In the good/bad old days, if someone wanted to climb the ranks of a company, they did so through hard work and loyalty. Take whatever job you can get, work hard and get promoted on your merit. Despite trends since the late 1970’s when the MBA started to become an assumed pre-requisite for entry to upper management and the modern axiom of bouncing between firms, a recent study conducted by the Harvard Business Review shows that women are achieving entry to the upper echelons of senior management by tenured climb inside one firm as opposed to lateral hire.
It would be hard to argue that there has ever been a better time to be a professional woman, but despite making up close to 50% of America’s workforce, women are still very under-represented in executive roles (just 5.2% of Forbes 500 CEOs are women). Smart companies that understand the value of diversity and well-read hiring managers know that female-led companies are often more productive and financially stable. Yet women continue to be a scarcity in boardrooms and corner offices around the country. Visionaries like Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, and scholars like Harvard’s Dr. Hermina Ibarra posit that the lack of female leadership has less to do with the paths available to the modern woman, and results more from the context in which these women are expected to learn to lead.
Have you ever been in a position where your views differ with those of your leader’s? Most of us can relate to this at some point in our careers; having different opinions to those of your leader’s can lead to a healthy debate and can be an opportunity to challenge ideas and drive innovation. This aspect of debate and challenge is one of the most valued aspects of developing a diverse workforce. What happens though when you’re the leader and the diversity of thought results in a fundamental misalignment of long term goals or behaviors? You just don’t see eye to eye and can’t personally identify with your team followers (team or employees).
According to a 2013 paper by Weichun Zu et al, limited personal identification between leaders and followers can have a negative effect – not only in terms of leadership effectiveness, but also in the team’s ability to innovate and their commitment to the organization. The authors present a compelling argument; rather than focus on the impact of organizational identification on employees, we should focus more on the effectiveness of individuals personally aligning with leaders.
Organizational identification, first introduced in 1987 by Cheney and Tompkins, is usually experienced when decision makers select the option which “best promotes the perceived interests of that organization”. The advantages of high organizational identification include greater job satisfaction, improved cooperation and reduced absenteeism. What Zu et al found, is that personal identification results in these benefits too but with greater impact.
This case is supported by a research study published by Hobman et al in 2011 which highlights this difference between organizational and personal identification. The study found that “identification with the leader significantly mediated the positive associations between supportive leadership, intellectual stimulation, personal recognition, in the prediction of job satisfaction and job performance”. While identifying with individuals can have a positive impact, the authors didn’t find the impact to be as great when followers identified with the organization as a whole.
Effective leadership on an individual level is therefore critical to an organization’s success. This even more important in today’s relatively buoyant market where long term commitment to the organization such as high retention rates, is harder to come by. What does this mean for today’s leaders?
Thomas Sy, Professor of Psychology at University of California Riverside, shows how a leader’s perception of his or her followers can have a negative impact when trying to recruit a diverse workforce. In his paper, “What do you think of followers?” and in an interview with Science Daily, Sy highlights the risks around categorizing followers (most often done automatically and spontaneously). “Western leaders may recognize the potential of followers who show enthusiasm, and label and treat these individuals as ‘high potentials.’ However, Western leaders may overlook the same potential in equally capable followers who may not exhibit enthusiasm because their cultural values may inhibit expression of emotions (e.g. Eastern cultures such as Japan and China). This bias may also occur for gender.” Simply put, leaders are individually accountable for the diversity of their workforce, not just the organization’s bottom line.
Today you will play a part in several small stories at the office. Each one will be made up of a setting, characters, dialogue, context, and a scenario in play.
What you may not have noticed is that in each of these interactions, meaning is being negotiated by one or more people who are simultaneously building their leadership identity. Is one of them you?
Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant have written in the New York Times about the challenges of “speaking while female”, which holds women and companies back – such as being manterrupted, having male co-workers take the words from your mouth and run with them, being penalized in competency ratings for talking as much as male executive peers, or witnessing your contributions not being allotted equal weight in strategic discussions. Clearly, more is at stake than share of talk time.
According to the discursive leadership approach, “leadership is a language game in which meaning is managed.” When women’s voices are undermined, their ability to create meaning, and therefore leadership identity, is likely too.
Small Stories and Identity Creation
Discursive leadership says that leadership identity is achieved through influencing the meaning within everyday interactions in an organization, where the players predominantly framing conversations are reinforcing their positioning as leaders.
Research from Jonathon Clifton at the Universite´ de Valenciennes in France suggests that we too often overlook the importance of everyday “small stories” in developing leadership. We often look at leadership identity through narratives where leaders stands back and reflect on their lives.
In contrast short stories are short, happening all the time in everyday settings, told within the purpose of interaction, and aren’t necessarily about the speaker – and it’s those moments in which leadership identity, viewed as more “fragmented, fluid, and dynamic” – is constructed. Echoing Herminia Ibarra’sperspective on leadership identity, identity isn’t something we have or are – it’s something we do.
If we look at leadership more as a practice and process, and less as a quality, then the upcoming briefing meeting, the strategic discussion, and the next conflict resolution are moments in which we can “perform leader identities.” At any moment, we can “do identity” in interactions.
Being a Meaning Maker
Clifton’s research focuses on observing how we “do leadership” through our daily discourse by managing meaning in the “here-and-now” moments of interaction.
Citing previous research, Clifton notes that at any point a narrator (speaker) manages meaning and position herself or himself as leader by:
- positioning characters (co-workers) & the collective (eg. organization) relative to each other in a story
- positioning self as leader by being the one to convey that story right now
- positioning self relative to the organization and certain master narratives (eg an organizational priority)
Any time we talk about anything, we position it in one particular way and not another, which privileges one version of organizational reality while pushing aside others. By influencing the meaning through which discussions are framed, a speaker positions himself or herself as leader through the interaction.
The “fine-grained” discursive techniques of leadership are not necessarily conscious because meaning is always being influenced in conversation. Once observed, certain techniques can be sharpened with awareness and practice. Here’s examples of language plays the researcher pointed out in recorded meetings:
- leading the verbal briefing of a situation at hand
- speaking on behalf of players when summarizing a situation and the various perspectives
- being the speaker framing the situation as news in the here & now, while perhaps conveying an insider viewpoint
- initiating assessment of a situation, challenging a previous assessment, or upgrading it to a stronger assessment
- judging or affirming another’s assessment to assert greater expertise
- bringing in stories or information to justify a certain way of looking at things
- returning the conversation to an angle of topic after intervening conversation
- speaking on behalf of the organization, animating its perspective and giving it voice through “we”
- authoring a (selective) organizational landscape through which dynamics are then interpreted and decisions framed
Resources and Power Imbalance in Managing Meaning
According to the research, the dance of leadership discourse is not strictly defined by hierarchy, but open to resistance, negotiation, or acquiescence and is often distributed and negotiated among different participants in any given discussion. As observed in previous research, “management of meaning does not take place in a social vacuum and rights to assess are constantly being claimed, challenged, and policed as participants jockey for influence…” But not everybody holds equal resources or power in the game.
What each person perceives as their “allowable contribution” to any discussion (eg opening, guiding, assessing, & closing it) is affected by where they sit, and if we bring Sandberg & Grant’s article into consideration – potentially by their experiences of speaking in a specific context in their organization as a man or a woman.
Though not addressing gender differences, the research acknowledges the impact of power imbalance. Clifton notes, “In this language game, rights to assess and, therefore, to define the organizational landscape are negotiated in talk and the person, or persons, who have most influence in this process emerge as the leaders. Thus, from this perspective, leadership is not a zero-sum game, rather it is in constant flow as talk progresses… it can be distributed and it is open to challenge.”
“However,” he notes, “those most likely to emerge as leaders are those who have access to more powerful discursive resources with which to influence the process of the negotiation of meaning.”
Applying that to formal roles, Clifton states “Whilst leadership may not be commensurate with hierarchy, access to discursive resources that are category-bound to more ‘powerful’ identities, such as chairperson, may skew the ability to do leadership in favour of people incumbent of certain organizational identities.”
Disrupting the Discourse Dynamic
In the majority of companies, the incumbents of most executive level identities are men. At both an executive and senior pipeline level, women are not in a position of equal access to the big conversations and often face challenges when they do get a seat at the decision table.
Sandberg and Grant have shared that senior women experience different outcomes to men when they speak. The bigger consequence at hand when women’s voices are institutionally disadvantaged is arguably the consistent re-positioning of predominantly male leadership and privileging of male-led organizational narratives.
Yet the research examples illustrated women “doing leadership” in discussion, including with male bosses. If leadership is a flow practiced with each conversation and discourse is a dance happening at every interaction, then every day presents new opportunities for you to “do leader.”
The more women do, and the more informal organizational culture changes to support and reward them equally to men in doing so, the less “leader” will be a long identity bridge women have to cross.
Instead, leadership can become a series of moments we step and speak into.
The ironic thing about authentic leadership is that it’s defined by others.
You can aspire to act authentically as a leader based on what it means to you, but authentic leadership ultimately gets attributed to you -not by you.
We’ve seen how defining authenticity too narrowly can become a self-defining box that holds you back from growing as a leader, keeping you from daring to evolve into unfamiliar territories which could catalyse growth to expand.
Authenticity – What does that mean for women?
According to Dr. Helena Liu and her co-authors Cutcher and Grant in their study “Doing Authenticity: The Gendered Construction of Authentic Leadership”, authenticity is not a trait that we “have” or “are”, but a performance we “do”. So too, they argue, citing many studies, is gender. The researchers argue that looking at authenticity as a genderless true-to-self concept is a fallacy.
Authentic/inauthentic, when we’re talking subjectively about people, is a binary and limiting social construct. Just like gender. The two are interwoven in the representation of authentic leadership.
The research found that when it comes to how high profile leaders are perceived, authenticity is socially co-constructed by the media and gender expectations play a big role. The study found “doing authenticity requires leaders to conform to gender norms.”
Liu and colleagues analyzed verbal and visual media representations (across 266 articles) of two CEOS, one male and one female (first and only to date), of Australia’s largest banks before and after the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
They wanted to explore how Mike Smith of ANZ and Gail Kelly at Westpac “performed authenticity” for the media as well as how the media drew on gendered stereotypes and norms in constructing the leaders as either authentic or inauthentic as industry conditions changed.
Their research illustrates how a woman whose leadership publically benefited from the outsider-inferred status of gender norms also found her authenticity conditionally latched to them.
Capitalizing on Gendered Leadership
Before the crisis arrived, the researchers found that both CEOS seemed to “perform” and were depicted with highly gendered leadership styles. Each leader seemed to play on their gender capital and the media verbally and visually accentuated gender norms.
Mike Smith used sporting metaphors to talk about himself and the company, positioning himself as a tough trainer who would get the weak athlete (ANZ) strong again. Media and imagery reflected him as bringing a “hyper-masculine”, “James Bond” “change agent” style approach to the leadership. He tended to be depicted on his own, with salient positioning, as the essence of the message.
Recruited to WestPac from her position as St George CEO, Gail Kelly’s idealogical focus on “customer satisfaction” and her “people-orientation” were emphasized as core to her success record.
Her leadership was depicted as “family-friendly” and her firm as “family.” Media and imagery focused on relationships with customers and staff, depicting her as a heralded industry outsider with “her personal demeanour” and emphasis on promoting work/life balance. Imagery emphasized her “feminized warm and relational image,” and she was usually depicted visually with others to convey relationship-building.
According to Liu’s piece for a volume about “Gender, Media and Organization”, “the media by and large heralded Kelly’s gender as a welcome change from the traditional image of a banker” with her leadership identity resting “on assumptions of femininity as inherently caring and nurturing.”
Both leaders were cast in a narrow box of gendered leadership and each were constructed in the media as doing authenticity, or “doing gender in line with stereotypes.”
When Gendered Leadership Backfires on Authenticity
When the global financial crisis hit Australia Mr. Smith’s language in the press included “carnage”, “an Armageddon situation,” and a “financial services bloodbath” and the media reflected back with talk of “plenty of financial firepower,” the “largest war chest,” and a “no nonsense officer.” ANZ’s rapid acquisitions were “applauded by the media and framed as reflecting the bank’s newfound strength and aggressive strategy of international expansion.”
But according to the study, in the context of Ms.Kelly’s leadership the media depicted the financial crisis as “an uncertain and fragile situation that invited careful and considered response.” When she took pro-active and decisive action to raise interest rates first and acquire St George, Kelly’s leadership was seen as out of step with the both the situation at hand as well as her caring and nurturing leadership identity. Her authenticity was thrown into question across the media, and actions were depicted as “predatory,” including a reference to the merger as “akin to a mother eating her children.” Her attempts to revive positive “family” metaphors fell flat.
Both CEOs took action, but because the situation and their leadership was constructed through gendered norms, the actions they took were rendered authentic or inauthentic. Aggressive action suited Smith’s gendered leadership persona in the aggressive situation he was framed in but betrayed Kelly’s gendered leadership persona in the fragile and uncertain situation she was framed in, in which she was expected to care and nurture.
How Can You Avoid Being Boxed In?
The research highlights how gendered norms can become defining to leadership identity and make authenticity highly conditional upon performing them. How can women avoid being boxed in?
“Ithink that gender norms, like what we saw in the media during the crisis permeate Western organisations and societies, but the corporate world is especially prone to the reproduction of gender stereotypes,” Liu shared. “Stereotypical assumptions often manifest in mundane and seemingly innocent practices, such as sexualised banter and informal networks and bonding, which can work to further marginalise women from leadership.” She continued, “I would stress that structural inequality should not be ignored and can ultimately be challenged through more reflexive and progressive practices from those who are often relegated to the margins of leadership.”
Liu advises women to be aware of the box, and defy representing your leadership only within it.
“I would suggest women who aspire to leadership need to remain aware of the wider gender norms that constrain their exercise of leadership and their pursuit of authenticity,” Liu told theglashammer.com.
“As Gail Kelly demonstrated, women can communicate compelling leadership personas that speak to gender norms around being attentive, responsible and people-oriented in order to assert their right to lead. At the same time, there is immense promise for women (and men) who may choose to reject and subvert gender norms through their leadership work. They can pay attention to how they frame themselves when they communicate with their employees and peers and potentially engage more proactively with the media to project more nuanced images of themselves as embodying both feminine and masculine qualities.”
“With increased representation and visibility of female leaders, including those who may not occupy formal positions of leadership but nevertheless engage in ‘leading’,” she shared, “I’m optimistic that we will see that women leaders are diverse, well-rounded and irreducible to gender stereotypes.”
Theglasshammer.com hopes she is right.
By Aimee Hansen
Most of us have already been, or will at some point in our careers be, subject to at least one personality test. According to Bersin by Deloitte, the use of personality tests at work is on the rise. Tests are now used on 60%-70% of prospective workers in the US, compared to 30%-40% in 2009. By understanding personality types, organizations are able to better staff their teams by selecting the right mix of personality types that will best complement the organization’s culture and goals and make for better leadership.
Take the well-known and globally utilized Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) as an example. MBTI was developed by two housewives during World War II as a means to align women who were entering the workforce with jobs which suited their personalities. Its output: extroversion versus introversion, sensing versus intuition, thinking versus feeling, judgment versus perception. Understanding your personality traits as a result of such tests is useful, but perhaps more important is the ability to understand the personality types of others. How can you use the output of such tests (although sometimes questionable) to effectively shape the way you deal with your employers and colleagues?
Meet the five personality types…
The first step is to identify the personality types. It is debatable just how many personality types there are; some say 4 (four temperaments), others claim 9 (nine corporate personality types). Interestingly, psychologists will tell you that personality disorders such as narcissism show up in leaders more commonly than we would like to admit since these people with these tendencies have a strong desire for unlimited success, but are ignorant to the feelings of others.
Here we look at 5 (based on the Five Factor Model).
1. Bring it on (openness): These individuals are open to new experiences, curious, creative, and prove invaluable in organizations with a focus on innovation. The number of colleagues you come across with a consistent ‘bring it on’ attitude will be industry dependent, but they tend not to thrive in slow moving industries and those where creativity is stifled. Their “can do” approach is necessary in times of uncertainty, but their associated fearless approach to risk could make them difficult to rein in.
2. No – it’s not in the plan (conscientious): You will have come across these characters before; they bring structure to organizations and keep the house in order. Such individuals may be best utilized during organizational change or short term, high intensity projects. Discipline and preparation are their strongest assets; however they can be difficult to deal with when spontaneity is needed.
3. So “out there” (extrovert): This can be one of the easiest traits to spot. Extroverts are not afraid to share ideas and opinions, be assertive and generally put themselves “out there”. While great in situations where action is required, there is a risk that they drown out the opinions of their colleagues.
4. Yes, yes, yes (agreeable): These are the agreeable colleagues who sympathize and empathize with others, invest time in people, and are seen to be both trusting and trustworthy. While the quality of their relationships tends to be stronger than those of a disagreeable nature, their ability to lead can be put to the test during difficult times.
5. Rollercoaster (emotional stability): We know this type all too well. Individuals in this group tend to go through emotional rollercoasters, feeling negative emotions acutely. They tend to get easily worked up, irritated and upset in the workplace. While difficult to keep up with their frequent mood swings, their focus on negative aspects of tasks could potentially highlight gaps and areas of improvement which would otherwise have been missed.
How to how to deal with each personality at work
Once identified, being clear on how you approach different personality types is important.
1. Embrace, or at least acknowledge, the value in all personality types: While not always the same or complementary to your personality type, the most successful teams are made up of a mix of personalities. Gender also plays a part; according to a 2001 study, most women reported themselves to be higher in the rollercoaster, “yes, yes, yes” and “bring it on” groups. Although the emotional stability trait in extremes may not be desirable, the benefits of working with an agreeable and creative colleague should not be discounted. A balanced team is important.
2. Get the right person assigned to the task: Asking a conscientious individual to lead in a volatile environment is not setting the individual or the team up for success. Use the strengths of each individual by allocating the right job where she or he can excel.
3. Remember, there is a spectrum: While personality tests can enable you in trying to understand the personalities in your organizations, it is important to see them as a framework and the majority of individuals aren’t either agreeable or disagreeable, but rather somewhere in between and dependent on the situation. The approach you choose to take with individual should align with their personality.
The most unconstructive thing to do would be for you to avoid certain personality types completely. Each person brings something to the table, and disharmony in teams and organizations is experienced when individuals and leaders do not acknowledge this.
Leaders: recruiting and managing multi-personality teams
Based on his research, Dr. Robert Hogan of Hogan Assessments, has developed a set of tools to help leaders understand the personalities of those they employ and how the individuals approach problem solving and difficult situations. According to Hogan, organizations are increasingly seeing the value of such understanding: workplace personality testing has become a $500m a year business and growing.
Nicki Gilmour, CEO of theglasshammer, who is also a qualified organizational psychologist and coach, comments about the use of tools for personal development at work,
“Personality tests are most useful when they are taken in context of the ‘coachee’s’ direct working culture since behaviour is a product of both personality and the environment that the person is surrounded by. It is so useful to know yourself and using tools like the Hogan suite, you can honestly see your potential triggers that can happen when any of us have our backs against the wall.”
The increasing diversity of our workforce demands that leaders understand how to recruit and manage multi-personality teams. Without understanding the personalities in your workforce, there is a limit to how successful any leader or manager can be.
By Nneka Orji
Do you hear what I hear? The call for men, and particularly white men, to join in on gender equality and diversity efforts is not only echoing loudly, it’s piling up into a chorus.
White male leaders are being not only invited, but implored to join the case for diversity and inclusion. The predominant argument is not just that diversity advocates want white male leaders to join in, it’s that the success of diversity efforts could be greatly enhanced by their participation due to their continued formal and informal positions of power and authority within companies.
With men holding over 82% of board positions in Fortune 1000 companies, and a significant number of those men being white, their participation in Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) efforts has been proposed as “Creating a New Normal” in the Huffington Post.
So with the invitation in their hands, what keeps white male leaders holding back on their RSVP to diversity and inclusion?
With all of our editorial focus on engaging white men, we thought it useful to take a step back and remind ourselves of the barriers we must navigate in doing so.
Challenges to Engaging White Men
As Chuck Shelton, Chief Executive Officer at Greatheart Leader Labs and moderator of the recent event that theglasshammer.com held on the topic has said, “No business strategy, including D&I, will deliver optimal results when many with position power (white men, in this discussion) disconnect from the strategy.”
The landmark study to date on engaging white men in diversity & inclusion efforts remains his organization’s “White Men’s Leadership Study” which pointed out that white men are less likely to be engaged in diversity and inclusion initiatives at companies.
White male leaders hold both the purse strings when it comes to D&I programs and the social influence necessary to make these programs work. Authors Shelton and Thomas noted that white men are “a significantly underperforming asset in every company’s global D&I investment portfolio.”
The report identified many dynamics into why while male leaders remain both an underperforming – and perhaps undervalued – asset in the movement for diversity and inclusion.
Feeling Excluded
You can’t RSVP to a party you don’t feel invited to. Just a couple years ago, the biggest factor revealed in the study was that white men did not feel included in Diversity & Inclusion. Nearly 70% of white male respondents agreed with the statement, “It is still not clear diversity initiatives are meant to include white men.” 60% of women and minority leaders agreed, too.
This was not limited to a perception among white male leaders. Women and minority leaders didn’t necessarily see the value of including white men in inclusion and diversity programs. “Leaders who are not white and male may quietly doubt that white male inclusion will open doors for them,” the WLMS report said. But when Diversity & Inclusion efforts don’t actively engage white men, they are prone to exclude them.
When women and minority leaders shoulder D&I initiatives, and those initiatives are not seen as owned by all and in everybody’s interest, it creates counter-dynamics. A study published by the Academy of Management illustrated that diversity-efforts on the behalf of women and minorities can be negatively viewed as scheming and (social group) self-serving. The researchers reported, “Ethnic minority or female leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior are penalized with worse performance ratings than their equally diversity-valuing white or male counterparts,” which only reinforces the glass ceiling. The research also points out the paradox that for white men “valuing diversity gave a significant boost to ratings for warmth and performance.”
The authors of Gender in Organizations: Are Men Allies or Adversaries to Women’s Career Advancement write, “By excluding men from the focus and development of strategies to attentuate gender disparities, businesses are missing an opportunity to effect change.”
Being protective about diversity and inclusion doesn’t ultimately advance its interests, and engaging white men – who might not feel invited by default – cannot be a passive exercise. It must be an active effort.
Being Skeptical
Another of the biggest challenges identified was skepticism on behalf of white men on the value of diversity and inclusion programs, as well as the suspicion that some people may receive jobs or promotions that they are unqualified for through these programs. The WMLS researchers explained, “Progress is stifled by the perceived tension between the qualifications of diverse employees and the organizational commitment to diversity.”
Another form skepticism took was deflection of relevance. Some white, male respondents seemed irritated to be part of a study on race and gender, and responded with what the report authors called “deflective comments”, such as asserting the questions were unfair or that race and gender doesn’t matter these days. Shelton and Thomas wrote, “We need to recognize deflections, and respond to such viewpoints through honest, straightforward dialogue.”
While prejudice is something you can put your finger on, unconscious bias often is not. Becoming aware of the unconscious bias in each of us, and how it’s at play in the workplace, for example through stereotype threat, helps to reaffirm the importance of D&I efforts.
Also male leaders who are trailblazing in diversity and inclusion have repeatedly advised that to engage men in leadership positions with the value of D&I programs, focus on measurable results (and measuring results) of diversity efforts such as impact on the bottom line and driving innovation in the workplace.
Having Perception & Communication Gaps
A third major factor in struggling to engage white male leaders was that they already perceived themselves to be effective at diversity and inclusion…way more than their peers did.
White men were twice (45%) as likely as women and minorities (21%) to view white male leaders as effective in the areas of diversity and inclusion. The perception gap extended to white men’s effectiveness at coaching and improving the performance of diverse employees (33 points gap); building strong, diverse teams (36 points); promoting diverse talent on merit (36 points); and including diverse voices in decision making (40 points.)
While perception is subjective, statistics showing underrepresentation of diversity are not. The authors suggested that with such a disparity in perception around effectiveness, conversation requires “care and focus,” in which some conflict is to be naturally expected and handled.
“Candor among peers and co-workers is a very important element to this whole process,” said Shelton. “Real diversity and inclusion requires care and ensuring everyone feels that they are part of the effort, including white male leaders.” They noted, “Findings in this research build the case for conversations of care and candor, as we seek to engage and equip white men to integrate diversity and inclusion more effectively into their leadership work.”
Invitation & Opportunity
With the invitation to men being extended on more fronts, as far as the United Nations, perhaps exclusion is becoming less of a barrier for engaging men – perhaps now, the invitation is clear.
Speaking recently with Shelton, he shared, “We’re seeing a lot of organizations in which male leaders are up for ally development. The real measure will be when more men are actually active and accountable as allies and sponsors.”
Equally important is how we co-host the party with men. When we sit together at the table of diversity, we’ll be more likely to evoke change if all parties feel involved and invested in the process, the potential, and the outcome.
By Aimee Hansen
You cant be a leader without having followers, and to have people trust you they may want to know about your life outside of work as well as your five-year strategy plan. The benefits of authenticity for the individual seem pretty straight-forward; most of us feel better when we are honest about who we are, but we also have good reasons for keeping our personal and professional lives separate. Human beings are judgmental by nature, and ‘fitting in’ is often a prerequisite for ‘getting ahead.’ It seems however that revelations are not created equal.
Is how you’re seen as a team leader impacted by your personality or the fact that you’re a woman? New research helps to understand how both interact when it comes to being perceived as a transformational leader by team members.
According to Finnish researchers Brandt and Edinger, who recently published their findings from an academic setting across 14 years in Gender in Management: An International Journal, sex does indeed matter in leading project teams: “Women tend to be more transformational team leaders than men.”
Five Practices of Transformational Leaders
Transformational leaders have been defined as people who are recognized as “change agents who are good role models, who can create and articulate a clear vision for an organization, who empower followers to meet higher standards, who act in ways that make others want to trust them, and who give meaning to organizational life.”
According to Kouzes and Posner and their book The Leadership Challenge, transformational leadership is based upon “The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership” model, measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI).
- Challenging the Process (Challenging) – such as changing status quo, innovating, risk-taking
- Inspiring a Shared Vision (Visioning) – such as passionately envisioning a future & enlisting others in common values & vision
- Enabling others to Act (Enabling) – such as fostering collaboration & trust & strengthening others
- Modelling the Way (Modelling) – such as leading by example & within organizational values in pursuing goals
- Encouraging the Heart (Rewarding) – such as sharing in rewards and recognition, celebrating accomplishments
Brandt and Edinger indicate that transformational leadership has been connected in previous research with leadership effectiveness, job satisfaction, and higher motivation; and can enhance team learning, team member empowerment, group cohesiveness, and team performance.
Being Perceived as a Transformational Leader
Researchers Brandt and Edinger studied how personality type (as indicated by Myers Briggs) interacts with sex in impacting how members rate a leader’s transformational leadership capabilities within a team context. Measured within six-week project teams in an academic setting, Visioning was deemed less relevant and removed.
The widely-used MBTI measures personality preferences as: extroversion/ introversion; sensing/ intuition; thinking/ feeling; and judging/ perceiving. With the slight exception of thinking/feeling, personality types have been found to be distributed fairly evenly between the sexes.
Gender: Women Are More Transformational
In general, consistent with other meta-analysis studies, but not every single study, the researchers found women leaders received higher ratings in overall transformational leadership – especially in the behaviors of Modelling, Enabling, and Rewarding.
Women were more likely to practice leading by example, fostering collaboration and strengthening others, and celebrating and recognizing the accomplishments of team members as goals are achieved.
Indeed a 2014 Ketchum global survey ranked “leading by example” as the number one attribute important to great leadership, with 57% of people rating women as outperforming men at this trait, as well as 4 other top attributes including “bringing out the best in others.”
Broadly on gender, previous research by Brandt & Laiho, collecting data from 459 leaders and their subordinates across a 14 year period in different industries, investigated whether men and women with similar personalities act differently. Consistent with social role theory, they found that regardless of personality, women were more Enabling whereas men were more Challenging, rated both by themselves and those reporting to them.
Personality: Extraverted Personalities Are More Transformational
Personality influenced leadership perception for both sexes. Brandt & Edinger found that regardless of sex, “extraverted and judging personality types are more transformational leaders than introverted and perceiving ones.”
Extraverted team leaders were rated more Modelling of behavior, Rewarding of accomplishments, and Challenging of status quo than introverted team leaders. The researchers speculate extraverts may have more ease in stepping into short-term project leading roles, and also have a tendency to focus more on other people and give more positive feedback whereas introverts tend to focus and less on feedback, as they often require less themselves.
Previous research by Brandt & Laiho also confirmed extraverted female leaders were seen as more transformational and rewarding than intraverted ones.
Gender & Personality: Gender Impacts How Personality is Perceived
According to Brandt, “some personality types behave in the same way as a leader despite the gender, whereas some personalities act differently.” This also goes for how they’re perceived. In some cases, men and women with similar personality preferences are viewed differently by their team members as well as subordinates.
Among extravert team leaders, women were rated as more Modelling & Rewarding-oriented than their male counterparts, and so overall more transformational.
Being inclined away from extraversion seemed to penalize men more than women. The research found “introverted, sensing, thinking and perceiving female leaders are regarded as more transformational than men with similar preferences.”
The previous research by Brandt & Laiho also showed many areas in which women were rated as more transformational than men with similar personality preferences. They found, “Intuitive women were more Rewarding and scored higher on overall transformational profile than intuitive men. Thinking women were regarded as being more Enabling than thinking men, and finally, judging women were seen as more Enabling and transformational overall than judging men.”
The research also found that how leaders perceive their behavior (self-appraisal) does not always match up with how those they are leading rate it (appraisal). For example, feeling female female leaders evaluated themselves as more Enabling, but subordinates rated thinking female leaders to be more so.
Addressing Your Transformational Leadership Gaps
While the research in many ways indicates a gender advantage for women when it comes to transformational leadership which is worth taking note of, that’s also a dangerous game to rely on, as it keeps us in the realm of gender expectations and it hasn’t yet played out in outcome when looking at company profiles.
Social awareness in leadership “calls for a heightened sensitivity to how one’s behavior, in words and deeds, impacts others.” For this reason, insight into how your gender and personality combine to play into leadership perception matters.
Perception is ultimately perhaps most interesting as an input into helping chart your own leadership development. One take-away for female leaders is an opportunity to experiment with your behavior, no matter your personality, to grow in action and hence identity as a transformational leader.
For example, based on these findings women leaders who are more introverted might be advised to try out more extroverted behaviors – even if less comfortable – such as visibly giving positive feedback, outwardly rewarding accomplishments, and being visible in how you model the values you espouse.
The researchers suggest that all leaders can benefit by enhancing their self-knowledge: “When leaders know how they are perceived by others, they can address their weaknesses and maximize their strengths.”
Edinburgh is Scotland’s financial and political capital, and everyone who has been following Scottish politics has no doubt noticed the central role that women have recently been playing in the spotlight of the Scottish independence referendum.
Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the SNP — the Scottish National Party — is Scotland’s First Minister and leader of the Scottish Parliament. She has recently announced that 50 percent of her cabinet appointees will be women. Johann Lamont recently resigned as the leader of the Scottish Labour Party. Ruth Davidson leads Scotland’s Tories. Maggie Chapman is co-convener of the Greens in Scotland, though Patrick Harvie is generally considered the party leader.