Since I took on the role as clinic director for the Marriage and Family Institute at ACU, I've been thinking a lot about leadership and particularly women in leadership. I am incredibly fortunate to have a mentoring relationship with David Wray, who has established himself as a true servant leader through his roles as department chair, church elder, and Associate Dean of Spiritual Life and Co-Curriculum in the College of Biblical Studies. He has been challenging me to be intentional about my leadership style by identifying core principles which will guide me as I make decisions and interact with students and colleagues. As I have been pondering what my core principles are, I came to the conclusion that I want to lead as a woman who is not only biologically female but feminine as well. I want to capitalize on my talents of empathy and creating connections in my leadership role. I also do not want to dress like a man in order to receive respect. I'm not afraid to admit that I like clothes, and I enjoy being somewhat fashionable in the way that I dress. I've also realized, however, that these qualities may interfere with cultivating respect and being taken seriously.
Women in leadership roles face an intimidating double bind. Women and men are obviously socialized to behave and to interact with others in different ways. Because men have traditionally been the ones in formal leadership roles, the characteristics and qualities expected of good leaders have been based upon stereotypically male behaviors. This puts women in a difficult position. They can choose to be themselves and use their own strengths and talents to lead, but they are then subject to criticism because they aren't masculine enough. On the other hand, women who choose to emulate masculine traits in their leadership roles are criticized for trying to be too masculine. I think that Hilary Clinton, regardless of personal opinion, is a good example of this. When Bill was in the White House, she was criticized for trying to be involved in too much public policy, and people speculated about who the real president was. People do not like her because she is opinionated and outspoken, which are not traits that are typically valued in women. When she tries to connect with her feminine side, however, she is accused of trying to use her sex to her advantage. She is in an impossible position. No matter what she does, she will be the object of criticism because of the double bind that has been created for women in leadership positions.
As a culture, both in the church and in the larger community, we do not value the voices of women. Admittedly, things have come a long way, but we still have a lot of work to do in valuing all that women have to offer, both in formal and informal leadership.
All of these thoughts have led me to become interested in doing research on perceptions of women in leadership roles, especially at Christian colleges and universities. So, what do you think? What are your perceptions of women in leadership roles? Who, among women leaders, do you respect and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
What an insightful article. Thanks for making me and your other readers think about ourselves, gender, leadership, gifts, etc.
Insightful post and so true! Is this what you are working on with Mimi? But I'm glad you are still a fashionista and a ph.d at the same time! Especially when you share your coupons for ATL with me! HA!
Insightful post and so true! Is this what you are working on with Mimi? But I'm glad you are still a fashionista and a ph.d at the same time! Especially when you share your coupons for ATL with me! HA!
For some reason I posted that twice... SORRY! I tried to delete it but I think you have to do that!
preach it sister!!! This so beautifully sums up so many of my frustrations I had in the business world.
I'm glad to finally come across your blog. I couldn't agree more and am willing to help in any way with your new research interests.
As a side note (in no way related to the actual point you made): I appreciate your fight against the trend that causes therapists to dress like idiots.
Hi Jamie,
I come to your blog through Shelly, so blame her for anything I say poorly ☺. Thank you for asking for readers’ opinions and for letting me post. I want to insert some contrary opinion to what you have said here, but only in the most respectful, thought-provoking way.
First, I am completely cognizant that I am a white male. I hope that will not automatically discredit my contributions.
Second, I want to challenge your statement that, by creating connections and using empathy, you are demonstrating feminine traits. I consider that a sexist position. If you meant “empathy and connection are traits historically assigned to more women than men,” then I agree; but the moment we say “men criticize women because women are inherently more able to make connections,” I think we are adding to the problem of sexism instead of defeating it. Moreover, if you point to psychological/ethnographic studies and argue that women are, it turns out, actually more empathetic and connective, then it can’t be sexist to say so.
Third, I think Hillary Clinton gets criticized because she’s a bad politician more than because she’s a woman. I do agree that her critics latch on to sexist rhetoric in order to persuade more people to dislike her, which I think is a bad strategy, but still—if her suggestions to her husband had been good ones, I don’t think people would have criticized her as much in her role as first lady. In other words, I don’t think mere assertiveness is always criticized in women.
Finally: I think your best argument is that the US has historically privileged males in leadership roles, but I believe it’s because our country has privileged males in the workplace—in general—and the leadership roles have stemmed from that. And I further believe that is because women have historically been less consistent in the workplace due to their chosen role with motherhood, a role that I believe the women’s movement wrongly solidified by supporting legislation to control human resource practices (such as maternity leave and inability to place productivity in the workplace ahead of a single employee’s family goals).
That’s all! Again, thank you for soliciting opinions.
Hi, Cole. Sorry it took me so long to respond to your comments. I didn't realize you had posted until Eric mentioned it at lunch today. So, in response to some of your thoughts...
I'm not at all saying that creating connection and empathy are inherent traits in women, only that those are the stereotypically feminine traits in our culture. If I'm remembering correctly, I did state that women are "socialized" to have these traits, not that they are born with them. In fact, anthropological studies show that masculine and feminine traits do vary by culture (see Margaret Mead's studies). But I do believe that in US culture, stereotypically masculine traits are valued in leadership and business far more than stereotypically feminine traits.
In regards to Hilary, I actually am not very educated on her policy positions. I was responding more to those who criticize her by making the sexist arguments you mentioned. While she may very well put forth bad policy, the fact still remains that some people will attribute her poor policy to the fact that she is a woman.
Finally, I don't know that I necessarily agree that women have "chosen" the role of motherhood, at least as it is defined in our society, anymore than men have "chosen" the role of breadwinner.
Thanks again for posting. Hope to see you back here sometime!
Hello again, Jaime.
Allow me to clarify.
You wrote "I came to the conclusion that I want to lead as a woman who is not only biologically female but feminine as well. I want to capitalize on my talents of empathy and creating connections in my leadership role. "
To me, this statement suggests that there are necessarily certain traits (such as connectivity and empathy) that accompany being born a female. Perhaps I was misreading, but it seemed you were linking the two.
And when I said "women who have children are choosing motherhood," I did not mean they were choosing the stereotypes of the early-to-mid 20th century (changing diapers, cooking barefoot in the kitchen, etc.), only that they were choosing to become literal mothers (except in cases of rape).
Post a Comment