” (Klenke, p. 76); intellectual

stimulation, which described the process that leaders use to increase followers’

awareness of problems; and individualized consideration, which means the

leader providing care support to followers. These three components interact to

produce changes in followers and their combined effects distinguish between

transformational leadership and charismatic leadership (Klenke, 1995, p. 80).

The two different worlds of transactional and transformational leadership

are similar to a comparison between management and leadership. Transactional

52

leadership lives in existing cultures, satisfies followers’ psychological and

material needs while maintaining the status quo; transformational leadership

motivates followers by appealing to collective interests, creating new visions, and

shifting their followers’ beliefs through their self-confidence, dominance, and a

strong conviction in the moral righteousness of their beliefs (Klenke, 1995, p. 81).

MLQ measures showed correlations between charisma and self-actualization. In

that study United States Air Force Cadets saw charismatic squadron

commanders as their role models because they were not only more likely to find

their leadership effective, but because they encouraged followers self-

actualization (Klenke, 1995, p. 81).

Rost (1991) insisted upon differentiating between transactional leadership

comprised of “good management” and transformational leadership comprised of

leaders who by force of their personalities can move performance of followers to

extraordinary lengths (Klenke, 1995, p. 82). For Rost, the cataclysmic changes in

Eastern Europe in 1989-90 are one of many indicators of a massive paradigm

shift. For the researchers in the text Developing Non-hierarchical Leadership on

Campus, the rapidity of change though technology, the age of information, the

internet itself all indicate this massive shift in values experienced world-wide. As

a result Rost called for a reconceptualization of leadership theory from the

industrial model to a post-industrial model in which transformation is the

cornerstone, (Klenke, 1995, p. 82); because “leadership is the outcome of the

necessary and reciprocal relationship between leaders and collaborators” (Faris

and Outcalt, p.12). How would studies of leadership theory change as a result of

53

this reconceptualization? Klenke says that first rather than being the exclusive

domain of the social sciences, it will become more multidisciplinary and

interdisciplinary in the areas of anthropology, education, philosophy, and feminist

theory. The studies themselves will rest “largely on retrospective analyses,

qualitative and descriptive studies, and questionnaire data” much like I’m doing in

this study and are also used in the Social Change Model of Leadership (SCM).

The Higher Education Research Institutes co-principal investigators, Helen

and Alexander Astin, developed this model in the 1990’s. Also known as the

Seven C’s of Change, multiple levels of interaction are framed in such a way as

to foster leadership development. These levels include, the individual, the group,

and the community/society. The seven values are 1. consciousness of self, or

knowing oneself; 2. congruence, or actions that are consistent with beliefs; and 3.

commitment, or the energy that drives the collective commitment; (individuals

strive) 4. Collaboration, or working together towards common goals; 5. common

purpose, or a groups ability to engage in collective analyses according to shared

aims; 6. controversy with civility, or recognition that conflict is inevitable and must

be solved through open and honest dialogue, (groups strive) and 7. citizenship,

or the self’s connection to the environment and community. (Community’s strive.)

(Bonous-Hammarth, 2001, p. 37). According to Marguerite Bonous-Hammarth,

“Thus, our leadership model seeks to develop a conscious and congruent person

who can collaborate with others, who can become a committed participant in the

shaping of a group’s common purpose, who can help to resolve controversy with

civility and be a responsible citizen” (p. 38) This model emerges from the belief

54

that anyone can be a leader, and that we must actively educate students to be

leaders.

Review of Current Literature

In the essay, "New Ways of leading in a networked world," Cynthia

Cherrey and Kathleen Allen describe how the internet is itself an embodiment of

the female leadership model and that this is reason enough for paradigm shift.

The equality of access and democratic approaches that creates a delivery

system for information that force the user to discern its value requires critical

thinking and active engagement, is socially constructed and an embodiment of

what it means to learn. Cherrey and Allen say:

It [the internet] can only be understood as a systemic set of actions. There

are many agents of leadership dispersed throughout a networked

organization. Leadership within a networked world can be practiced from

anywhere. In this sense, leadership has the potential of being abundant

especially if we think of it as non-positional—not just attached to position

and rank. If leadership capacities are encouraged and developed, anyone

in the network can become an agent of leadership. (p.46).

55

Cherrey and Allen describe the traditional hierarchical organizational

system as coming from the worldview in which "the whole system is understood

as a collection of parts, much like a car that is constructed on an assembly line"

(p. 40). They say it is fragmented, making them easy to identify, especially in

higher education. They say, "the ivory tower image of the academy represents a

self-contained entity, secluded from the outside environment. Within higher

education, academic and student affairs are divided by traditional boundaries

between parts" (p. 41).

It just so happens that computer technology, like the United States' twin

ideologies of market-driven economics and social democracy, embodies both

ideologies. Computers have both masculine and feminine features. Both

encourage a market-driven paradigm while simultaneously providing much

information free of charge. It permits a hierarchy and levels it by allowing all

voices to be heard; it causes isolation and dispels it; it privileges men's ways of

knowing even as it privileges women's multitasking abilities. The reason to view

leadership structure as flexible enough to encompass both leadership styles as

the need arises simply makes sense. Now, if we can construct an all-

encompassing paradigm with flexible gender boundaries for the computer, then

why can’t we construct the same for both men and women? It means more

potential leadership candidates in a dwindling pool. When the authors write,

". . .the dawning of a networked world does not supplant, but encompasses, a

hierarchical fragmented orientation by adding another layer of dynamics to the

organizations within which we operate" (p. 41), tells me that they predict society

56

will be using dichotomized gender identities for some time to come. But this

shouldn't detract from their main premise, that we should construct "the

leadership competencies" needed to create non-hierarchical organizations--

competencies such as "Collaboration," diversity in perspectives and "systems

cognition" (pp. 40-48). We should pave the way for this paradigm shift, if we truly

want to encourage and support it.

If you're not sure yet, whether a paradigm shift is desirable, you might

want to read "The Emergence of Inclusive, Process-oriented Leadership" by

Shannon K. Faris and Charles L. Outcalt, because they enumerate the evolving

meanings of leadership since the post-industrial era and credit the theorists who

developed them. If you follow their highlights, you can't help but to be impressed

that theories are moving in a more emotionally positive direction than "command

and control." Note the following recent definitions of leadership:

1 Leadership is a relationship, not the property of an individual

(Rogers, 1996)

2 Leadership is a process (Northouse, 1997; Cherrey & Isgar,

1998);

3 Leadership is about change (Rost, 1991);

4 Leadership can be learned (hesselbein et al., 1996);

5 Leadership is inclusive (Rogers, 1996, p. 305);

6 Leadership is collaborative (Rost, 1991; Northouse, 1997);

7 Leadership is comprised of relationships (Komives et al., 1996)

57

8 Leadership is oriented toward social change (HERI, 1996).

They summarize that leadership has "moved from the industrial notion that

leadership is inherited by the few, to the emerging post-industrial imperative that

everyone has inherited the mutual responsibility of leadership" (p. 14). Who has

responsibility for training leaders in our society? Higher Education. The authors

point out that the historical contexts of leadership theory and mass education are

parallel. Higher education went from serving only the elite to serving the masses,

so should leadership theory. A new epistemology for leadership seemed

especially necessary because demographics and cultural shifts in the United

States mean we need to look to everyone to provide leadership.

Can higher education adapt to change? James J. Duderstadt says higher

education can and must adapt. In his book, A University for the 21st Century, he

defines a university.

What is a university? . . .To some, the university is a place of light,

of liberty, and of learning (Disraeli, 1873) or a "place of instruction where

universal knowledge is professed." (Newman, 1996). The university has

played a critical role in the evolution of Western Civilization by stressing

broad-minded empiricism over dogma and orthodoxy and conveying the

fundamental values that under gird individual freedom and constitutional

democracy" (Shapiro).

58

To others perhaps more skeptical of such lofty definitions, the

university is a far more utilitarian entity, defined by the many roles it plays

in contemporary society; to provide an education for our citizens, to

produce the scholars, professionals, and leaders needed by society; to

preserve and transfer our cultural heritage from one generation to the

next; to perform the research necessary to generate new knowledge

critical to the progress of our nation; and to provide service to society

across a number of fronts that draw on the unique expertise of our

institutions. (pg. )

The numerous definitions suggest that even a university is a social

construct. It is what we want it to be. We must have liked our colleges and

universities, because of the exceptional growth in higher education over the past

several decades. Duderstadt says,

"From an enrollment of 3 million students and $7 billion expenditure

in 1960, higher education in the United States today enrolls over 15 million

students and spends over $180 billion per year" (p.43). He adds that over

80% of all college students attend public colleges and universities. And

although only "one quarter of the 2,215 four-year colleges in the United

States are public, these enroll almost 5.8 million students or two-thirds of

all college students in four year institutions. When the additional 5.3 million

students enrolled in public two-year colleges is taken into account, some

59

11.1 million students attend public colleges and universities, over 80

percent of the total" (p. 47).

Duderstadt talks about how universities have been stressed by change,

particularly market-driven needs of society. He stresses that change is the only

constant. He adds:

Of course, our nation has been through other periods of dramatic change

driven by technology . . .But never before have we experienced a

technology that has evolved so rapidly, increasing in power by a

hundredfold every decade, obliterating the constraints of space and time,

and reshaping the way we communicate, think, and learn. (p. 14)

He argues that although higher education's traditions keep it bound to a

slower pace of change, higher education better learn to move more quickly and

forge its own vision for the future or the market will do it for them. He says we

won't like what we're left with if that happens, for few of higher educations most

cherished traditions will survive.

In contrast to Duderstadt's assertion that higher education is slow to

change, this article says education has changed a lot since 1636, when Harvard

was founded. So perhaps the secret to understanding change is the length of

time in which we examine it. The article begins with a review of the history

60

regarding change in higher education. It points to the various forces that promote

change, everything from internal pressures such as students, faculty, and staff to

external forces, such as state legislatures and public concerns for cost, quality,

and access (p. 168). Like Duderstadt's article, this essay begins by defining the

modern university as pluralistic. In saying this, it becomes clear why higher

education is often referred to as "organized anarchy." Authors Liscinsky,

Chambers and Foley quote Birnbaum (1988) when they say

. . .governance and management within higher education must contend

with multiple sources of control, unclear or competing missions,

decentralized structure, and constrained resources (p. 169).

The biggest impediment to change is resistance, so this essay is a case

study of change at Dartmouth College using the Social Change Model and the

Seven C's to implement a strong residential life program. The change team

consisted of nine volunteer students and two professional staff. The Social

Change Model was introduced to the group, and the staff professionals facilitated

discussions rather than dominate them. It's important to note at this point how the

article says how difficult it was for staff to relinquish their power and authority to

students when they would remain responsible for the outcome of the project. The

authors concede that perhaps they should have shared facilitation with the

students, and that perhaps by not doing so, they kept control. As the authors

describe the various ways that their model failed, it became clear to me how hard

61

old habits die. Both the professionals struggled with giving up power and the

students struggled taking it on. Students have difficulty finding their appropriate

boundaries and see themselves as staff. Relationships with peers and staff

suffered. The group set a schedule. Reflection and dialogues uncovered the fact

that students had some role confusion about what was expected of them, so this

was discussed openly. Meeting minutes were recorded. Disagreement was seen

as both integral and vital. Sharing was valued, although the student-led piece

was not as successful as the professional piece. The outcome of the project was

the successful launch of the residential co-curriculum. Liscinsky, et al. Describe

the co-curriculum this way:

The curriculum has two components—the first outlines educational

objectives for the residential community while the second defines the

various roles that student staff employ to accomplish those objectives. (p.

174)

The process improved student and staff interactions and created a "new spirit of

cooperation" (p. 174). Although, these authors contend that their commitment

towards working through conflict helped them to overcome resistance, the way

the author's point out all of the pitfalls encountered along the way, leads this

reader to believe that perhaps the project wasn't as successful as the authors'

would have us think. They conclude with lessons learned, so the person who

attempts this experiment again will gain from their knowledge and experience.

62

Adams and Aqui (2001) say that high number of students from different

countries alone, necessitate understanding culture in higher education. They say

it's higher education's role to facilitate interpersonal and intergroup interactions

by creating programs whereby students learn to understand different cultures.

This, I thought, at a time when the Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting a

drastic decrease in foreign enrollments because of Attorney General Ashcroft's

repressive Patriot Act. Nonetheless, the authors say, leadership education is an

ideal vehicle because leadership is an understanding of people, their culture, and

their institutions (Adler qtd in Adams & Aqui, (2002) p. 190). Traditionally,

leadership courses in the United States have prepared leaders to lead in

monocultural orientations. However when these leaders encounter diversity, their

leadership skills break down, and conflict results. Adams and Aqui suggest that

"non-hierarchical leadership perspectives offer alternatives for applying

leadership skills in diverse cultural contexts" ( p. 191). They say it allows leaders

to transcend one's cultural worldview by developing intercultural competence.

Social construction is the principle underlying this definition of leadership,

and culture provides one of many valid ways to interpret and evaluate the world.

(p. 191) The Intercultural Leadership Seminar (ILS) became the four-day

leadership development program. The program began with a needs assessment

of students wishing to participate. The curriculum consisted of theories relating to

intercultural relations, leadership, and communication. (p. 196) Students are

63

encouraged to look closely at their own intercultural anxieties. Issues related to

marginality, in and out of group dynamics, multiple perspectives, power, privilege,

coalition-building, and inter group conflict are identified and discussed. Active

listening skills and communication skills are stressed. The authors' admitted that

open-minded people tended to be more attracted to the program.

Cress (2001) asks the provocative question:

Are higher education institutions truly cultivating and facilitating

students' abilities to plan, problem-solve, and initiate action toward social

change? Or, are colleges and universities simply providing venues for

students to practice those skills and enact those values that they already

possess upon entering higher education?" (p. 225).

Of course what she is discussing is assessment, and how well are

colleges and universities able to determine success or failure in their mission to

educate students? As for the question regarding how higher education is doing,

she notes that the public and legislatures are putting pressure on higher

education to quantify how well higher education is succeeding at educating

students, and in the absence of a plan to do so, the plan is being provided to

higher education by these constituencies in the form of increased testing. This

could be one instance that Duderstadt describes as higher educations' missed

opportunity to lead itself. But Cress says there are more important and rational

64

reasons for assessment. Its primary purpose should be to be proactive in

enhancing student learning and institutional performance. (p. 226) She links

assessment and citizenship, saying that institutions are "a collective investment

for future society" (p. 226). She says, there is a national call for the development

of democratic citizens and leaders, and institutions are answering it with

increased leadership programs. Cress uses the Social Change Model of

Leadership. She says the reason is that it "offers an integrative technique for

assessing the development of leadership skills and knowledge within a

community and societal context (p. 228) This integration also includes gender. A

participatory assessment, she says, is a value-based and inclusive process that

is focused not only on outcomes, but also on the process itself. In this case, the

Seven C's provide the framework. She espouses a meta-cognitive method that

helps students consciously participate in their learning processes and assessing

their outcomes. She explains how the Social Change Model was integrated into a

participatory self-assessment plan.

65

Reflection

I’m the middle child of a working class family of seven: the oldest, a boy,

the second oldest, a girl, me, and two other girls. Both the size and composition

of my family created family dynamics that make me who I am. My brother

enjoyed special status as both the oldest and only son in my family of predom-

nantly women, and after learning all that I have about social construction, it pains

me to think of my mother’s role in perpetuating male supremacy myths. This had

so much of an impact on me growing up that when I had children of my own, I

never wanted boys. Fortunately, I had girls, and I intentionally raised them

without the traditional female values and encouraged them to try out their

masculine selves. For instance my daughter was allowed to use my husband’s

tools, whereas I was never allowed. I tell you this because I think it is pertinent to

my years of effort at breaking gender stereotypes and the cognitive dissonance

that resulted making me a conflict- adverse person.

As a child, I was a shy person, who wanted to default into a traditional

female role so as not to draw attention to myself; yet at the same time I fought

that side of my nature by defiantly forcing myself into masculine roles. Growing

up, I was the classic tomboy. I hated everything about being a woman. I climbed

trees, competed in typical childhood yard games with my siblings and neighbors,

physically fought with people I didn’t like, and I wore my hair short. I seemed to

understand early on that the game was rigged against girls, and I struggled to

make it seem more balanced, if only for me. As a September born child, I felt I

66

had to mediate between fights between my mother and father, my father and

brother, my mother and sisters; but no matter how hard I tried I couldn’t stop the

conflict. I grew to hate conflict. Some part of me knew conflict was somehow

good because it brought about growth and change, but I learned to pick my

battles to lessen the stress.

By the time I was a teen-ager, I expected more from myself; but more than

that, I wanted my parents’ approval. The girls in my family were quite invisible in

comparison to my over-achieving brother. He was your typical alpha male body-

builder and incredibly talented all around athlete. My mother kept a display case

with his medals and trophies as a shrine. She attended every one of his games

and was his biggest advocate. I figured out that the way to win my parents’

approval and still push against gender stereotypes was to model myself after my

brother. So I became an overachiever; I kept high grades in school, my favorite

subject was English—I loved reading and writing. I participated in athletics, my

favorite was gymnastics, and as soon as the dress code allowed it, I wore pants

to school. After I broke my neck in a gymnastics accident, I thought I’d lost my

identity. But I reinvented myself, and I was the first woman in my family to attend

college. As I pushed on the boundaries of gender, I created conflict in my world.

In addition to this conflict that I created myself, I endured the inevitable conflict

that arises from within a large family in a small house. The long term effects of all

of this was that I would spend my life at war with my two natures—the social

construction of the feminine me, nurtured and encouraged by my parents, and

the self-constructed male version of me who I loved, and a genuine anxiety

67

disorder over conflict.

Case Study of my Internship Experience

In the summer of 2003, I embarked on my internship. The internship was

in the department of University Relations.

My decision to intern in this particular department sprang from my

educational leadership coursework with an emphasis in higher education and my

hobby and interests in politics. I am myself an elected official, park commissioner

for my Township, as well as a member of Women's Progressive Activists, an

organization committed to getting women elected to public office. I have always

participated in volunteer work and community service through active involvement

in organizations over the years, and recently, I had become quite well known

amongst women legislators in both the house and the senate through my

participation in fund-raisers and grass-roots campaigns. I wielded my influence

through my voluntary involvement in a campus organization called, the Alumni

Associations' Legislative Connection. So prolific was my influence and

contributions on behalf of the University that the Vice-president for University

Relations described me in a letter of recommendation to the graduate committee

as, "the best lobbyist the University has ever had." --a reference to my writing

and talking to the press and legislators regarding subjects of relevance to the

university. Indeed, the President of the university, in his letter of recommendation

68

on my behalf to the graduate school acknowledged my contributions to the

university. I attended several house and senate Higher Education Appropriation

meetings in support of the president, and the University. When combined with my

extensive course work in organization and leadership theory, I felt I had a solid

foundation in which to begin my internship. And all of these experiences

presented me with unique credentials for leadership in negotiating the

relationships the University has with its external constituencies, including both

the surrounding community and in the political community. University Relations is

especially appealing to me because it is one of the few campus departments led

by women. I was excited for the opportunity to be mentored by these savvy

women who had penetrated the "good old boy network."

The way I wish to proceed through my case-study is to present my actual

journal filled with my reflections taken at the time I experienced them. After

having read the literature on leadership, I will analyze my experiences both in

terms of my own prior knowledge and experience and the literature presented in

this study, and provide the reader with my sense making. So following this

paragraph, the actual unedited journal will come first, followed by my analysis.

69

Journal Entry 7-03-03

Date: 7-03-03 Goal: Get started and Establish a routine. Brief Description of Activity: This week I arrived at Welch Hall, Monday through Thursday from 8- 10 am and reported to my office in University Relations. During this time, I got acquainted with my computer and phone, created documents needed for my internship. Because of problems with internet access, I researched the EMU online database of articles and books off site. I printed out articles, which could be read while on site. Next I went to the library and collected 14 resources, which I could examine while at Welch. I have enough reporting, reading, annotating, and creating a bibliography to keep me busy until online access is restored to my computer.

Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: I can’t express how proud I am to be climbing the steps of Welch Hall to “work.” I take my responsibilities there as seriously as any paying job. The secretaries who work in University Relations are friendly and welcoming towards me, which I appreciate. I have been establishing a routine of reporting every morning to University Relations at 8 am until 10:00 am. They’ve invited me to share their coffee, and they’ve shown me where I might find supplies I might need. On my desk, I see someone has already created binders with my charge clearly spelled out on the spines, like Political Action Committees, Michigan Senate, Michigan House, and Michigan Congressional delegation which are all part of my research. The first week, my computer did not function properly. When Kathleen Tinney found this out she said, “You know you’re free to work on anybodies computer in this office, if they’re not here, including mine.” I was quite taken by this, because there aren’t many people who would share their computer with just anyone, much less an intern. Her willingness to share her computer was equivalent to her sharing her power with me, and I felt quite humbled by the trust she expressed in her single act of kindness. Carol, Kathleen Tinney’s secretary got my computer taken care of so quickly, I never had to “borrow” someone elses computer. Now I have a clean install in which to work. I hear the office women’s casual conversation from inside my office. When someone sneezes, someone calls out “God Bless You.” Their easy banter tells me they have relationships of mutual respect. I hate to seem like I’m unfriendly, but it’s important to me to maximize the two hours I have to get as much accomplished as possible, so I don’t linger and chat unless someone asks me a question. Still it’s reassuring to me to hear their laughter and camaraderie, because it dispels any notion of hierarchy. These women collaborate with one another to make sure the goals are accomplished. I’ve heard them provide thorough planning and support for the vice-president, and associate vice-president with professionalism and care, whether it be for a division planning meeting or preparations and travel accommodations for a major conference in Washington, D.C. When the vice-president made mistakes checking into her Washington Hotel with a

70

detailed agenda provided to her by her industrious secretary; there wasn’t even a hint of hostility, anger, or resentment. Instead the secretaries laughed with her, not at her. This is my favorite kind of work environment. It’s so different from Continuing Education, where staff are afraid to say what the really think, and where they are not allowed to talk to anyone a level above their supervisors. The air was stultifying. If anyone dared speak it was behind closed doors, in hushed tones. I’m excited to have been invited to participate in the Division Planning Meeting to be held at Washtenaw Country Club, July, 11 and 12. I took personal time in order to participate.

Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: I do not have any suggestions at this point because collaborating, sharing responsibility, and extending mutual respect, in a non-hierarchical, non-threatening environment are all leadership qualities I wish to master. I should practice the fine art of small talk though, so I seem more approachable.

Analysis

It’s fitting that my internship experience should begin and end with a

classic gender inspired irony. Although conventional wisdom presumes men to

be more typically technology savvy, I work in a computer lab, and regard myself

as knowledgeable; yet my first and my last days as an intern were mired with

computer trouble beyond what I could fix. On the first day the technology

department cleared the old computer and set it up with a fresh installation of

software. On the last day, I tried to load the enormous Qualified Voter File onto

that same computer causing it to crash. Was this a foreshadowing that my thesis

for this paper was wrong—that gender does, indeed, play a large part in setting

our expectations about what women can and can’t do? Or was it more likely an

indication that we can make gender stereotypes mean what we want them to

71

mean and they are therefore, unreliable schemas? What would my internship

experience teach me about myself, and my beliefs about gender?

I came into the internship with gender-driven expectations. I believed that

some behaviors were masculine and some feminine, and that leadership was no

different. There’s no shortage of texts to support this perspective. For instance, in

Judith Thompson Witmer’s, Moving Up! A Guidebook for women in educational

administration, I found the following description of gender styles, “It could be said

that the masculine style uses structural power, which is based on authority

associated with position, title, and the ability to reward and punish, while the

feminine style relies on charisma, work record, and contacts” (Rosener qted in

Witmer, 1993, p. 23). I wanted to believe that my mentor, whom I will call Ms. M

for mentor, was a great leader, and I expected to ascertain in short order whether

she used a masculine or feminine model of leadership.

At this point, it’s important that I share some prior knowledge and

experience. I’m both staff and student at this institution, and I know that the

administration is hierarchical. I also know that according to the Affirmative Action

Audit 2000-2001 “of the corporate level employees who report directly to the

president and have substantial line management authority” (Internal Document)

only 33.3 percent were women. So the fact that I even found female leaders at

this institution under which I could intern was remarkable. What I didn’t know was

whether these women rebelliously displayed typically female leadership styles to

contrast the male dominant culture, or whether they had actually been forced to

adapt and adopt a masculine leadership style. It’s clear to me that I had hoped

72

they’d show a feminine style.

So my reflections discuss clues I saw that informed me one way or the

other. For instance, on the issue of the computer, she tells me I’m “free to work

on anybodies computer in the office, including hers.” I saw this as a great leveling

of the hierarchy. I said, “Her willingness to share her computer was equivalent to

her sharing her power with me, and I felt quite humbled by the trust she

expressed in her single act of kindness.” My reference to the word “power” is

meant to be in the traditional sense. “The ideal leader from this traditional

viewpoint is independent, tough, decisive, and individualistic” (Witmer, 1993, p.

180). I saw her invitation to use her computer as elevating me to her stature. This

is important because this was the point that I began to realize that unconsciously,

I coveted a masculine leadership style. Although I did use the secretaries ‘

computers from time to time, I never used Ms. M’s. I didn’t believe I had a right to

her computer. In Women in Leadership, a contextual perspective, K. Klenke

says, in hierarchical models of leadership the leader is someone who has

authority and controls resources in order to achieve a particular objective. By

definition, this person exercises power over those he or she leads” (p. 154).

Computers are a resource, and with out a doubt I believed Ms. M. had power

over me. At the very least, she had the power to say whether I would graduate or

not. The fact that I believed I didn’t have a right to her computer, even after she

gave it to me, shows I was following a different paradigm than the female

empowerment model I thought I was practicing. I think this speaks to my

assumptions about myself as an intern in relation to “power.”

73

Speaking of power, it is very clear to me that I’m quite envious of other

women who have it. Listen to me speak with pride of going into Welch Hall as if

this were a real job and my permanent location. At the same time, I hear my self-

deception about responsibility versus getting to know everyone. I was trying to

present myself as a business-like, no nonsense worker. I demonstrated my

working class work ethic. This directly contradicts any belief I might have had

about belonging there. My actions showed humility. I actually believed I didn’t

belong there, and I felt my behavior should not show that I presumed as much.

Socializing paled in comparison to my work ethic. But at the same time, the fact

of the matter was, it’s much easier for me to self-direct my work than it is to be

social. So I was definitely falling back on traditional gender behavior of

submissiveness, and I was making excuses for myself. Another interesting part

about power and me is the fact that I claim in my reflection to dislike hierarchy

with its old fashioned leader at the top of an organization, while at the same time

wishing for it for myself. By in large, I was constructing a non-hierarchical

environment from the evidence I saw; but realized that without the requisite

social skills, I would experience difficulty in a leadership role in a non-hierarchical

environment. Is not being required to be social the reason for my preferring a

traditional leadership style? I don’t think so. Traditional leaders need social skills

too. Simply, I hoped that working hard would make up for this self-perceived

shortcoming.

Despite my commitment to feminism And my purported desire for a

collaborative female leadership style, I had been thoroughly indoctrinated by my

74

upbringing and by society that there was only one legitimate leadership style, and

that was the masculine one. “Men’s traditional leadership style is hierarchical,

action-oriented and, sometimes, quasi-military” (Witmer, 1993, p. 180). I attribute

this to growing up feeling powerless in a male dominant world. I earned the right

to enter this exclusive club by virtue of my studies in educational leadership, and

I didn’t want to get in by what seemed to me to be illegitimate means. For me

changing from a masculine to feminine paradigm was illegitimate because I didn’t

have to change, the paradigm changed.

Journal Entry 7-11-03

Date: July 11, 2003 Goal: Observe meeting leadership & etiquette Brief Description of Activity: University Relations Division Annual Planning Meeting. From 7:30 am to 5:00 pm the University Relations Division met at Washtenaw Country Club for their annual planning meeting. A continental breakfast, lunch, and dinner was provided for the first day, and continental breakfast and lunch was served on the second day. We were each given an empty binder, and presenters came with a hard copy of their PowerPoint materials three-hole-punched for the convenience of attendees. The V.P.’s secretary, L, was very organized, she even remembered to bring a three-hole-punch. An agenda was provided, as well as ancillary reading materials related to a recent survey in the Chronicle for Higher Education about attitudes towards higher education. Introductions preceded the agenda. The agenda began with the V.P. discussing the higher education appropriations negotiations. She then turned the meeting over to a representative of the university lobbyist, K D, who proceeded to inform us about the strategies they are taking and the mood in the capital. Subsequently, other groups presented their news and year-end self- assessments. The meeting concluded with a group effort to brainstorm new goals for the various divisions.

75

Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: I knew many people in the meeting. Carrying polite conversation has always been a challenge for me because I’m not good at small talk. I tend to talk passionately about the matters I care about, and it puts people off. So when one person remarked “How about those democrats who hid out in Oklahoma to avoid a quorum in the Texas legislature.” In an attempt at small talk, I responded quickly because I knew a lot about this topic. I said, “While it’s very funny, it’s a serious matter because by law the republicans are not supposed to be redrawing district lines except after a census. This is a flagrant abuse of power that is now happening in Colorado. Someone has to challenge them in a court of law.” Silence fell. I realized I had made the assumption that this man was a democrat, when in fact; it was entirely possible he was a republican—after all he was mocking the democrats. I looked around the room and realized all of the separate divisions are entrepreneurial groups who very likely have market-driven interests. The silence was also telling. Note to self: how do my mentors handle situations like this? Interestingly both Ms. M and the V.P. seem to walk a fine line between partisan politics. L commented that after all of these years working for the V.P. she has no idea whether she’s a republican, democrat, or independent. Everyone was fully aware of my party affiliation immediately after my introduction when I told them I was treasurer for the Hillary Rodham Clinton Support Network (an local grassroots organization intending to support Hillary if she runs for president of the US.) Perhaps they key to lobbying is the ability to talk to both parties equally without allowing partisanship to enter the equation. Other Leadership observations: The V.P. knows details about all of her people and shares them with the group when they are being introduced. She speaks directly to people, makes eye contact, and asks “how are you doing?” Or “what do you think of the meeting so far?” She has presence and charisma before her people, which are evidenced by the way she carries herself, dresses, and her easy laugh. She is equal; yet she is a leader. She is not a dictator. She seems not to be hierarchically inclined. She speaks frankly and honestly about sensitive economic issues relating to higher education appropriations. I heard people commend her for her candor after word. Ms. M is knowledgeable too. She speaks easily before a group. When introduced, she said “I do whatever the V.P. wants me to do.” While this could be construed as self-effacing, I actually saw it as immense loyalty and teamwork. Both women are meticulous when it comes to details. I observed evidence of discontent by attendees regarding the universities official arrogant response to the communities concerns, and realized that even at this high level everyone recognize the epistemological split between what the university says it believes and how they act.

76

Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: I need to strike a balance between speaking without thinking about the assumptions I might be making and not speaking at all out of fear and paralysis of saying the wrong thing. I do have the organization skills, the attention to detail down. I am more self-effacing than leader like. Right now, I think humility will take me a long way because I’m still learning. Technically, I am proficient at using technology to make presentations such as were made here today. I did contribute to the discussion whenever I felt it appropriate. Both Ms. M and the V.P. extended warmth and graciousness to me when I spoke.

Analysis

It’s safe to say that I now see a pattern developing. I obliviously continued

my unexamined assumptions about people based on stereotypes. In my first

reflection and analysis I relied on gender stereotypes. In this one I relied on the

arrangement of the furniture to tell me what type of model I was in. I also relied

on the tired old political stereotypes—left leaning, progressive individuals are

democrats and right leaning, conservative individuals are republican. I had no

idea how much I relied on these to provide me with clues as to how I should act

and what I should say. More importantly though I didn’t want to believe the

evidence before me that my female led division was actually hierarchical and not

collaborative as I feigned to have hoped.

I was invited to participate in the departments all day division-planning,

meeting. I went eager to learn about the administration of university relations. I

didn’t even know which departments were aligned under this department. If I

sound as if I expected and found a hierarchical organization, I did. But dismissed

it as being deeply embedded in the larger culture of the university. To the extent I

77

thought it humanly possible, I assumed that these women would have created a

non-hierarchical division culture. So I continued constructing a non-hierarchical

organizational style for the group from the evidence presented to me.

Let me pause for a moment to reflect on why I might do that. I was taught

an epistemology, or teaching philosophy that tore down the traditional,

hierarchical, and authoritarian model of teacher in favor of a more collaborative,

student centered, teacher as facilitator model in all of my education classes at

this university. I had reflected and written about the apparent epistemological

split at this university before, arguing that the two needed to be reconciled. As a

woman and a teacher, I know, believe, and practice this epistemology in my

teaching, and assumed I’d carry these beliefs over to my administration

practices. (At least before I figured out that I was actually pining for a traditional

hierarchical model in administration for myself.) I also assumed these women

would too. One of the outward signs of a collaborative epistemology is the layout

of the room. A circle formation implied equality. So when I encountered a u

shaped configuration, I thought, “Well, it isn’t a circle, but darn near.” I committed

another unexamined assumption. The shape of the furniture immediately

confirmed for me that this was a collaborative model, and I began to allow myself

to feel comfortable in this environment.

The next unexamined assumption I made was regarding partisan politics.

While I’m not good at small talk, I can and do speak fearlessly and very

passionately about leftist issues I care a great deal about while in my feminist

organizations where I know I’m with like-minded people. This is exactly what I did

78

in my first moment of socializing. I made the mistaken assumption that because I

perceived the group to be non-hierarchical they’d also be politically democratic.

So when two men discussed a current event in which the democrats of the Texas

Legislature hid out in Oklahoma in order to avoid a quorum for a redistricting vote

that came up, my rebuttal demonstrated my partisanship. I said,

“The forced redistricting by the republicans should be challenged in a

court of law.”

I realized I was out of my element. I felt as embarrassed as if I were a gay

person who inadvertently revealed my sexual preferences. Were my mental

models leading me astray or was I just too uncomfortable to speak my mind in

the presence of people of different political ideologies? Both, I think. This is

another case of being socialized not to discuss religion or politics in mixed

company because it will invariably end up in a fight. A part of me, perhaps the

leader in me loves a good fight, but clearly in this situation I was not a leader and

I was out of line in my presumptions. That’s when I took a good hard look at the

materials presented in the binder about the divisions, and realized that if ever

there were going to be a traditional hierarchical organization for a division, this

would be it because all of the divisions were entrepreneurial agents. Suddenly

the u shaped layout lent itself to a hierarchical format because the two women in

charge sat at the head table, and I no longer fit in. I noticed that I had no idea

what party either of the women was affiliated with, and I censored myself after

79

that. This was consistent with my behavior in the office where I was guarded and

awkward socializing, and I think it’s because my role as an intern left me feeling

illegitimate and without credibility. The result of all of these unexamined

assumptions was conflict. In the R.B. Winston, D.G. Creamer, & T.K. Miller &

Associates text, The professional student affairs administrator, educator, leader,

and manager, D. Roberts writes in his essay called “Leading,” that

A shift in paradigms, regardless of where it occurs, means that

there are multiple and conflicting realities present at the same time and in

the same environment. Most institutions of higher education are still

characterized by bureaucracy, control, power, competition, and the

resulting divisiveness they create. This is part of the reality of working in

the higher education environment. (p. 397)

Given that I didn’t feel comfortable speaking, I turned all of my attention to

studying the relational skills of the leadership, since this was an area in which I

felt I lacked. I envied their confidence and poise, and in my journal I made note of

the specific ways each one conversed and handled herself. The vice-president

dressed and carried herself in a feminine way. I thought the vice-president to be

charismatic. Since the literature reveals so many different meanings for “having

charisma” I’ll differentiate my use of the term again as being traditional. Leading

theorists of Trait Theory, Stogdill and Bass defined leadership in precisely the

way I would define “charisma.”

80

A leader is characterized by a strong drive for responsibility and

task completion, vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals,

venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, a drive to exercise

initiative in social situations, self-confidence and sense of personal

identity, willingness to accept consequences of decision and action,

readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration

and delay, ability to influence other persons’ behavior and capacity to

structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand. (Bass, 1981,

p. 81 qtd in Klenke, 1996, p. 60).

The contemporary meaning of charisma is “leaders who elevate the goals

of followers, sharing power with them, converting followers into leaders, and

being shaped by the followers” (Klenke, 1996, p. 75). This is how I hoped I would

experience the vice-president but definitely not how I experienced her. In fact, I

had initially asked the vice-president to mentor me in my internship and she

delegated responsibility to the associate vice-president, Ms. M. I also had hoped

I’d experience the associate vice-president as elevating me, sharing power with

me, and converting me into a leader, but I didn’t experience that either. I was

treated like a sub-contractor who was brought in to perform some temporary

work. The associate vice president’s demeanor was quite self-effacing in a

feminine manner. (Her behavior reminded me of my own personality.) She

displayed a masculine intelligence, which included critical thinking skills and a

81

stoic personality, but she was submissive. For instance, when introduced she

described her job as “doing whatever [the boss] tells me to do.” I observed that

the two together perfectly complimented each other. Neither made any promises

to faculty or staff in their division regarding complaints, but both demonstrated

willingness to listen. As for the issue of their party affiliation or seeming lack of

one I should say, I constructed the idea that they must have made a conscious

effort to hide any political ideology they might hold for fear of appearing too

partisan on issues while negotiating for money with the legislature.

Finally, I noticed group dynamics were at play in the way people divided

themselves up into small familiar groups for breaks and lunch, and that this

amplified my feelings of not fitting in, which in turn reinforced my unwillingness to

engage in small talk. I was extremely guarded, because I had made so many

mistakes so far. I used to be unable to tolerate the ambiguity of social situations

and experienced great anxiety, but by forcing myself into these situations often, I

am learning how to let conflict help me grow as a person.

82

Journal Entry 7-17-03

Date: July 17, 2003 Goal: To understand steps for creating a PAC Brief Description of Activity: I downloaded and printed the PAC forms and manual from the State of Michigan, and I downloaded and printed the IRS Manual on Political Organizations. I added the documents to my working bibliography. I read the documents, annotated them, and began to make a list of steps. At the same time, I became treasurer of the Hillary Rodham Clinton Support Network which requires that I essentially do everything I will have to do for the Alumni Association’s PAC. I made an appointment to meet with the V.P. and Ms. M to present my findings.

Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: I struggled with the importance and necessity of actually performing this work and somehow meeting my mentors’ expectations of what an intern should do. Ms. M said something last week like “You don’t have to hide out in that room.” I took this to mean that I must initiate a relationship with the secretaries and with her and the V.P. Everyday, I hear the staff talking small talk easily with one another, and I know I need to propagate friendships by sharing; but I’m concerned I won’t get the work done. Again, somehow I must strike a balance, so I don’t seem remote. In an e-mail I outright asked Ms. M if she had any expectations that perhaps I was not meeting. I didn’t hear back what these might be, so I asked other more specific questions, which also went unanswered. I concluded that Ms. M is having her secretaries “log in” my e-mail summaries regarding my activities, so that she will be able to use these documents as a guide to my progress over the internship and that she probably isn’t reading them right now. Note to self: don’t ask important questions in e-mails. Ask these face to face.

Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: Perhaps the reason these situations are so hard for me is it’s easier to be remote than confront my anxiety and uneasiness over saying the wrong thing. This is why I am so confident writing—because I have time to revise, review, and put assertiveness into my writing voice that is hard for me to achieve in person. I feel quite proficient in my research, analytical, and writing skills---which makes me something of a loner. I need to break out of my self imposed isolation. I need to grow by getting out of my safe space and confronting the areas like “socializing with small talk” where I need work. Jerry, my husband says to make people talk about themselves; then be a good listener.

83

Analysis

Being self disciplined enough to work alone is perhaps my greatest

strength. I can accomplish virtually anything I set out to do in this context. I see

myself as a very capable, independent worker, and it’s that self-confidence that

propels me to achieve. But I also have low self-esteem in other areas. Ms. M

began to notice my lack of social skills and said something like, “You don’t have

to hide out in that room.” This caused me to think about working on my

relationship with Ms. M. Hill & Raglund (1995) speak about mentorship relations

by quoting Matczynski and Comer’s (1991) five stages of mentorship

relationships.

1. Careful selection and time for evaluating each other.

2. Development of Trust

3. Mentor nurtures growth of mentee.

4. Mentors begin to intervene for mentees.

5. Mentee begins disengaging and refocusing as an individual with the

mentor close at hand as a safety net. (p.81)

In examining what I did against these stages, I’d say I failed the first point,

because initially I wanted the vice-president as a mentor. In my current situation,

I saw myself as “developing trust.” I wanted to establish a rapport, so I wouldn’t

feel so darn awkward around her, so I began looking for an opportunity. I arrived

84

at work before her. When she did arrive, she never looked in to say hi to me, so I

assumed that she felt that it was my responsibility to go to her. This caused me

to consider the other expectations she might have for me of which I was

unaware. Having been betrayed by all of my previous attempts at making

meaning through the use of stereotypes, I was afraid to assume anything. So I

asked in an e-mail, but received no response. I figured out that she had her

secretaries read and log in all of my e-mails, because I rarely received an

answer. I had to ask her face-to-face. Here was a chance for Ms. M to fulfill stage

3 and “nurture growth of mentee,” instead, I didn’t get my question answered,

and I remained puzzled by what was happening, what she thought was supposed

to happen, and what I thought was supposed to happen.

At this point, I’d like to apply the Interstate School Leaders Licensure

Consortium (ISLLC) framework as described in the text, The Standards-based

administrative internship, putting the ISLLC Standards into practice, and from

which the policies governing this internship was based. Initially, I was instructed

to discuss my plan with my mentor and then submit my plan for my internship. At

the outset my plan didn’t survive the cut. Hill & Raglund (1995) said,

If the principal had regarded the new assistant principal as a

dumping ground for tasks he did not wish to handle, consider the

difference in experience and growth. If he had embraced the “let them

make it on their own” philosophy, neither the principal, assistant principal,

nor the students would have benefited. (p. 83)

85

Unlike the above positive scenario, Ms. M. had very specific ideas about

what she wanted me to do. In fact, she told me that they were severely

understaffed in that department and had put in a request for a support position

prior to the university hiring freezes and budget cuts. Needless to say the

position went unfilled, or at least not paid. I believed that I’d fulfill all of these

needs and in return I’d be taught how to be an administrator. I didn’t mind doing a

lot of work, because I hoped that if I proved my competence, I’d be the first

person they would think of the next time the budget for new hires was restored.

But contrary to the previously mentioned 4th stage of “mentors intervening for

mentees,” Ms. M. advised me not to look for employment in higher education, but

rather in K-12. She seemed to be discouraging me of the very thing for which I

was hoping. The ISLLC guide calls for mentors to

Be a positive role model, so that the intern can learn through

observing the mentor’s actions and daily interactions with others. The

intern should be introduced to the best administrative practices by being

permitted to observe not only the mentor but also other outstanding

administrators in the district and region. The mentor should continually

assume the role of teacher, openly explaining actions and discussing the

reasons for those actions. (Hackmann et al, 2002, p. 21)

This made me realize how incredibly difficult Ms. M. was to “read.”

She typically looked at me with an expressionless face, and her language had

86

neither highs nor lows, which made me feel enormously uncomfortable in my

skin. I internalized this as “my fault” because I “rely too much on body language”

when interpreting how I am coming across to others. Since I didn’t particularly

want to ask any questions much less important ones face to face. I isolated

myself, thereby completing the 5th stage—disengaging from the mentor even

before I had engaged. She didn’t embrace me warmly or make me feel

comfortable in her presence. So the question became in terms of leadership,

whose fault was it? It was both of our faults, because we were each working out

of different frameworks. The fact that I blamed myself, is evidence of my lifelong

acculturation and socialization to typical female gendered behavior. But more

importantly, I was beginning to realize that most of my discomfort arose from my

lack of legitimacy, which came from my being an intern more than from my

perceived lack of social skills. I hate to make a negative impression. I rationalize

that this must be why I love to write—I can take my time when writing to get what

I want to say right. I’m a perfectionist and a control freak. How can someone like

that reasonably expect to be comfortable as an intern, much less talk off the cuff

without any damage control in place?

87

Journal Entry 7-23-03

Date: July 23, 2003 Goal: Get acquainted Brief Description of Activity: This week I was supposed to attend the initiation meeting of the new members of the Alumni Connection. They met Monday evening at a fine restaurant. Over the weekend, I received a 3 paged rejection letter from the Dean regarding my appeal for admission into the Ed.D program. I tried to brush it off, but clearly it bothered me a great deal. So I handed the letter to Ms. M for her to read. I had informed her of my appeal just so her office would know what I was doing. She didn’t read it. Depressed, I went home and fell asleep.

Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Now I’m incredibly embarrassed to have missed that meeting. I had to look the V.P. and the associate V.P. in the eye and apologize. I asked Ms. M, “How far in the doghouse am I?” She said, graciously, “Not at all.” I heaved a sigh of relief. Then she said, “It was supposed to be a learning experience.” Guilt. Of course it was. I told her that I hadn’t been myself since receiving the 3 paged letter from the Dean rejecting me from the program that I had worked hard for three years to get into. Then I chastised myself for making excuses. There are no excuses. So I said that when I saw the V.P. “I’m sorry to have missed last nights meeting.” She said, “Oh, that’s okay, things come up.” She was being kind, but I know she thought I had something more important to do. Guilt. Like sleep? Come on Valerie—you seem to be sleeping all the time. A sign that your depression is kicking in. I told her, “There’s no excuse.” It felt good to chastise myself. But I was still agitated all day. I beat myself up. I frowned until my head hurt. By the end of the day, I was so exhausted from being agitated and angry with myself, I went for a long swift walk to decompress. I felt a lot better after word. I’m trying to understand my motive for giving the letter to Ms. M. I’m trying to reach out to her, to establish a rapport? I guess I wanted her to see that the faculty discounts my work (and hers by extension). I expected outrage that two arms of the university could have such opposing viewpoints. Of course, this is probably nothing new to her. The administration and the faculty have traditionally always been at odds. But in an Educational Leadership program? A place where they teach you how to be an administrator? At this point I took these issues directly to Ms M. I told her about how the book says that academe sees itself as above the fray of politics and lobbying. The book explained that higher ed sees itself as “a public good.” She asked me the copyright date. I said 1998. She said she was surprised it was so recent because things have changed a lot. Lobbying has become more respectable and necessary.

88

Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: I can’t take personally the actions of others. Ms. M was busy and simply didn’t have time to look at my letter. I asked her for a copy and told her why. She said that when my internship is through, she and the V.P. could write a letter to the Dean about letting me in. She says nothing is ever final. This shows both confidence and leadership, and explains why her response to my issue was not nearly as intense as was mine. She also suggested that there is a great deal of opportunity in this field, and I shouldn’t limit myself to higher education—but to look broadly. It took leadership on my part, to walk into her office and ask her about this specific issue. I gave her a brief history of me. Told her about my Down Syndrome child who died and how I worked in the disability movement as an advocate. Advocacy always seemed to be my strength. The bonus was that she shared with me a story about her Down Syndrome son. I was delighted that we share this in common. I outright asked her whether I could interrupt her from time to time, just to talk like this. She said she’d tell me if it wasn’t a good time. Note to self. Don’t take it personally if she can’t talk to you about an issue.

Analysis

In this journal entry I found my opportunity to reach out to Ms. M. As to

what mentors do, “Simply stated, mentors guide, train, and support a less skilled

or experienced person called a novice, mentee, or protégé” (Hill & Ragland,

1995, p. 72). Regarding the extent to which different organizations embrace

mentoring, Hill & Ragland (1995) say, “A continuum from one extreme to another,

with myriad approaches in between . . .”( p. 78). They describe one of the

extreme cultures this way:

• Cultures of Isolationism – Collaboration is seen as a threat to the power

structure. Competition is encouraged and even cutthroat among fellow

employees. (p. 79)

I had been invited to dinner at a fine restaurant as part of the Legislative

Connection, but after receiving a three paged letter from the dean saying I was

89

refused entry into the educational leadership graduate program I felt I was in a

culture of isolationism. I became emotional and depressed, and frankly forgot to

go. When I get this depressed, I sleep a lot, as if I’m trying to tune out the world.

In addition, I was in violation of ISLLC standards, which state:

Be professional, dependable, and consistent. Even if the internship

is unpaid, the administrator candidates should approach the assignment

with the same level of dedication as if it were a fully compensated position.

All commitments should be honored and addressed as if the individual

were employed in the host district. (Hackmann et al, 2002, p. 25).

I embarrassed myself again. I apologized with my tail between my legs. I

explained the impact the dean’s letter had on me all the while being angry with

myself for trying to justify my behavior rather than assume responsibility for it. I

gave her the letter in hopes she’d read it and we could talk about it, but either

she never read it or she never revealed to me that she had.

Psychosocial functions are often less distinct and probably not as

overtly outlined by the mentor or the mentee. When the mentor supports,

validates, and reassures, the mentee’s self confidence is enhanced and

her or his outlook is improved. Psychosocial functions may be less

definitive, but they are certainly as powerful as career guidance mentoring

90

in affecting the novice’s future. (Hill & Raglund, 1995, p. 74)

So distant from her daily life was my letter that I had to ask for the letter back at

the end of my internship. I felt that I had made myself vulnerable by sharing this

highly personal matter, and betrayed and dumb when it meant nothing to her.

The above quote validates in my mind, that what I wanted from her wasn’t

unreasonable. I tried again when I asked if the reason I was excluded from

graduate school was because I strayed from wanting to teach. There is hostility

between faculty and administration. Although she said “No.” I felt I was onto

something. Was I a victim of the epistemological split I spoke of earlier and railed

against? My readings since have shown me that the acceptable career path is to

advance through the degrees all the while working at level-appropriate teaching

assignments. Only after I completed my Ph.D. and was hired in a tenure track

position could I have any reasonable expectation to move up into administration.

I had been breaking all of the rules for following a career path, and now I broke

them again while trying to get into graduate school. The mistake I made was in

believing that my years as an adjunct counted. Nothing in a “freeway fliers’” life

counts.

Back to my conversation with Ms. M, I even talked about a subject I hadn’t

discussed in a long time, the death of my first-born daughter who had Down

syndrome. It turned out that Ms. M too had a Down syndrome son. I thought we

were finally making headway. We were finally finding shared interests. I

applauded myself for persevering through these three subjects despite not

91

receiving any acknowledgement from her. I had tried. I made myself vulnerable.

What would she do with it? I desperately wanted and needed her to toss me a

lifeline, and when it didn’t happen, I holed myself up again.

Journal Entry 7-28-03

Date: July 28, 2003 Goal: Meeting Leadership Brief Description of Activity: Commencement Graduation Report Meeting of July 29, 2003, 206 Welch Hall.

Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Ms. M. arrived in 206 Welch with a brief agenda, which she distributed. She introduced me to each of the attendees as they arrived. I looked them in the eye, as I gave them a firm handshake. The agenda began with background information regarding her request for specific information about which EMU students come from which legislative district. She said DJ was the first legislator to request a list of his graduates from registration, so that he could congratulate them. She said there are now 4 or 5 senators now asking for this information Seating herself at the head of the table, she spoke calmly and knowledgeably, pulling numbers from her head about the latest legislative battle for higher education appropriations. She flatly stated that these appropriations were political and then gave an example. Since EMU doesn't have anybody from our district serving on the higher ed. appropriations committee, we are at a disadvantage. The hope is that if we provide legislators with information about EMU graduates that may be helpful to them, it might affect how they think of us. She directed me to find all of the zip codes that reside within each legislative district, so that the database at Eastern might be more easily utilized. The question, "What is your timeline?" revealed that Ms M was looking for information on who actually shows up at University beginning this Fall. She distributed copies of maps of legislative districts obtained from lobbyist K D. She said "Tell me what I need to know." expressing her willingness to do whatever it takes to get up to speed using the new database warehouse. M.B. offered to research this question. I observed Ms M’s demeanor as she conversed with these staff members. She spoke directly to each person regarding their take on what she was proposing, giving her a democratic approach. As each person present spoke or asked questions, she listened attentively, assessing the problem she was posing from their perspective. This made her seem respectful of their unique skills and abilities. They responded to her by being attentive, and courteous.

92

Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: Ms. M has a mix of male and female gender leadership traits. Her male leadership traits include her analysis ability, directness, and endurance. Her female leadership traits include a democratic, inclusive, and cooperative work style. Her personality is one of being shy, almost to the extent of being aloof. She seems least comfortable in a hierarchical setting. It seems fortuitous that she works mostly with other women in her office, because the hierarchy, while still there, isn't so obvious. Under these conditions, Ms. M seems to defer to others, as if willingly giving over power to others; other times as in this meeting, she clearly takes charge. An example is how she said in one of the meetings, "I do what the v.p. tells me to do." Another is how she walks with her head down. I wonder if this is her way of remaining accessible to those who answer to her? On the other hand, she does not seem to be an outgoing person. For instance, she never comes in to greet me on her own. She waits for me to come to her. Praising others doesn't seem to come easily to Ms. M. She is almost hypercritical, analyzing work for what's missing not for what's there. I can identify a lot with Ms. M. I'd say I certainly have her analysis ability, but I have not developed my assertiveness. I identify more with the female gender trait style of cooperation rather acting as an authoritarian. I believe Ms. M does too. This university has a reputation for being hierarchical; even a good old boys club. There aren't many women here in leadership positions. Perhaps what I'm seeing from her is the construction of herself which has evolved from years of reconciling the two leadership styles. Will I have to do this too?

Analysis

In this reflection I find myself in a meeting with some of the important

people at the university. This is definitely a hierarchical meeting. Ms. M. is at the

head of the conference room table, male and females mixed line either side of

the table, and I’m at the end. My presence as Ms. M’s intern privileges me to

attend. In Learning to lead, a handbook for postsecondary administrators, J.

Davis says, “Some people who are called managers in the secular world are

called administrators on a campus. The focus of administration is on enabling the

organization to carry out its established mission in an effective way” (p. 4).

Everyone introduces himself or herself, and I practice my strong hand-

93

shake and eye contact. I observe how Ms. M conducts the meeting. I continue to

notice traditional male and female stereotypes in my reflections. She lays out the

problem, which she describes as partisanship in the Legislature. Her solution is

to preemptively provide a service, the zip codes of graduating students from

legislators’ districts, as a method for winning favor with lawmakers.

I liked the forward thinking of this proposal. I thought all along that this

department needed to be more anticipatory of potential problems, and practice

better public relations so as to diffuse misunderstandings before they become

big. On this subject, J. Davis says,

Over the last half century, the focus of planning has moved from

long-range planning to strategic planning, and more recently to contextual

planning, a more proactive approach that suggests not only how an

institution might respond to its environment, but also how to shape that

environment in creative ways that benefit the whole higher education

enterprise. (2003, p. 43).

Everyday that I spent in the office of university relations some new “fire”

erupted. I noticed the department struggled to stay ahead of bad publicity. For

example, the V.P. announced at the divisional meeting that someone forgot to file

a form with the state regarding the private nature of funding covering

expenditures on the President’s new house, and when the republicans on the

higher education appropriations committee found out, they fined the university a

huge sum of money. Then they said they’d rescind the fine if the university

94

agreed to a state ordered audit. The construction of the President’s residence

was controversial from the start. Construction began during good economic

times, and continued through bad economic times, causing much speculation

about the university increasing tuition to students to cover the cost of the

construction. The leadership insisted that the money from tuition and the money

for construction came from different purses; but rumors were rampant. Still, the

legislators’ anger seemed to me to be more than partisanship. Besides, I’d

always thought this university had a republican administration; none of this made

sense to me.

So I wondered how effective this initiative would actually be in the scheme

of things. Ms. M delegates responsibilities to members of the group, including

me. This is when I notice the subtle distinction in Ms. M. as being a manager and

not a leader.

Distinctions between management and leadership may be made

based on a number of dimensions, including management as structure

versus leadership as process; management position versus leadership

role; and span of control vs. span of commitment. It has often been said

that management is driven by structure and leadership is driven by

process. “Structure” here refers to the formal pattern of how people and

jobs are grouped together in an organization. “Process,” on the other

hand, are the activities that give life to the structure. Leadership processes

include motivating followers, creating a vision, and affirming values.

95

Management is usually defined by the position or level the manager

occupies in the organizational hierarchy. Leadership, on the other hand . .

.has a role that is independent of position. In contrast, managerial

positions are deeply embedded in the structure of the organization and

often arranged in vertical relationships. (Klenke, 1996, p. 97)

When Ms. M delegated responsibilities to members, she was managing

according to these definitions, because she didn’t create a vision, she laid out a

plan. She wasn’t at all sure it would work. She wasn’t involved in process at all

because she wasn’t motivating others or affirming their values. She was making

people do what she wants, not making them want to do what she wants. (Davis,

2003, p. 4) I notice that she implies that I should work with “Mr. B” and create a

list of legislative district’s zip codes. Although I tried several times to meet with

Mr. B., he always ended up canceling, which made me understand that as an

intern, I had no value to him. I never spoke to anyone else in that meeting again,

except Ms. M. The colleagues ask her what is her timeline, and she answers as

soon as possible. Colored maps of legislative districts are handed around to

everyone present. She ran out when it came to me, so she gave me her copies. I

consider this is another sign of my relative unimportance. This seemed strange

because she just gave the biggest assignment to come out of this meeting to me.

As I consider my questions in my reflection, regarding whether Ms. M. is

changing before my eyes. I realize now I’m still trying to see her as a leader. She

has not yet fallen off her pedestal. In retrospect, I will not have to relinquish my

96

principles if I’m a leader; but I might have to if I’m a manager.

Journal Entry 8-08-03

Date: Aug. 8, 2003 Goal: Locate Legislative Districts by Zip Codes Brief Description of Activity: I was on vacation from July 31 to Aug. 7, so I only worked 2 days this week, Thursday and Friday. However, I did begin returning to Welch Hall in the afternoons. This starts a stint of "split-shifts" around my regular 5 hour work day. My new hours are weekdays 8-10 am and 3:30-5 pm. This week I focused on finding some source on the internet that would line up legislative districts with zip-codes. The internet got me to a description of a database called (QVS) Qualified Voter File. It contains many fields of useful information including those I'm looking for. The CD's of the entire state costs $170.00 and I got a request form from the Department of State. I have to find out if there is money to acquire this database. I also began to research the legislators on the Senate and House Higher Education Appropriations Sub-Committees. I found biographies on Senators G and P, as well as the bills they have introduced. While I was doing research in the office, I heard Ms. M come into the main part of the office, and begin speaking to the three secretaries. So I stepped out and listened while she spoke about a community meeting at which she presented information about the President's House.

Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: While I was in the office, Ms. M came in with some huge photographs of the President's House and a topographical map in tow. Apparently she and the V.P. attended a citizen's meeting with the local mayor and board present. The V.P has not been in the office lately. She injured her Achilles tendon and required surgery Aug. 1. Despite being under a Dr.'s orders, she attended this meeting, but Ms. M asked that the meeting be kept to an hour to prevent V.P’s discomfort. Ms. M said it was extremely helpful to have the legal description of the property in hand, so that she could cite it when questions regarding ownership came up. In addition, she had the land plats for the area. What was at issue was an easement. The citizens wanted a walkway through the easement from the neighborhoods to the street on the other side. The University had said they'd take a look at this request without promising they could fulfill it. To fulfill the request would mean allowing the public to walk right through the President's yard, and Ms. M said that was unacceptable. Then the mayor suggested a walkway over the berm separating the drug store and auto parts store from the President's House. She said that was unacceptable liability due to the height of the berm. The secretaries listening along with me commented on how well Ms. M did with her presentation, and praised her accomplishment. They further inquired as to what came next.

97

Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: The V.P. is a tough, no-nonsense administrator with a soft side. So I felt that the V.P.’s appearance at the community meeting on crutches spoke volumes about her ability to perform Servant Leadership. It seems to me that in university relations with the community there must be some deference to the community leadership, or else the university comes across as arrogant and self-serving. I was impressed with how Ms. M nurtured the V.P. by picking her up, and when the large pictures didn't fit in the V.P.’s car, Ms. M offered to drive. I don't know how the decision was made to have Ms. M do the presentation, but I suspect the V.P.’s condition may have had something to do with it. At any rate, despite the fact that these women have opposite personalities—the V.P. is gregarious; Ms. M is shy; these women cooperate with one another, and work together to achieve their goals. As Ms. M described for us the events of this meeting, I was struck how she stood steadfast, and mostly spoke objectively about the events. When her viewpoint was apparent or when she received compliments from the secretaries, she was detached and unemotional as if her recognition of the compliment might make her come across as haughty. This is definitely not her personality. She is reserved to the extent of being shy. Indeed the way she deflected compliments was by either changing the subject or simply refusing to react to them. She comes across as humble and gracious, yet confident and knowledgeable in this context. These seem to me to be a tough hold-the-line negotiation style, disguised in traditional woman gender qualities, which makes her incredibly hard to read. I can see where mannerisms such as these could help Ms. M achieve her goals of negotiating the margin between the university and the community.

Analysis

I became very excited when I found the Qualified Voter File (QVF)

because I could immediately see the bigger picture. I think about all of the ways

universities are required to present evidence of success in educating the

students in the state, and decide this database could be an indispensable tool to

the university, and may even answer the question about zip codes and legislative

districts as well. I was distracted by voices. In another effort at being social, I

came out into the office to hear Ms. M’s description of a meeting before the

township that she had just attended. To begin with, I was struck by the manner in

which Ms. M. was protective of her boss. She drove her boss who had a cast on

98

her leg to the meeting, and Ms. M. attempted to keep to a reasonable meeting

length for her bosses’ comfort. It was fascinating to see how the vice-president

struggled with projecting her strength while on crutches. It’s as if she were afraid

someone might exploit any perceived weakness in her. More importantly though

was how she relied on Ms. M. to do the presentation that she would have

otherwise done herself. This shows a capacity to delegate, which is good—but it

seemed so out of her nature to give up her control in this situation. Now that I

think back on the way Ms. M. talked about this meeting, I realize that both she

and the V.P. went into it with their minds made up as to how far they would be

pushed by the community. There was no spirit of collaboration going on. J.

Kouzes & B. Posner (2003) say, “Leadership is a relationship” (p. 2).

Success in leadership and success in life has been, is now, and will

continue to be a function of how well people work and get along with one

another. Success in leading will be wholly dependent upon the capacity to

build and sustain those human relationships that enable people to get

extraordinary things done on a regular basis.

(Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 3)

This is the kind of arrogance I see the administration at this university commit a

lot. The community is working class, and the university sees itself in loftier ways.

As a working class person, I identify with the community. I had encountered this

99

problem before in other analyses. I saw my own ongoing trials and tribulations

with the university as a class conflict. Because I had so much trouble getting

accepted into the doctoral program, the university has been a challenging place

for me. J. Davis says,

Perhaps the greatest leadership challenge facing higher education

today is to create an environment that values leadership at all levels of the

institution. Sometimes this challenge is referred to as “creating a culture of

leadership” that “empowers all members of the institution”. A culture of

leadership draws on the combined efforts of those in designated positions

of leadership and persons in various roles scattered across the institution

who might be leaders if they only thought of themselves in that way and

were prepared to lead. (2003, p. vii)

As for the zip code assignment, I knew it was going to be challenging, but

I saw it as an opportunity to show off my talents to a larger audience, including

Mr. B. In their text, Academic administrator’s guide to exemplary leadership,

Kouzes and Posner say, “We firmly believe that leadership is an identifiable set

of skills and practices that are available to each of us, not just a few charismatic

men and women” (2003, p.1). The difference in Mr. B’s and my approaches

couldn’t have been more different. He assumed no such information existed

anywhere, whereas I assumed it had to exist somewhere on the World Wide

Web and if it was there, I’d find it. I did. It’s called the qualified voter file.

100

Leaders have a desire to make something happen, to change the

way things are, to create something that no one else has ever created

before. In some ways, leaders live their lives backward. They see pictures

in their minds eye of what the results will look like even before they’ve

started their project, much as an architect draws a blueprint or an engineer

builds a model. (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 5)

This quote describes my vision of using the QVF file for something greater

than my initial assignment. I realize now that I was being a leader in this context.

Journal Entry 8-11-03

Date: Aug. 11, 2003 Goal: Reading People Brief Description of Activity: Meeting with Ms. M regarding zip codes for legislative districts. I was excited to tell Ms M how I had found the (QVF) Qualified Voter File. In the last meeting, everyone agreed that there had to be data that already exists somewhere regarding zip codes and legislative districts. The last thing we were told to do is find it. I asked Ms. M what Mr. B had to report about the subject. She said that he said no such data file exists. So when I told her it did, I was not prepared for her response. It seemed like she believe Mr. B and not me. Rather than being excited, she said, “What does that have to do with finding the zip codes of legislative districts?” I said, “This has them, and 36 other possibly relevant fields that the university might want to use sometime.” I told her, “This is a statewide database of all qualified voters . It is what every township and county clerk uses to track voter participation. I can obtain specific information about parts of the state free from the County; but if I want the entire state, the database will cost $170. Do we have a budget for $170 purchase? ” She said, “$170 is not a problem, but I don’t see how this will help us find the zip codes of legislative districts and then the students who graduated from this university. Maybe I’m being obtuse. I suggest you make an appointment to talk to Mr. B.” I must have looked visibly frustrated. Was I not explaining

101

well enough to her the significance of this database? I said, “It comes on CD-Rom. We can dovetail it with the universities database by having the first Database find the zip codes of legislative districts, or even registered voters who happen to be our students for that matter, and use our database to find our graduates from within those legislative districts. I’m thinking bigger here than what you asked me. Imagine the uses the university would have for this database.” I was thinking here about tracking the univerisites Graduates for accountability reports—politicians always want to know what happens to graduates after they leave school. “She said, “I thought you were going to get on the phone and call all of the legislators and ask them the zip codes in their districts.” I said, “But don’t you see? I did that? Why reinvent the wheel and do a lot of extra work that has already been done?” She did not understand why I did not fulfill her expectation, so I got on the phone and called the county. I asked L to explain to Ms. M what the database could do. Ms. M. told her I would go there to see how it worked. That was all that was said on the subject.

Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Clearly, I anticipated one response from Ms. M and got another; as well, she anticipated something quite different from me. It’s true that I don’t know exactly how the database works, but intuition was screaming that potentially this could be a very useful resource for the university. I couldn’t say how until I actually played with it myself. Ms. M wasn’t so sure. She was incredulous to say the least. Was Ms M blinded by the fact that I didn’t fulfill her expectations, so she was unable to see the value in the database I found? Did Ms.M believe Mr B’s initial assessment that no such database exists, and therefore failed to believe I actually found something of value? Would this mean that Mr. B, recognizing what I found, might try to take credit for the find himself? Does Ms. M show appreciation when she does recognize a job well-done—or is it her leadership style to “try to poke holes in it?” She strikes me sometimes as cynical, the way she dismissed my finding as irrelevant to her purposes even before she knew if it was. Note to self: don’t go to Ms. M expecting praise or appreciation for a job well-done. You won’t get it. This bothers me because as her intern, I respect and value her opinion, and wish she would recognize this. As a leader myself, I hope never to make those under me feel small and inconsequential.

Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: Even if Ms. M didn’t understand what I was saying, she should have given me the benefit of the doubt . She could have accomplished this by simply listening to me, hearing me out, and then validating the possible potential which she could clearly see I saw in the database. Then she could ask specific questions that she wanted answered, and allow me to answer them for her.

Analysis

I’d like to take a minute now and summarize the many ways I clashed with

my mentor during my internship. First, I inappropriately relied on gender

102

stereotypes to clue me as to how to behave. Those gender stereotypes led me

astray more than once by not allowing me to see what was really going on. I

continued to delude myself that Ms. M was a leader who used a female

leadership style. I found myself relying on other stereotypes, such as politics,

which only contributed to the inner conflict I experienced. Then I began to make

distinctions between managers and leaders, and I realized that the reason I had

been suffering from so much cognitive dissonance was that nothing was as it

seemed. Ms. M wasn’t the great leader that I had made her out to be; she was

merely a manager. She played her administrator role within a highly structured

hierarchy. She in turn, imposed that world view on others, including me. Perhaps

it was because I’m a non-traditional student, a woman in her late 40’s, that I

didn’t behave like an obedient intern. I never felt like I fit that label. Instead, I

performed the work to the best of my ability, and if that meant having visionary

leadership—then that’s what I presented her with. What I experienced here was

a classic clash of roles and role expectations.

At the time I wrote this I genuinely couldn’t understand how Ms. M

couldn’t see my point of view, so I was all too willing to take responsibility for

failing to effectively present my vision. But just suppose it didn’t have anything to

do with the way I said it? What if she was so bogged down with her own

expectation of me that she couldn’t see my point. After all, she was not in the

market for a visionary at that moment. What she wanted was a lowly intern to

pick up the phone and call all of legislators’ offices and obtain the information for

her. The way she wanted me to tackle this task was impossible because she

103

had failed to give me a telephone code, which would have allowed me to dial off

campus. Any calls I made, I had to make on my cell phone. Even when I handed

her my cell phone—it never sunk in that I didn’t possess telephone privileges

because she never gave them to me.

Roles and role expectations, on the other hand, according to role

theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) of leaders and followers and the prescriptions

and proscriptions associated with these roles, are determined by the

context in which members of a role set find themselves. In contrast to

management, leadership is not determined by structure or positions.

Rather, it is a role individuals assume independent of their position in the

organizational hierarchy. Leadership is a role relationship and a set of

processes shaped by the reciprocal interactions between the leader and

the led as well as by the context. (Klenke, 1996, p. 97)

Ms. M was stuck in her structure, whereas I didn’t feel confined because I

refused to possess the label given me. In so doing, I believe I imposed a role

reversal on Ms. M. and her “I don’t get it” response was a way to keep me in my

place. I was showing leadership by not behaving as a follower, and this may

have threatened her. Perhaps the reason that Ms. M. failed all of my

expectations is because of a phenomenon known as a negative queen bee

described in Hill and Raglund. “A negative queen bee” syndrome identified by

104

Bolton (1980) exists in some settings when the lone female resents and is

threatened by other women moving through the ranks” (p. 78)

As for Mr. B, I believe I got a double whammy from Ms. M, not only was

she discounting my idea, she was placing all of her confidence in a man inside

her hierarchy. I felt the same old bitterness I’d always felt when my brother got

out of taking out the garbage because he’d pay me to do it.

In an essay called Leading, D. Roberts says,

One of the problems encountered by anyone attempting to

understand leadership is that those with whom they interact will invariably

possess varying paradigms of leadership. Most often, these paradigms

are unexamined and implicit, which results in assumed, but often

conflicting, understands of leadership and its dynamics. When competing,

unexamined paradigms are active on any given issue or in an

organizational environment, the likely outcome is conflict that results in a

loss of credibility and trust. (Winston et al, 2001, p. 380).

This experience was truly a crisis in my relationship with Ms. M. I felt she had lost

all credibility and I could no longer trust her. I’m sure she felt this way about me

as well.

105

Journal Entry 8-20-03

Date: Aug. 20, 2003 Goal: To Stand Out Brief Description of Activity: The QVF. The last entry in my journal was Aug. 11 because it was during that week that the largest power outage in the United States occurred at 4 pm on Aug. 14. I had an appointment with Mr B for Friday Aug. 15, at 3 pm to discover how the university database worked and whether the QVF would dovetail with it. Fri. Aug 15, the university and my workplace were closed, so the meeting never happened. I didn't reschedule because frankly, I figured he'd take my CD and all of the credit as well. On the morning of the 14th I went into the Washtenaw County Election Office and met L to learn how to use the QVF file. I was excited about the wealth of information available, and L told me that the database ran on Excel. I knew that my computers at work and Welch Hall were probably not powerful enough to run the data CD; but I figured I could run it on my home computer which is new. So I faxed in my request to the State for the CD. I advised Ms M what I was doing in my weekly report, and she approved my purchase, but at the time I requested the disk, I was told it was only $170. Ms. M had said $170 was not an issue, but when the complete data file of every registered voter in Michigan arrived, it had a bill of $350—apparently the price for both the voter history and the street index. When I tried to open the CD on the computer at Welch, as expected it wouldn't open. So I called the QVF help desk to find out the precise steps. That's when B told me that the data could not be opened in Excel, and that I needed a $1,000 database called Oracle. In the meantime, I had asked our state senator about zip codes of legislative districts, and received an e-mail from her that she'd forward my request to her staff. Shortly afterward, I received all of the zip codes of the 18th Senate District. Her office told me they are working on my request for all zip codes of legislative districts and they would send it to me when finished. So Ms. M will get the information she's requested whether or not I choose to relinquish control over the data.

Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Okay so now I'm in a pickle. In my effort to be a hero and secure this valuable database, I unwittingly incurred a prohibitive expense upon myself. Not only do I have to pay for the database because the $350 is non-refundable, but I have to go out to buy a $1000 database program called Oracle. Was I blinded by my zeal to possess something that set me apart from others? I am very tired of working at a warehouse. I'm bored out of mind. I'm anxious to prepare myself and find employment in university relations somewhere after completing my specialist's degree. I've been trying to pave a unique path for myself as a lobbyist, and possessing the database would be a boon not only for the university and the Alumni Legislative Connection PAC which I am creating, but also for the Hillary Rodham Clinton Support Network and the Women's Progressive Activists, two PACs in which I serve in a leadership position. It would also be a valuable tool for the women candidates who run for office. Ms M had said to give her a receipt and she'd reimburse me—but I'm loath to give up control of the CD—especially since initially she didn't have a clue as to its value to the university. I'm still not sure she knows. Besides, she's expecting a receipt for $170, not

106

$350. If she pays for it and she hands it over to Mr B, I won't have access to it for my own purposes.

Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: The way I see it, there's a few ways I can go here. I can bite the bullet and shell out the big bucks for the program and data, or I can hand it over to the university and Mr B (if they'll pay that much for it) and lose control of it, or I can send it back and refuse to pay for it because no one informed me that I needed a $1000 program to read the CD. They can only say "no." I can also scout out someone, somewhere, somehow who can open this CD for me—but this would probably be the least convenient solution. Upon reflection, I think I should bite the bullet and buy the database Oracle program and pay the $350 for the CD of Michigan Registered Voters, and maintain control over the integrity of my work.

Analysis

I made mistakes in judgment. In this reflection I find myself stuck in an

expensive conundrum of my own making. I decide to keep the data because it

may come in handy in my other work as a lobbyist or in helping other women

campaign. Kouzes & Posner say leaders “know well that innovation and change

all involve experimentation, risk, and failure. They proceed anyway—“ (2003,

p.7). I wasn’t concerned about the costs to me. I think this is the point in which

unconsciously I was becoming aware of the hierarchical structure in which I was

working. I say this because I was behaving competitive rather than collaborative.

I feel like these two worldviews are incompatible, because invariably the

107

competitive worldview exploits the collaborative. J. Duderstadt affectionately

referred to this as a “creative anarchy” (2000, p. 64). Others describe higher

education more succinctly,

In “leadership Reconsidered” the authors note that while most

institutions of higher learning are organized and governed according to

two seemingly contradictory sets of practices (hierarchical and

individualistic models), the requirement for any meaningful change is

developing positive working relationships. (Astin & Astin, 2000 qtd in

Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 2)

I no longer had a good working relationship with Mr. B, who had failed to ever

make time for me, or Ms. M. who only wanted me to do what I was told.

At this point, I’d like to return to the ISLLC Standards in order to further

explore what was happening in my internship. Under “Administrative Mentor

Responsibilities” Hackmann et al say,

Approach the mentoring role with sincerity and commitment. An

outstanding learning environment must be created (Hackmann et al. 1999)

so that the potential school leader can take advantage of every possible

learning opportunity that comes along. When the intern completes this

requirement, the mentor should be convinced that this person has been

prepared—as fully as possible—to face the myriad challenges of

administrative life . (p. 21).

108

There were many times when I’d read the paper and found more problems

that the university was facing. I’d bring the article in hoping I could ask Ms. M

about them. Specifically, I wondered how the university was handling the barrage

of negative publicity. This after all, was why I was there, to learn. I never got a

chance. Whenever these serious issues arose, the leadership conferred behind

closed doors. “The intern should be welcomed as part of the leadership team, not

held at arm’s length and dismissed when it is time to discuss delicate matters”

(Hackmann et al, 2001, p. 22). I wasn’t given opportunities to “shadow” Ms. M. I

reported to work each day and performed the requested tasks. The

responsibilities I was given were substantial, or I probably wouldn’t have agreed

to do them—I was investigating how to create a PAC for the university without it

losing its tax-exempt status. But I was never given significant responsibilities

associated with the job of associate vice-president. Ms M also never gave me

feedback—positive or negative. I never knew where I stood. For my part in the

ISLLC Standards, I did learn as much as possible (p. 24). At least as much as

these circumstances would allow. Furthermore, I assessed my strengths and

weaknesses often, but perhaps not accurately, since I didn’t understand that I

was dealing with multiple conflicting structures.

109

Journal Entry 8-27-03

Date: Aug. 27, 2003 Goal: Understanding my feelings. Brief Description of Activity: Day-to-Day Research. I took Friday Aug. 22 off to visit my brother. Beginning Monday Aug. 25, I have been going into Welch Hall, logging onto the Senators' websites who serve on the Higher Education Appropriation Committee, printing out their biography, a map of their legislative district, a summary of the bills they've introduced and co-sponsored, and their position specifically on the Higher Education Appropriations vote this year. At first, I printed out all of D C's (D) votes on 365 bills discussed in the senate since the beginning of the legislature in January until I discovered that all of the bills for all of the Senators are identical except for each senator's vote. Armed with this, I searched through all of the bills for mention of Higher Education Appropriation bills, and noted the page numbers upon which these discussions appear. Then I proceeded to print out only the senators' positions on higher education topics and placed them in a binder. I included a list of all of our Senators and Representatives, as well as a copy of the Governor’s executive order and the higher ed appropriations bill in its entirety. Some of the information came from a Republican—Policy Group , The non-partisan group Project Vote Smart and the State Legislature site, as well as the senator's individual web sites. I finished the Senate book and began work on the House of representatives' book. I also worked on creating a logo for the new PAC called. I also designed a business card and letterhead using this logo. I still have to create an envelope and brochure.

Reflection on the Leadership Behaviors Observed During the Activity: Although it has been interesting to read and learn all about the senators who serve on the higher education committee, it has been mind numbing printing and 3-hole punching all of these documents to make one binder. I know I should make a copy for myself, but the quantity of pages is huge. If I need any of this information, I know right where to get it - online. While doing all of this printing, I listen to the conversations going on all around me. L, the V.P’s secretary is retiring after 27 years of service to the university. I briefly considered applying for the job, until I observed that the secretaries see themselves as "lowly secretaries" and behave in a subservient manner. For instance, they fetch their bosses' coffee, arrange their schedules, and jump when they call. This university is notoriously hierarchical, even under female leadership. That's the reason I've been in school so long—I don't want to be a secretary; I want the challenging and more powerful position because I'm easily bored, not because I want to be waited on. At first I considered whether the secretaries position would lead to moving me up the ladder. I thought about how the university rarely promotes from within and decided I'd be stuck as a secretary if I could even get the job—given that I'm overqualified. Besides, I'm beginning to get quite resentful about how many times I've had to "pay my dues" by working for little or no pay and accept being exploited, as I sometimes feel here doing my internship.

110

Suggestions for Refining or Strengthening Leadership Actions: Why am I feeling exploited? Is it because I am not a full participant in the department? Is it because I go in every day and work on what I've been asked to do, often without so much as a greeting from my mentors? The secretaries are very good to me, and I respect them and their professionalism, but it's clear to me that they're there for "job security." Their goal is to serve, put in their time until they retire with a pension, all the while keeping a clear division between their work and home life. Do I feel exploited because I know my value and I'm tired of not receiving any recognition, credit, or pay for what I know? Take for example yesterday, I ran across legislation relating to Charter Schools. The Office of Charter Schools shares our office. I had applied for the associate director job, and didn't get it. The person who did, was the person I approached with the legislation on Charter Schools going through the legislature. In the spirit of sharing, I asked him if he was interested in a copy of it. It so happens he had a meeting with the assistant to the governor that day and this was exactly the information he needed. I made another person look good at my expense. It seems like my generosity towards others never pays off for me. My brother spoke to me about Machiavelli's The Prince. He says good leaders must be shrewd and ruthless in preserving the public good. I'm generous, sharing, and trusting. He says Machiavelli says that the ends justify the means. I have always followed the rules. I don't see myself as the ruthless type. Maybe that will be my barrier to becoming a leader. I'm 47 years old. I need to find where I belong. I need to belong somewhere in which I'm valued for what I know and credited for my minds ability to problem solve. Whomever discovers me, will never be sorry.

Analysis

Here it really shows how much I was beaten down by too much cognitive

dissonance. My not so cathartic, “aha” experience was when I identified the

department under these women as definitely hierarchical. I didn’t realize at the

time that this was responsible for much of my troubles. I can’t believe I even

entertained the thought of applying to be the V.P’s secretary! Does this imply that

some part of me still yearned for hierarchy? If so, this experience defused it. I

saw so many problems with a hierarchical model. Everything I have read in the

research suggests that hierarchical systems have their place, but that non-

hierarchical and collaborative approaches are the future in education. One

111

purpose of hierarchical systems, presumably, is its ability to exact rapid change

through a top down disposition, providing leadership has both the authority and

the responsibility to initiate change. Universities have historically been slow to

change. The unstated assumption has been that this must be the fault of the

more collaborative and democratic faculty governance style, yet isn't this faculty

model a defacto non-hierarchical model that has been used for years? By now it

was clear to me that I was not going to form a lasting relationship with my

mentor. Nor did I feel that she held any further responsibility for me. It’s also

ironic that I went to visit my brother, and that his advice was to follow the dictates

of “The Prince” a notoriously hierarchical leadership book which states that the

“ends justify the means.”

Conclusion

Writing this paper has made clear to me that there is no single definition of

leadership. Nor would one definition be desirable. Leadership Theory has

examined the leader, the follower, the situation, and all movement in between

these variables in order to define leadership, and have discovered that

leadership is a process. Theorists have made some interesting observations as a

result, such as distinctions between managers and leaders, that considerate

behavior increased productivity in followers, and that democratic leaders have

proven to be most effective in some situations, but not all, because leadership

methods have always turned on the situation.

112

Putting a strict, presumably encompassing definition on leadership

limits our thinking about the phenomenon, moreover, the requirements

that an agreed upon definition be established hinders individuals in

thinking critically and deciphering for themselves what leadership means

in different situations. The creation of a standard definition takes away the

power of individuals to critically analyze leadership situations, roles, and

contexts that are unfolding before them. (Klenke, 1996, p. 12)

Yet how can we understand meanings without a definition? Well we can

keep in mind that there are ranges of meanings for a range of situations. One

such range of meanings concerns the two over arching styles, consideration

behavior-which is concern for the emotional well being of the follower, and

initiating structure, which is concern for task. These are behaviors of which both

men and women are capable. These behaviors represent a range of possible

responses and not merely gender appropriate behavior. When thought of strictly

in terms of gender appropriate behavior, we actually trivialize leadership choices.

Gender is a social construct—so we do make gender stereotypes mean what we

want them to mean. And this isn’t a random process. All stereotypes emanate

from a core truth. Gender identities have developed as a result of studies of

behavioral preferences for men and women. And so gender identities emerge as

rational outcomes of preferences. Gender identities and its inevitable partner--

gender stereotyping-- have a role in setting people’s expectation for unfamiliar

situations. However they are merely guidelines, not hard fast rules that determine

113

rigid boundaries in which sexes cannot cross. Otherwise it wouldn’t be all right for

men to cross them and women to not cross them. Gender stereotypes can

become unreliable schemas rather quickly in our fast changing world. We

shouldn’t rely too heavily on them.

Researchers attributed these two overarching styles to gender,

consideration being feminine and initiating structure as masculine. The

significance of this dichotomy can be traced to the enlightenment when

objectivism and rationality prevailed. Modernity, “is fundamentally about order:

about rationality and rationalization, creating order out of chaos” (Online, Klages,

2003, p.4). One explanation for increasing rationality is to increase order in

society, creating a better society. To best guard against disorder, a binary

opposition between “order” and “disorder” is arranged so that order will always be

preferred. In Western Culture disorder is anything, non-white, non-male, non-

heterosexual, non-hygienic, or non-rational. (online, Klages, 2003, p. 4).

Although the research showed few patterns that show a relationship between

behavioral factors and organizational outcomes, the myth of the masculine model

as superior has persisted.

Over time, theorists began to study leadership situations, also called

contexts, which could be described as “wild cards,” because you never know

what their effect will be.

The gender prism may be seen as the first of a series of lenses

through which leadership operates. The next set of lenses is represented

114

by contexts. Context, in the most general sense of the word, refers to the

setting in which leadership emerges and is exercised. Context may be

historical or situational. Contextual aspects of organizations include their

existing social structure, personnel and compensation practices, and

industry type. Just as different times call for different leaders and different

types of leadership, so do different contexts. (Klenke, 1996, p. 18).

Since certainty, predictability, and control were thought to be perhaps the most

important piece in the equation, studies looked at ways to control variables.

These studies resulted in the conclusion that the more prepared through

education and training a leader is, the more effectively he or she will perform

through “wild card” situations. This resulted in the understanding that leadership

can be learned. If leadership can be learned then it can be taught. Either men or

women can teach, be taught, or learn.

The next phase of research examined behaviors most likely to result in

effective decisions, and whether people in fact were stable or flexible enough to

adapt to changing situations. This piece was especially important to me because

I have continuously pushed my own boundaries forcing myself into situations that

would increase my flexibility, when I was never really sure if I could. My

internship experience taught me that because of the way I was raised and

acculturated to a gendered identity, I have longed for the ability to perform in a

masculine leadership style. The reason I coveted a masculine leadership style is

115

not because I believe it is a superior style, but because I perceived it as

something perennially beyond my reach. A surprising finding I made about

myself from my case study is that despite my feminist claims, I relied entirely too

much on gender stereotypes. Now I know people can be flexible and change. I

arrive at this conclusion from personal experience—as someone who admits to

having a social phobia—the reason for my phobia has more to do with conflict

over gendered expectations I find unreasonable, than any real psychosis.

Furthermore, a lack of legitimation, or my belief that others don’t take me

seriously, don’t understand my capabilities, and shortchange me, continues to

undermine my confidence in myself. This thinking has unnecessarily

handicapped women by causing conflict from clashing role expectations.

Changing situations always required different leadership styles or methods, there

is credence to the idea that leaders employ both masculine and feminine

leadership styles as the situation requires. ”Because many leaders function in

more than one context, no single formula is possible or advisable for the range of

potential settings leaders encounter (Bolman & Deal, 1991b, qtd in Klenke, 1996,

p. 18). If I had a leadership position for which I was well-suited by interest,

education, and experience, I would be an awesome leader who uses all

leadership resources availability to me whether masculine or feminine.

The premise of the overriding importance of context, which predicts

an increasing unpopularity of emphasizing differences between female

and male leaders, was derived from two observations: 1. the time-bound

116

nature of research on gender differences in leadership; and 2. the role of

methodological artifacts in producing such differences. First, earlier

studies of gender differences in leadership conducted prior to the 1980’s

(an arbitrary date) are more likely to report significant differences in

leadership styles of men and women, evaluations of female and male

leaders, follower satisfaction with male and female leaders, leader

effectiveness, and performance of the female and male leaders. More

recent findings, on the other hand, tend to report rather small or

insignificant differences. (Klenke, 1996, p. 144)

We are only as free as we ourselves allow. If we place too great an emphasis on

gender identity and its rigid expectations, then we are in effect, accepting

societies limitations for us. If we accept the limitations, it is impossible for women

to grow. However, if we understand the function gender identity serves in setting

expectation and aiding communication in unfamiliar situations, then when

situations come along that demand a masculine response, we can utilize the

correct tool for the situation.

As for the results of my meta-analysis, in which I examine the 25 research

studies included in this paper for answers to the question “Could either a man or

a woman do these things?” Researchers have long studied men for all kinds of

reasons and generalized their results to women. While women have questioned

the generalizability of these findings to women, they have nonetheless been

recipients of medications and decisions based on a male model. Isn’t this actually

an example of how much alike men and women actually are? Over time, studies

117

on women have begun and some still argue differences while others argue

similarities. Here I argue both, yes we have some differences that are based on

our sex; yes we also have similarities based on our being human. The question

about whether a man or a woman is capable of the leadership behaviors

examined in the studies is important, because it emphasizes our humanness

hence our similarities.

This study has shown me that my goal of being a leader is achievable.

Anyone with proper education can become a great leader. Individual differences

will always figure into the equation, making it easier for some, harder for others to

achieve. But women can and do become great leaders. Another observation I

made about myself is that while I’m good at identifying unexamined assumptions

in others, I’m not experienced enough at thinking on my feet to spot these in

myself. As a woman in a male dominant field, leadership, I do not yet possess

clear mental models for how a female leader should behave. Society offers few

role models. In addition, I demonstrate traditional gender behaviors such as,

assuming responsibility when things go wrong, putting others before me,

forbearance, sacrifice, etc. which inherently undermine my leadership efforts, and

are an unending source of low-self-esteem and internal conflict. If we

acculturated women to believe in a neutral schema that includes all of the tools,

both masculine and feminine, they would not suffer from the effects of the

epistemological split between the socially constructed false self, and the leader

self within.