Quit Whining* and Start the Revolution

     One should be hesitant about addressing the topic of gender and leadership. Like politics and religion, it is a topic that really should not be discussed at dinner when in polite company. All too often, the discussions produce more heat than light. It is, nevertheless, an important topic, if for no other reason than a significant portion of the intelligentsia is concerned with it.

     “Gender,” as Laura Sjoberg—in her book chapter entitled “Feminist Approaches to the Study of Political Leadership”—and other feminist theorists have reminded us, is a socially constructed term, not to be confused with sex, which is a biologically constructed. My former colleague, Diane Knippers, was wont to say, "Sex is better than gender."    However, when social scientists like Sjoberg discuss gender they speak of masculinity and femininity, rather than male or female. This may be a distinction without a difference, but not in the minds of the theorists.  

     So how does this tie in with leadership? Sjoberg argued that the term “leadership” itself is gendered. Because gender is socially constructed by “behavior expectations, stereotypes, and rules which apply to persons because they are understood to be members of particular sex categories”, and leadership attributes are typically associated with masculinity, therefore leadership is gendered masculine. She unpacked her idea this way:

This is because the definition of what it means to be a good leader is couched in masculine terms; there is a substantial correlation between characteristics that define a good man and characteristics that define a good leader. Therefore, men are assumed to have leadership capacity, while women’s masculinity is doubted until proven.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were leaders capable
of leading others and working together across gender.

     My question then is, so what? If gender is socially constructed, let’s remove the masculinity from leadership so that we can get past this debate and on to putting qualified and effective people in positions of leadership, where they can make a difference, no matter what their “gender” is.

     My suspicion is that the real agenda is not one of putting people into places of possibility, but gaining positions so that individuals can exercise power. This Foucaldian approach is ultimately nihilistic; it divides and conquers rather than embracing and leading. Ultimately, this is not an approach to leadership. It’s an approach to coercion.

     What, then, do we do with gender and leadership? Well, first, I would eschew using the term gender. It really isn’t helpful. It divides and puts people off. If however, one were to focus on the biological characteristics of sex, traits and personal aspects that are deeply rooted but enduring, one can get past the notion of trying to “fix” the other person’s defects. Second, and more importantly, I would focus on leadership and the qualities that make a good leader, no matter what that leader’s biological sex is. Undoubtedly, females can be good leaders; so can males. Females can bring characteristics to leadership that males lack, and vice versa.

     The better approach, I think is to focus on contingent leadership and fit the person into the correct situation, all the while being open to whoever has the skills and giftedness that the position requires, whether female or male. Then, we can get on with accomplishing the mission rather than getting bogged down in “socially constructed concepts” that cause more harm than good. Basically, to borrow the phrase, “Quit whining* and start the revolution.”

*Originally, I had used the term “bitchin,” often found in the vernacular. A wise friend, however, pointed out that “bitch” refers to a woman and might be considered a gender stereotype. While of shock value, using the term would undermine my argument for setting aside gender to focus more on leadership. Touché. Whiners, however, can be of either sex and are just as irritating and divisive. So, please, if you’re going to whine, pass the cheese. At least that way we can have something tasty, too.

What You See is What You Get

The world was captivated when newly-confirmed U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld first held press conferences. To the reporters in the room asking the questions, there seemed to be a fresh breeze blowing: Rumsfeld was someone who would answer a question directly, even to the point of being blunt. He famously talked about knowns and unknowns, and about known-unknowns. As a straight shooter, you got the sense that when you talked to him, you got the real Rumsfeld, bluntness and all. In that sense, Rumsfeld demonstrated Authentic Leadership. This has been defined as the “unobstructed operation of one’s true self in one’s day-to-day behavior.” In Rumsfeld, what you saw was what you got.

Authentic Leadership is leadership that demonstrates a “consistency between what you value and how you act.” This could be described as a vertical concept; one is aligned with one’s own values and beliefs. There is no inconsistency that draws this vertical axis off its true orientation. Another concept of Authentic Leadership could be described horizontally; one is aligned with the values and beliefs of those around him. In this way, personal beliefs mesh with corporate policies; the CEO fully agrees with the values and policies of the company. There is no inconsistency that undermines this horizontal axis from being level.

Authenticity, the foundation of Authentic Leadership, includes four aspects according to Michael Kernis. Self-awareness of one’s own strengths and weaknesses is the first aspect. Unbiased processing is another aspect; this means that one can hear positive and negative feedback without feeling threatened. The third aspect is consistency with one’s own values. The fourth and final component is relational authenticity, which incorporates frank honesty with one’s close associates. The end result of authenticity is meaningful relationships and trust.

With a foundation of authenticity, Authentic Leadership thus builds trust. One group of authors offered their definition of trust: “The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on the expectation that the other will perform [in a particular way], irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.” Vulnerability and freedom from control must almost certainly be prerequisites for the creativity, initiative and entrepreneurship that are required for successful organizations. Therefore, Authentic Leadership is an important condition of organizational success.

Leaders must answer for themselves, “Do my values align with my behaviors?” In other words, “Am I being true to myself?” The Shakespearean advice, “This above all to thine own self be true,” is certainly apropos. Leaders should be true to who they are at their core. Do you lead with authenticity?

Another serious question leaders might ask is, “Do my colleagues and associates trust me? If not, why not?” When the self-analysis shows a lack of trust, there may be a lack of authenticity. Leaders can then take steps to be more authentic including being more honest about one’s beliefs or taking steps to align with organizations that are more in tune with one’s beliefs. Sometimes, the problem is a poor fit between the individual and the organization that results in conflict.

One way to apply these concepts is to live an examined life. Socrates said, “The unexamined life is one not worth living.” One should set aside time, periodically, to scan the horizon—the immediate, intermediate, and the distant—to make sure that one’s behaviors and values are fully aligned. A 360-review may be one way to ascertain this, but self-examination is surely a good first step. Re-examine your beliefs and behaviors periodically to ensure that your leadership is authentic. That will build trust and produce better results, both in the short and long terms.