Journal Article Critique

1 Journal Article Critique Appelbaum, S, Audet, L & Miller, J 2003, ‘Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(1), pp. 43-51 Background In this article the authors set off to examine three key questions with regard to leadership and the role that gender plays in it. The first question that was being examined was whether or not female leadership differs from that of their male counterparts. The second question tried to answer if the fundamental changes in the two styles of leadership differ in terms of effectiveness of the leadership. Lastly, the authors sought to seek if the assessments of male and female leadership are based on fact or a perception that has eventually turned into reality. These questions are paramount when it comes to examining the realities that exist in leadership and the corporate world whereby women inevitably end up getting the short end of the stick. In order to understand how the authors ended up answering these questions in their article, we ought to look at the process and theories that they used in their analysis.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2 Statistics of females in top leadership According to Appelbaum et al. (2003: 389-390), in the entire population of North America, women constitute 51% but their representation of the labor force amounts to 46.5%.

What is more worrying is when one looks at the management of the top 500 corporations; here in the year 2000, only 12.5% were women. The same disparities are also reflected when the membership of these corporation’s board of directors are examined; here women represent a meager 11.7%. In the Fortune 500 companies, it is only 7.3% of the line officers who are women, with a paltry 5.1% of the high ranking officers in these corporations being women. As a result of this disproportionate representation of women in top management, only 4.1% of the highest paid personnel are women. By examining these numbers, several issues start coming to the fold. Among the reasons is that women simply are enot cut out for top leadership in the country’s most successful enterprises (O'Connor, 2010: 498).

The fact that women constitute 51% of the population means that under the ideal equal opportunities in access to education and opportunities, the percentage of female representation ought to translate to the labor force. The 46.5% indicates that although in principle equal opportunities exist, women start getting left behind in the transition to employment opportunities.

The drop in percentage for female numbers in senior leadership positions is indicative of the negative notion that women do not possess the inborn ability of leadership (O'Connor, 2010: 421). The basis of this notion is the way that society has been wired since the dawn of civilization whereby the society was made to believe that men were innately born with a leadership gene (Appelbaum et al. 2003: 391). This explains why women find it harder than their male colleagues to break into the higher echelons of corporate leadership (Valero, 2009: 29).

3 In cases where women hold top leadership positions such as board membership; their memberships are to some extent only as down to the patronage of powerful male figures. The other reason why women constitute a very small percentage of top leadership is down to the fact that the majority of the persons constituting the appointing authorities are male. These males may be insecure in letting strong women take over senior management and some only end up ceding the bare minimum number of slots for women for the sake of remaining politically correct (Valero, 2009: 63). Even in cases where women get into top leadership positions, the predominantly male management team still wield the power and are ultimately responsible for availing more opportunities to other women.

Theoretical approach on women in leadership The author identified four schools of though that aimed to explain why there are fewer women in leadership roles. The four schools of thought were: Sex and biology, the role of gender, casual factors, and attitude drivers. With regard to the issue of biology and sex, the key basis that explains the disparity is the notion that men are superior to women and thus make better leaders. The fact that women are considered as being the weaker sex should have no bearing whatsoever to the access to leadership opportunities (O'Connor, 2010: 448). In reality, leadership has very little if anything at all to do with genetics but is rather based on a person’s inborn qualities such as charisma. These qualities can be nurtured by external factors such as education and career experience that ultimately end up molding a good leader. If both women and men are exposed to the same educational and career opportunities, then those possessing sound leadership qualities will emerge, irrespective of their genetic makeup. Thus, women should not just be locked out of leadership positions simply because of their gender, but should be given an opportunity to prove themselves (Bowerman and Van Wart, 2011: 221).

4 The role of the female gender has been cited as a reason as to why women are locked up off leadership. There is the perception that women are generally soft such that their performance in challenging sectors such as finance and manufacturing can be eclipsed by the male leadership (Schyns and Meindl, 2005: 94). This line of reasoning has been abused in the past by those with appointing authority to lock women out of top management. The reason that is mostly cited is that the most senior leaders ought to be tough individuals who can conduct their roles without any emotional attachment. Since female leadership is considered as being compassionate, emotional and not cutthroat enough, they are consequently sidelined when it comes to these top appointments (Valero, 2009: 97). However, this perception should not be used to pass a cloud judgment on the ability of all women since not all women are the same and at times a shift in traditional leadership could spell the beginning of renewed fortunes for a corporation.

Furthermore, at times male leaders can greatly improve on their leadership qualities if they adopt some of the perceived female attributes such as being more compassionate in their management techniques.

The article identified casual factors as contributing factors that inhibit women’s upward mobility into top leadership positions (Appelbaum et al. 2003: 392-396). In the analysis of who make better leaders between the genders, more complex issues arise. The answer to such a question cannot simply be based on masculinity or femininity. An important aspect is the attitude of women with regard to leadership. It is not just enough to want to get to the echelons of management but women ought to be empowered from early in life such that when granted the opportunity, they are actually prepared psychologically to handle the challenges (Haber, 2011: 87). In light of the fact that some women are only afforded these opportunities due to factors such as gender equality, it is imperative that they remain self confident. Since perception is one

5 of the major factors that is hindering female progress, those afforded such opportunities should be able to perform well enough and squash the stereotype so that more women can continue getting similar opportunities.

The study identified attitudinal drivers as some of the factors that can aid in bolstering female representation in leadership. Organizations have identified that some of the main challenges that they face are those that originate from unbalanced decision making (Valero, 2009: 138). This is not to suggest that women bring the best ideas to the table when it comes to planning and management. The fact is that at times for the best outcome, it is imperative to consider multiple points of view among which may include an informed gender perspective on issues. Here the perception of the qualities of female leadership can serve to boost female representation in leadership (Bowerman and Van Wart, 2011: 118). Such attitudes like women are more people oriented as opposed to males who are business oriented can help women get access to opportunities that are more people focused (Schyns and Meindl, 2005: 85).

The authors came up with very interesting answers to their three questions. To the first question they concluded that indeed the style of leadership is different for both genders. Since the styles are different, a harmony of both may be what is needed to improve on the quality of leadership that is available in top management and this can mean more opportunities for females.

The second question dealt with effectiveness of the two styles of leadership. The conclusion was that effectiveness is not reliant on gender. The fact that leadership is based on personal attributes means that when sourcing for management, focus should be on personal characteristics and not solely on gender (Schyns and Meindl, 2005: 162). The answer to the last question really sums up the role that gender perception has played on females in leadership. Until the society takes up a new school of thought about the abilities that are associated with gender, political correctness,

6 affirmative action and gender balance will do very little to increase females in leadership participation (Bowerman and Van Wart, 2011: 51-53). Instead, the negative perception will continue being a harsh reality for women, just like the authors concluded, and women in top leadership “will remain conspicuous by their absence” (Appelbaum et al. 2003: 389).

7 List of References Appelbaum, S, Audet, L & Miller, J 2003, ‘Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories’, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(1), pp 43-51 Bowerman, KD & Van Wart, M 2011, The business of leadership: an introduction, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Haber, P 2011, ‘Iron sharpens iron: Exploring the experiences of female college student leaders’, Advancing Women in Leadership, 31, pp 86-101.

O'Connor, K 2010, Gender and women's leadership: A reference handbook, Volume 1, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Schyns, B & Meindl, J 2005, Implicit leadership theories: Essays and explorations, Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Valerio, AM 2009, Developing women leaders: A guide for men and women in organizations, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.