Leadership Style and Gender

7/27/2019 Leadership Style and Gender

1/101

A STUDY OF THE RELATI ONSHI P BETWEENLEADERSHI P STYLE AND GENDER

A t hesi s present ed to t he Facul ty of t he U. S. ArmyCommand and General Staf f Col l ege i n part i alf ul f i l l ment of the requi rement s f or t hedegreeMASTER OF M LI TARY ART AND SCI ENCE

byB. S. , Uni t ed St at es M l i t ary Academy, West Poi nt , New Yor k,1980

SUSAN P. KELLETT- FORSYTH, MAJ, USA

For t Leavenwort h, Kansas1993

Approved f or publ i c r el ease; di st r i but i on i s unl i m t ed.


2/101

MASTER OF M LI TARY ART AND SCI ENCETHESI S APPROVAL PAGE

Name of Candi dat e: Maj or Susan P. Kel l et t - ForsythThesi s Ti t l e: A Study of the Rel at i onshi p Between Leadershi pStyl e and Gender.

Approved by:

d w l . , - - h , Qh3 , Thesi s Commtt ee Chai rmanVi ckg Hi ckerson- Robert s, Ph. D.

, Member

Accepted thi s 4t h day of J une 1993 by:

, Di rect or , Graduate DegreePhi l i p J . ' Brookes, Ph. D. ProgramsThe opi ni ons and concl usi ons expressed herei n are those ofthe student author and do not necessari l y represent the vi ewsof the U. S. Army Command and General Staf f Col l ege or anyother governmental agency. (Ref erences to thi s study shoul di ncl ude the foregoi ng statement . )

i i


3/101

- ABSTRACTA STUDY OF THE RELATI ONSHI P BETWEEN LEADERSHI P STYLEAND GENDER BY MAJ Susan P. Kel l et t - For syt h, USA, 95 pages.Thi s st udy' s t hesi s i s t hat women of f i cer s i n t he U. S. Ar myuse a mor e par t i ci pat i ve st yl e of l eader shi p t han t hei r mal ecount er par t s. The r esear ch met hodol ogy was desi gned t odet er m ne t he pr edom nant l eader shi p st yl e of t hi r t y men andt hi r t y- f our women. The subj ect s wer e st udent s enr ol l ed i nt he r esi dent phase of t he Command and General St af f Of f i cer sCour se dur i ng 1992- 1993.Two t ool s wer e used i n t hi s exam nat i on: t he commandphi l osophy st at ement and t he Leader Behavi or Anal ysi s I 1Sel f - A Sur vey ( LBAI I ) . The command phi l osophy st at ement swer e eval uat ed usi ng a mul t i - f r ame anal ysi s consi st i ng off our f r ames: human r esour ce, st r uct ur al , pol i t i cal , andsymbol i c. The LBAI I r at ed an i ndi vi dual ' s per cei vedl eader shi p st yl e as S1- hi gh di r ect i ve, l o w suppor t i vebehavi or ; S2- hi gh di r ect i ve, hi gh suppor t i ve behavi or ; S 3 -hi gh suppor t i ve, l ow di r ect i ve behavi or ; or S4- l owsuppor t i ve, l owdi r ect i ve behavi or .The resul t s of t hi s s t udy i ndi cat e that men and women wer ever y s i m l ar i n t hei r choi ces of l eader shi p st yl e. The st udyi dent i f i es and anal yzes t hr ee cor r el at i ons of si gni f i cance.The f i r st i s bet ween t he human r esour ce f r ame and gender .The second i s concer ned wi t h t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t hepol i t i cal f r ame and t he human r esour ce f r ame. The t hi r d deal swi t h t he r el at i onshi p bet ween br anch cat egory and gender .

i i i


4/101

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thi s t hesi s coul d not have been compl eted w t hout theassi st ance of a number of i ndi vi dual s. I was very l ucky t ohave such a wonderf ul group of peopl e t o hel p me. I woul dl i ke to thank Davi d Bongi and hi s w f e Tammy. Dave was oft remendous assi st ance i n the f ormat t i ng of thi s document . Hehel ped i n the eval uati on and codi ng of the command phi l osophyst atement s. Both he and Tammy took the ti me t o read myent i re document and they gave me very val uabl e andconst ruct i ve advi ce.eval uat i on and codi ng of the command phi l osophy st at ementsand hel ped edi t the f i nal document . Her good temper andhappy out l ook on l i f e were i nf ect i ous and ext remel ymoti vat i ng. Cyndi e and Br i an Camperson were wonderf ul . Theyal ways generousl y cared for Kal i ko and we were t reated l i kemembers of thei r f aml y. Thanks to the members of staffgroup 14B who hel ped me keep thi ngs i n perspect i ve,especi al l y St eve Lanza and M ke Souder. A speci al thanks t oVi cky Hi ckerson- Robert s who gui ded and encouraged me i n theachi evement of my f i nal obj ect i ve. Fi nal l y, I woul d l i ke tothank Frances Forsyth, my l ovel y mother - i n- l aw, who came f romRi chmond, Vi rgi ni a every other month to hel p me w t h Kal i ko.Wthout her hel p and l ovi ng support , I woul d have been unabl et o compl et e the requi rements for my Master of M l i t ary Artand Sci ence.

Sharon Duf fy assi sted w t h t he

i v


5/101

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL PAGE ..........................................ABSTRACT ...............................................ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................LIST OF TABLES .........................................CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION....... .............................2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................3. METHODOLOGY .....................................4. ANALYSIS. .......................................5. CONCLUSIONS .....................................

APPENDIX: TOOLS USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY .................................BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST ..............................

m.eii

iiiivvi

I

18345674

84939 5

V


6/101

LIST OF TABLESTable Page

1. Subject by Branch Category ...................... 572. Average Frequency of Frame Response by Gender . . . 583. Leadership Style by Gender ...................... 594. Correlations of All Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635. Branch Category/Political Frame ................. 69

vi


7/101

CHAPTER ONEI NTRODUCTI ON

J ames MacGregor Burns, w nner of the Pul i t zer Pr i ze f orhi s book J - eader si Q wrote that "l eadershi p i s one of t he mostobserved and the l east underst ood phenomena on ear t h. "l Thetopi c of l eadershi p, and eventual l y the quest i on of what i sef f ect i ve l eadershi p, permeated Amer i can soci et y and ot hernat i ons most recent l y dur i ng the 1992 Presi dent i al r acebetween t hen Presi dent George Bush and Governor Bi l l Cl i nton.The unprecedented number of el i gi bl e vot ers t hat actual l yvoted i n t he 1992 el ect i on (101 ml l i on) i l l ust rated t hepopul at i on' s concern about the count ry' s f uture l eadershi p.Each candi dat e' s past and current l eadershi p abi l i t i es andthei r cor respondi ng resul t s were caref ul l y scrut i ni zed anddi ssected by t he Ameri can peopl e dur i ng the campai gn.Ul t i mat el y, the peopl e of the Uni ted States voted f or achange i n l eadershi p by sel ect i ng Governor Cl i nt on f orPresi dent . What exact l y then i s l eadershi p and why i s i t soi mport ant ?

At every l evel , l eadershi p has shaped the wor l d' sexi st ence. Wthout l eadershi p, t here woul d be no process ofi nf l uenci ng peopl e to reach necessary goal s. Thi s

1


8/101

appl i cat i on can r ange f r om a smal l company meet i ng i t s annualgoal s t o st ay i n busi ness t o a count r y wor ki ng i t s way out ofa depr essi on. Hi st or y pr esent s an i nf i ni t e number ofexampl es that show how l eadershi p has i nf l uenced event s andshaped out comes. Regar dl ess of a per son' s st at i on i n l i f e,he or she i s di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y af f ected by l eader shi p.

Ther e ar e pr obabl y as many def i ni t i ons of l eader shi p aspeopl e who have ei t her st udi ed l eader shi p compl exi t i es or aspeopl e who have been i n l eader shi p posi t i ons.sur vey t ur ned up 130 def i ni t i ons of l eader shi p. 2 Webst er ' sDi ct i onar y has no pr eci se def i ni t i on f or l eader shi p andpr ovi des a var i et y of choi ces rangi ng f r om a l eader ' sposi t i on and hi s capaci t y to l ead, t o t he essence ofl eader shi p bei ng a successf ul r esol ut i on of probl em . ^Ber nar d Bass , i n t he r evi sed and expanded edi t i on ofSt oad of Leader sh B, wr i t es t hat a def i ni t i onshoul d do mor e t han j ust i dent i f y l eaders and t he way t heyacqui r ed t hei r posi t i ons. I t shoul d al so consi der t hemai nt enance and cont i nui t y of l eader shi p. He br oadl y def i nesl eadershi p as " an i nt eract i on bet ween members of a gr oup.Leader shi p occur s when one group member modi f i es t hemot i vat i on or compet enci es of ot her s i n t he gr oup. " * Whatbecomes obvi ous i s t hat t he st udy of l eader shi p and i t sdef i ni t i on ar e very compl i cat ed.

A r ecent

i l l ' s Handb k

The m l i t ary envi r onment i s one pr i me exampl e.M l i t ar y l eader shi p separ at es i t sel f f r om t he l eader shi p of

2


9/101

ot her i nst i t ut i ons based on each servi ce' s mssi on andpar t i cul ar requi rement s. The ml i tary' s pr i mary task i s todeter war by bei ng prepared to f i ght and w n on thebat t l ef i el d. 5 When an i ndi vi dual j oi ns any ml i t ary ser vi ce,he takes an oath " t oprotect and def end the Const i t ut i on oft he Uni t ed St at es, agai nst al l enemes, f orei gn anddomest i c. " By taki ng the oat h, the i ndi vi dual i s sayi ng thathe i s prepared t o ul t i matel y gi ve hi s l i f e f or hi s count ry.I n t he ml i t ary, the l eaders must i nspi re thei r f ol l owers " t or i sk thei r l i ves f or some greater end and have t he courage todemand that they do so. The ml i tary obl i gat i on ( t heprof essi on of arms) demands a greater commt ment . I t demandsthat men agree to di e i f necessary i n f ul f i l l i ng thei r task. ' I 6I n a recent address, f ormer Secretary of t he Ar my, J ohn 0.Mar sh, J r . , sai d, the "prof essi onal sol di er must put t hewel f are of the nat i on and t he accompl i shment of t he assi gnedmssi on bef ore i ndi vi dual wel f are. #O7 No other organi zat i onrequi res such a potent i al sacri f i ce f romi t s members. Thi sresponsi bi l i t y makes l eadershi p i n the ml i tary uni quebecause i t requi res the l eader to put hi s subordi nat es' l i vesat r i sk i f necessary. Most other occupat i ons do not needthi s t ype of commt ment i n order to meet an organi zat i on' sgoal s.

Al l servi ces of the Armed Forces exerci se ml i t aryl eadershi p w t h di f f erences consi stent to each ser vi ce' smssi on. The Army i s the l and f orce and i t s mssi on i s t o

3


10/101

ul t i mat el y w n t he bat t l e by cl osi ng w th and dest royi ng t heenemy. Leadi ng sol di er s i n the f ace of danger requi res agreat er degree of det ermnat i on and i ntensi t y. The Ai r For ceand the Navy proj ect ai r and sea power i n suppor t of t he l andf orces. The uni que l eadershi p chal l enges faci ng t he Armydemands const ant st udy and ref i nement to ensure the f ut uredevel opment of i t s l eaders. Thi s study w l l examnel eadershi p i n t he Army.

Ther e appears to be as many def i ni t i ons f or ml i t aryl eadershi p as l eadershi p i n general . I n the August 1992Leadershi p I ssue of M l i t arv Revi ew, t he many def i ni t i ons ofl eadershi p, al t hough si ml ar , were never the same. Al lcont r i but or s agreed, however , that l eadershi p was the onenecessary i ngredi ent , w t hout whi ch the nat i on woul d not.have an Army, but an armed mob and an unrel i abl e one att hat . * Fi el d Manual 22- 100, the Ar my s l eadershi p manual ,def i ned l eadershi p as t he process of i nf l uenci ng ot hers toaccompl i sh t he mssi on by provi di ng purpose, di rect i on, andmot i vat i on. g I n thi s process there are f our f actorsi nvol ved: t he l eader , the l ed, the envi ronment , andcommuni cat i ons. Fi el d Manual 22- 103, Leadershi D and Commandat Seni or Level s, def i ned l eadershi p as t he art of di rectand i ndi rect i nf l uence and the ski l l f or creat i ng thecondi t i ons f or sust ai ned organi zat i onal success to achi evet he desi red resul t . l q I n comment s t o the f i rst graduat i ngOf f i cer Candi dat e Schoo: cl ass on 27 September 1941 General

4


11/101

George C. Marshal l descri bed l eadershi p as the ski l l thatmerged peopl e, organi zat i ons, equi pment , and doct r i ne and l etthem f unct i on ef f ecti vel y i n an era of rapi d t echnol ogi caland pol i t i cal change. I 1 As presented ear l i er , t he def i ni t i onof l eadershi p i s a two- way i nf l uence process between thel eader and the l ed operat i ng i n a par t i cul ar envi ronment .The par t i cul ar envi ronment i n thi s st udy i s the Uni t ed St at esArmy.

ment Theorv and Pract i cemanual publ i shed by t he US Army War Col l ege, addressed threel evel s of l eadershi p: di rect l eadershi p, seni or l eadershi p,and st rategi c l eadershi p. I n thi s st udy' s examnat i on ofArmy l eadershi p, the general f ocus i s on di rect and seni orl eadershi p. Di rect l eadershi p i n t he Army general l y occursf romsquad to bat tal i on l evel and i s character i zed by workthat i s cont rol l ed, st ructured, and t ask- or i ented. Thel eader exer t s i nf l uence through personal i nteract i on w t h hi ssubordi nates i n an envi ronment that i s r el at i vel y st abl e anddef i ned. The l eader ' s f ocus i s normal l y on the present ornear f uture and feedback to act i ons i s i mmedi ate. Seni orl eadershi p exi st s f romthe br i gade to corps l evel andi nvol ves both di rect and i ndi rect l eadershi p. Tasks are morecompl ex and di verse, and the l eader i s i nf l uenced by t asksboth i nternal and external to the organi zat i on. Si nce thecommander works through a l arge staf f , resul t s to deci si ons

5


12/101

are l ess i mmedi ate or predi ctabl e. Feedback i n thi s case i sal so not i mmedi ate. 12

Why i s t he st udy of l eadershi p i n the Army i mpor tant ?Fi el d Manual 100- 5, QDerat1 on$, the Army' s keyst one manualgoverni ng warf i ght i ng doct r i ne, st ates "t he most essent i alel ement of combat power i s competent and conf i dentl eader ~hi p. " ~~he dynamcs of combat power: maneuver ,f i repower , protect i on, and l eadershi p, deci de the out come ofcampai gns, maj or operat i ons, bat t l es and engagements. Thel eader sel ects t he proper combi nat i on of maneuver , f i r epower ,and protect i on that w l l ul t i matel y def eat t he enemy. Thereare no "cooki e- cut ter ' ' sol ut i ons or templ ates that govern theproper empl oyment of these el ements. The l eader i s the onewho makes the deci si ons and empl oys hi s uni t ' s asset s. Hi sl eadershi p i s cri t i cal to the success of any of hi s ef f or t s." I n the current condi t i ons of combat , no chal l enge exceedsl eadershi p i n i mportance. "14 The bet ter t he Army l eaderunderst ands l eadershi p and how to achi eve ef f ect i vel eadershi p, t he bet ter he or she w l l be abl e to appl y i twhen the out come i s a mat ter of l i f e or death. "Leadershi pi s the most i mportant consi derat i on to set t i ng the st age f orvi ct ory. "15deterrence f ai l s, t o go to war and def eat the enemy. Combathas been the t radi t i onal rol e of the Army. As st ated i n FM22- 100, "qual i t y l eadershi p must exi st throughout the f orcei f t he nat i on i s to have an Army ready f or combat. "16

The Army' s mssi on i s to deter war and when

6


13/101

Whi l e def i ni ng l eadershi p i n the Army, f our f actors ofl eadershi p are i mportant : the l eader , t he l ed, thesi t uat i on, and communi cat i ons. These f our f actors are al wayspresent but af f ect each other di f f erent l y dependent on t hesi tuat i on. Each of these el ements must be caref ul l y st udi edto maxi mze l eadershi p ef f ect i veness. The study concent rat eson the factor of the l eader .

The l eaders i n t oday' s Army are men and women who ar eext remel y di verse comng f romal l par t s of the wor l d and f roma var i ety of ethni c, economc, and rel i gi ous backgrounds.The tot al i nt egrat i on of women i n the Army cont i nues today.Si nce the assi ml at i on of the Women' s Army Corps i n 1978 andthe admssi on of women to the Uni ted States M l i tary Academyi n 1976, t he rol e of women l eaders has been cl osel ymoni t ored, st udi ed, and quest i oned. Women composed over 11percent of t he act i ve duty armed servi ces at t he st ar t of t heGul f War and thei r part i ci pat i on i n Operat i ons Deser t Shi el dand Desert St ormnow br i ngs more at t ent i on to thei r presencei n the Army and the other servi ces. 17commssi on was appoi nt ed to study the ef f ect s of women i ncombat and to determne i f the combat excl usi on rul e shoul dbe changed to al l ow women to serve i n al l branches of theArmy. At the end of f i scal year 1989, women compr i sed 11% ofthe act i ve f or ce, f i l l i ng 11,110 posi t i ons out of 91, 443overal l . Of the of f i cer speci al t i es, 96 percent are open towomen. Women ar e represented i n every car eer management

A presi dent i al

I


14/101

f i el d except I nf ant ry, Armor , and Speci al Operat i ons. Asi gni f i cant popul at i on of women (proport i onal to thei rdi st r i but i on i n the Army) are j ust now reachi ng the f i el dgrade r anks. Few st udi es have sol el y f ocused on the f emal eArmy l eader and the way she l eads.

The systemat i c study of l eadershi p has occur red i n anumber of f rameworks. One exampl e i s a body of t heori es thathave been devel oped to expl ai n types of l eadershi p and thei rgeneral rel at i onshi p t o the demands and f unct i ons of soci ety.Trai t theor i es i ni t i al l y f ocused on the l eader and hi spersonal t rai t s and character i st i cs that separated hi mas al eader f romhi s fol l owers. Trai t theor i sts bel i eved thatl eaders coul d be i dent i f i ed by exhi bi t i ng cer tai n t rai t s ofcharacter and personal i t y. Trai t theor i es were onedi mensi onal as they onl y f ocused on the l eader and di d nottake the si tuat i on or the l eader ' s f ol l owers i ntoconsi derat i on. Whi l e t rai t theor i sts l ooked at l eaders i nterms of t rai t s, behavi or or styl e theor i sts f ocused on whatl eaders di d when they actual l y l ed. "Accordi ng to thel eadershi p styl e approach, l eadershi p i s ' t he behavi or of ani ndi vi dual when he [or she] i s di rect i ng the act i vi t i es of agroup toward a shared goal ' (Hemphi l l & Coons, 1957, p. 7) . 8 18

Another approach to l eadershi p that was di f f erent f romtrai t and l eadershi p styl e theor i st s who concent rated sol el yon the l eader , were the si tuat i onal theor i st s who consi deredl eadershi p as a rol e. "Rol es are expectat i ons about how al l

8


15/101

peopl e i n a gi ven posi t i on shoul d thi nk or act ( Hol l ander ,1981)."19 I ndi vi dual s do not create the rol es they f i l l ; therol es are formed as a resul t of the si t uat i on. As t hesi t uat i on changes, so do the di mensi ons of t he l eadershi prol e. The t ask and t he envi ronment determne the t ype ofl eadershi p that w l l be demonst rated. The pat terns ofl eadershi p t rai t s w l l vary w th each si t uat i on. Taskdemands and group members al so modi f y t he type of l eadershi pdi spl ayed. "I f there are general t rai t s whi ch character i zel eaders, t he pat terns of such t rai t s are l i kel y to vary w t hthe l eadershi p requi rements of di f f erent si t uat i ons. "?"

As l eadershi p theory evol ved, personal - si t uat i onaltheor i es were devel oped to l i nk trai t and si t uat i onaltheor i es. i n a di scussi on of personal - si t uat i onal t heor i es,Bass wr i t es that theor i es about l eadershi p must cont ai nel ements of both persons and si tuat i ons. "Any theory ofl eadershi p must take account of the i nteract i on betweensi t uat i on and i ndi vi dual . ' *21 Wth the advent of personal andsi t uat i onal t heory, t he study of l eadershi p f ocused on therel at i onshi p between the l eader , the f ol l ower , and t heenvi ronment i n whi ch they i nteracted.

I nteract i on- expect at i on theor i es moved beyond therel at i onshi p between the l eader , the f ol l ower , and theenvi ronment and l ooked at matchi ng the l eader ' s behavi or t o apar t i cul ar si t uat i on, def i ned by the st ructure of the taskand the subordi nates abi l i t y l evel to enhance l eadershi p

9


16/101

ef f ect i veness and f ol l ower mot i vat i on. Pat h- goal t heory andcont i ngency theory are exampl es of Expectancy theory. path-goal t heory expl ai ns how a l eader can i ncrease asubor di nat e' s mot i vat i on t o accompl i sh organi zat i onal goal s.I t mat ches the appropr i ate l eader behavi or to t he si t uat i onby examni ng the st ructure of the task and the subordi nate' sabi l i ty to accompl i sh the task. On the other hand,cont i ngency theory examnes l eader - member rel at i ons, t askst ructure, and posi t i on power i n order to predi ct a l eader ' sef f ect i veness.

Humani st i c theor i es l ook l ess at matchi ng the l eader tothe organi zat i on and f ocus on the devel opment of ef f ect i veand cohesi ve organi zat i ons. Leadershi p, i n thi s case, i sused to modi f y the organi zat i on to si mul taneousl y al l owi ndi vi dual s to f ul f i l l thei r own needs as wel l as workt owards accompl i shi ng the goal s of the organi zat i on. 22

Thi s survey of l eadershi p theor i es i l l ust rates thecompl exi t y of the subj ect . These theor i es are vi t al becausei n order t o ar r i ve at a workabl e def i ni t i on of l eadershi p, i ti s essent i al to consi der what others have di scovered andwr i t t en about the subj ect. I n thi s revi ew of t heor i es, anevol ut i on f or l eadershi p devel opment becomes apparent as one-di mensi onal poi nt s of vi ew became mul t i - di mensi onal and asthe var i abl es to consi der i n l eadershi p theory f ormul at i oncont i nue to i ncrease. For t he purpose of thi s study,l eadershi p w l l be def i ned as a two- way i nf l uence process


17/101

between the l eader and the f ol l ower or group of f ol l owers.The structure or envi ronment , t ask, and goal s of thesi t uat i on w l l be vi ewed as havi ng a si gni f i cant i nf l uence i nt he l eadershi p process. Ef f ecti ve l eadershi p w l l bemeasured by the l eader ' s abi l i t y to i nf l uence hi ssubordi nates to reach goal at tai nment .

I n t he study of l eadershi p, understandi ng therel at i onshi p between power and l eadershi p i s val uabl e.Leadershi p i s an i nf l uenci ng process, and power i s cl osel yl i nked t o thi s i nf l uenci ng process. I n al l rel at i onshi psbetween l eaders and f ol l owers, some f ormof power i s presentand i s ei t her avai l abl e to the l eader or to the f ol l ower orgroup. There are two maj or categor i es of power t o consi der:personal power and posi t i on power. These two basi ccategor i es can be broken down i nto si x more speci f i c bases ofpower devel oped by Fr ench and Raven (1959, 1965).23 Personalpower f ocuses on the i nterpersonal rel at i onshi p bet ween t hel eader and the f ol l ower and i ncl udes i nf ormat i on, exper t i se,and goodw l l power . I n cont rast , posi t i on power f ocuses onthe power provi ded by an i ndi vi dual ' s posi t i on i n theorgani zat i on and i ncl udes aut hor i t y, r eward, and di sci pl i nepower . Leaders and f ol l owers i n the i nf l uence process usepower t o some extent . How the power i s appl i ed det ermnesl eadershi p ef f ecti veness.

I n i t s examnat i on of Army l eadershi p, thi s study w l lconcent rate on t he f emal e l eader and the way she i nt eract s

11


18/101

w t h her subordi nates i n compar i son to her mal e count erpar t .FM 22- 100 def i ned l eadershi p st yl e as the personal manner andapproach of l eadi ng that provi des purpose, di rect i on, andmot i vat i on. "I t i s the way l eaders di rect l y i nteract w t hthei r subordi nat es. "24 Ken Bl anchard i n "Leadershi p and theOne M nut e Manager' ' def i ned l eadershi p st yl e as t he pat t ernof behavi ors one uses when t ryi ng t o i nf l uence the behavi or sof ot hers as percei ved by them25

Leadershi p st yl es have been descr i bed i n many di f f erentterms. The most endur i ng are the autocrat i c and democrat i cl eadershi p styl es. Autocrat i c l eaders cent ral i ze power i nt hemsel ves and domnate the deci si onmaki ng process of t hegroup. A l eader uses an author i t ar i an l eadershi p st yl e whenhe i s very di rect i ve and tel l s hi s subordi nat es what he want sdone and how he want s t hemto accompl i sh t he t ask. I n FM 22-100, a l eader demonst rates an autocrat i c l eadershi p st yl ewhen he uses hi s l egi t i mate author i t y and posi t i on power t oget resul t s. The manual current l y uses the termof adi rect i ng l eadershi p styl e to descr i be a l eader who t el l s hsubordi nat es "what he wants done, and when he wants i t doneand t hen supervi ses cl osel y to ensure they f ol l ow hi s

S

di r ect i ons. o826model , di rect i ve l eadershi p i s def i ned as t he extent a l eaderengages i n one-way communi cati ons to spel l out to hi sf ol l owers what t o dc, where to do i t , when to do i t , and howto do i t ; al l under t he cl ose supervi si on of the l eader .

I n Ken Bl anchar d' s Si t uat i onal Leadershi p I 1

1 2


19/101

Three words def i ne a di rect i ve l eadershi p styl e: st ruct ur e,cont rol , and supervi se. 27 For the purpose of t hi s st udy, thet erms aut ocrat i c, di recti ve, and task- or i ented w l l be usedsynonymousl y to descr i be the l eadershi p st yl e as expl ai nedabove.

A l eader who uses d democrat i c l eadershi p st yl e, shareshi s power and responsi bi l i t i es w t h group members. Al thought he l eader i nvol ves one or more of hi s subordi nates i n thedeci si onmaki ng process, he i s st i l l the one who must maket he f i nal deci si on. I n FM 22- 100, a l eader demonst rates ademocrat i c l eadershi p styl e when he uses hi s personal i t y t opersuade hi s subordi nat es and i nvol ves themi n the deci si on-maki ng and probl emsol vi ng process. The manual cur rent l yuses a par t i ci pat i ve styl e to descr i be a l eader who i nvol veshi s sol di er s i n determni ng what to do and how to do i t . Thel eader recei ves advi ce f rom hi s subordi nat es pr i or to maki ngthe f i nal deci si on. i * I n Bl anchard' s Si tuat i onal 11 model , ademocrat i c or par t i ci pat i ve l eadershi p st yl e woul d be rel at edt o t he support i ve l eader behavi or model . A support i vel eadershi p styl e i s def i ned as t he extent a l eader engages i nt wo- way communi cat i ons to l i sten and provi de suppor t , andencouragement , to f aci l i tate i nteract i on, and to i nvol ve thef ol l ower i n t he deci si on maki ng process. Three words def i nethi s styl e of l eadershi p: prai se, l i sten, and f aci l i t ate. 2gFor the purpose of thi s st udy, the terms democrat i c,par t i ci pat i ve, suppor t i ve, and rel at i ons-or i ented w l l be


20/101

used synonymousl y to descr i be the l eadershi p st yl e asexpl ai ned above.

The st udy f ocuses on women l eaders i n the US Army andt he st yl es of l eadershi p they empl oy when i nteract i ng w t hthei r subordi nates. The premse i s that women of f i cers i nthe uni t ed St at es Army use a more par t i ci pat i ve styl e ofl eadershi p than thei r mal e counterparts. Another area ofconsi derat i on w l l be the examnat i on of the rel at i onshi pbetween l eadershi p st yl e, gender , and branch cat egory:Combat Arms, Combat Support , and Combat Servi ce Suppor t . Thei mportance of thi s study i s to i dent i f y the f emal e l eader ' spredomnant l eadershi p styl e i n order to maxi mze the ski l l sthat a f emal e l eader br i ngs to her prof essi on. I n t ur n, t hi scoul d maxi mze l eader ef f ect i veness, and the more ef f ect i ve al eader , t he bet ter the ml i tary organi zat i on and the moreprepared t he Army i s to accompl i sh i t s mssi on.

Addi t i onal l y, thi s study i s of personal si gni f i cance.As an Army of f i cer , who al so happens to be a women, I ami nterest ed i n determni ng i f women use a more par t i ci pat i vel eadershi p styl e. Si nce the start of thi s r esearch, I havebecome more at tuned to demonst rated l eadershi p styl es andhave di scovered that a par t i ci pat i ve l eadershi p st yl e i s moreef f ect i ve f or me, especi al l y when worki ng w ch my peers i n mystaf f group. I n ret rospect, I have al so been abl e to bet tereval uate t he ef f ect i veness of my l eadershi p st yl e whenappl i ed i n Army uni t s.

14


21/101

Throughout thi s i nt roduct i on, l eadershi p has beendef i ned as an i nf l uence process, and l eadershi p ef f ect i venesshas been measured by t he l eader' s abi l i t y to i nf l uence hi ssubordi nates to reach goal at tai nment . The more a l eaderunderst ands about l eadershi p styl e and i nf l uence; the bet terhe becomes at reachi ng goal at tai nment .

The f i rst l eadershi p pr i nci pl e l i sted i n FM 22- 100,M l i t ary Leadershi p, i s: know yoursel f and seek sel f -i mprovement . Thi s study w l l provi de a way f or women tomeasure and eval uat e thei r own st yl e of l eadershi p and tobett er underst and haw they l ead and i nf l uence t hei rsubordi nat es. I t w l l provi de some i nsi ght on l eadershi pst yl es to t hose women who are current l y i n the Army and tothose prepar i ng to enter the Army. Thi s study w l l not onl yassi st women i n ascer tai ni ng thei r l eadershi p st yl es, butw l l al so provi de i nf ormat i on to thei r mal e counterpar t s aswel l . I n any organi zat i on, i t i s i mportant to have a bett erunderst andi ng of how everyone l eads i n the organi zat i on.Thi s comprehensi on w l l al l ow al l l eaders i n the Army tomaxi mze thei r i ndi vi dual l eadershi p styl es and ski l l s andw l l provi de necessary i nsi ght i nto the exerci se of ef f ect i vel eadershi p. Thi s determnat i on of whether women l eaders usea more par t i ci pat i ve styl e of l eadershi p i s j ust one- st eptowards a bet ter underst andi ng of the compl i cated process ofl eadershi p.

15


22/101

EndnotesI J ames MacGregor Burns, Leadershi Q ( New York: Harper &ROW 1978) , 2.21bi d.3Phi l i p B. Gove, ed. , Webster ' s Thi rd New I nt ernat i onalDi ct i onarv ( Spr i ngf i el d, Mass: G&C Merr i amCompanyPubl i shers, 1976) , 1283.4Bernard M Bass, St oad l l ' s Handbook o Leadershi Q(New York: Free Press, 1981) , 16.5Depar tment of t he Army, FM 100- 1 The Armv ( Washi ngt on,DC.: Government Pr i nt i ng Of f i ce, 1991) , 18.6Robert L. Tayl or and Wl l i amE. Rosenbach, eds. ,l l l t drv Leadershi D: I n Pursui t of Excel l ence ( Boul der , CO:.West vi ew Press, 1984) , 17.7Pet er Masl owski , "Army Val ues and Ameri can Val ues, "pfi l i arv Revi ex Vo1. LXX No. 4 (Apr i l 1990) : 11.8"Leadershi p: Vi ews f romReaders, M l i t a rv Revi ewVol . LXXI 1 No.8 (Apr i l 1992) : 53.9Depar tment of the Army, FM 22- 100 M l i t arv Leade rshi Q( Washi ngt on, D C. : Government Pr i nt i ng Of f i ce, 1990) , 1.10Department of the Army, FM 22- 103 Leadershi D andCommand at Seni or Leve1s (Washi ngton, D. C. : GovernmentPr i nt i ng Of f i ce, 1987) , 3.I l George C. Marshal l , "Leadershi p i n Per spect i ve,Mari ne Co m Ga zet t e Vo1. 75 No. 2 ( February 1991) : 14.I 2Department of Command, Leadershi p and Management ofthe U. S. Army War Col l ege, Armv Command and Manaaement Theorvand Pract i ce ( Car l i sl e Bar racks, PA: U. S. Army War Col l ege,1991) . 5- 2.I 3Department of the Army, FM 100- 5 OQerat i ons( Washi ngt on, D. C. : Government Pr i nt i ng Of f i ce, 1986) , 13.141bi d. , 14.

16


23/101

15Depart ment of the Army, FM 100- 5 OQerat ons LPrel i m namDraf t; ( For t Leavenwor th, KS: Command and GeneralSt af f Col l ege, 1992) . 4- 4.1 6 ~ ~2 - 100, 0.17Rosemary Bryant Mar i ner , "A Sol di er i s A Sol di er ,I 8J erome Adams and J ani ce D. Yoder , Ef f ecti veLeade shi z, for Men and Women ( Nor wood, NJ : Al ex Publ i shi ngCorp, 19851, 4.

( Monograph di ss. , Nat i onal War Col l ege, 1992) , 1.

19I bi d.20 f L r hi g, 408.z1I bi d. , 29.22I bi d. , 33.23st oad l l ' s Handbook of Leadershi p, 170.z4FM22-10Q, 69.25Kenneth H. Bl anchard, Leadershi z, and the One M nut e

vanaaer ( Escondi do, CA: Bl anchard Trai ni ng and Devel opment ,1985) . 1- 2.2 6 ~ ~2- 100, 69.2I Leadershi z, and the One M nute Manacl e r , 2.2 8 ~ ~2- 10Q, 69.29~eader si z, and the One M nute Manaaer , 2.

17


24/101

CHAPTER TWOLI TERATURE REVI EW

Thi s st udy' s premse i s t hat women Army of f i cers use amor e par t i ci pat i ve l eadershi p styl e than thei r mal ecount erpart s. I n hi s book, Ef f ect i ve Leadershi D f or Womengnd Men, J er ome Adams stated that onl y i n the l ast 15 year shas systemati c research on women as l eaders been carr i ed out .He wrote of about L. R. Bender who, i n a st udy conduct ed i n1979, ci ted that much of the earl y l i t erature on l eadershi pwas done by men usi ng mal e subj ects. ' There i s very l i t t l eresearch avai l abl e that deal s w th the l eadershi p st yl e ofwomen of f i cers i n the Army. A si gni f i cant amount of researchon l eadershi p st yl e and gender has been conduct ed i n theacademc, and management / busi ness f i el ds. Soci al sci ent i st shave conduct ed numerous studi es that consi der al l aspects ofl eadershi p and gender . I ndi vi dual s w th extensi ve exper i encei n organi zat i ons and management have wr i t ten books andar t i cl es on what they have observed i n t erms of l eadershi p.For the purpose of thi s st udy, computer searches wereconducted usi ng the key words l eadershi p and l eadershi p st yl el i nked w t h the terms gender , women and sex di f f erences.M l i t ary per i odi cal s were checked under the t erms l eadershi p

18


25/101

and women i n the Army. Thi s st udy has careful l y examnedresearch rel ated to the study of l eadershi p i n order toi sol ate dat a that can be appl i ed to women l eaders i n theml i t ary envi ronment .

One of t he most si gni f i cant repor t s consi dered i n t hi sl i t erature revi ew was, "Gender and Leadershi p Styl e: A Met a-Anal ysi s" by Al i ce H. Eagl y and Bl ai r T. J ohnson. Thi s meta-anal ysi s was publ i shed i n "Psychol ogi cal Bul l et i n" i n 1990.The bul l et i n revi ewed 161 research studi es that compared t hel eadershi p styl es of women and men and i nt erpreted evi dencef ound f or bot h the presence and absence of di f f erencesbetween the sexes. Resul t s showed a di vergence of coursebetween exper t s i n organi zati ons who bel i eved t here was af emni ne mode of management ; and the soci al sci ent i st s whobel i eved that women and men who occupi ed l eadershi p r ol es i norgani zat i ons di d not di f f er . Eagl y and J ohnson f ound thatthese two cont radi ct i ng school s of thought were based ondi f f erent ki nds of dat a. The popul ar wr i t i ng by theorgani zat i onal expert was based on the i ndi vi dual ' s ownexperi ence and on i ntervi ews conducted w th pract i ci ngmanagers. The soci al sci ent i st s based thei r concl usi ons onmore f ormal st udi es of manager i al behavi or . Eagl y andJ ohnson, t heref ore, conducted a meta- anal ysi s that provi deda syst emat i c, quant i t at i ve i ntegrat i on of the avai l abl eresearch i n whi ch t he l eadershi p st yl es of men and women werecompared and st at i st i cal anal yses were perf ormed. >

19


26/101

I n a theoret i cal anal ysi s of sex di f f erences i nl eadershi p st yl e, Eagl y and J ohnson gave reasons t o expectthe absence and presence of sex di f f erences i n l eadershi pst yl e. They bel i eved that the men and women who were i nl eadershi p posi t i ons i n organi zat i ons had been sel ected andsoci al i zed f or t hose l eadershi p rol es, and i t was reasonabl eto assume that the mal e and f emal e l eaders who occupi ed thesame organi zat i onal rol e shoul d di f f er very l i t t l e. Therewere several reasons f or the presence of di f f erences thatwer e not nul l i f i ed by organi zat i onal sel ecti on orsoci al i zati on. " I n par t i cul ar , men and women may come tomanager i al [ or l eadershi p] rol es w th a somewhat di f f erentset of ski l l s. "3have more advanced soci al ski l l s and these ski l \ l s al l ow themto per f ormmanager i al rol es di f f erent l y than men. Ski l l f uli nterpersonal behavi or promotes a l eadershi p s t y l e that i spar t i ci pat i ve, The character i sti cs of col l aborat i ve deci si onmaki ng i nt roduce i nterpersonal compl exi ty that i s notencountered by autocrat i c l eader ~hi p. ~nother di f f erence wasat t r i but ed to a spi l l over of gender rol es ontoorgani zat i onal rol es. I ndi vi dual s i n an organi zat i on mayhave gender based expectat i ons that are di f f erent f or f emal eand mal e managers. Thi s ef f ect i s al so demonst rated wheni ndi vi dual s who hol d posi t i ons i n organi zat i ons have negat i veat t i t udes about women i n manager i al or l eadershi p rol es.These negati ve at t i t udes can create an atmosphere of doubt

They consi dered that women as a group may

2 0


27/101

about t he f emal e manager s abi l i t i es and l ead to anonsupport i ve envi ronment . Fi nal l y, the women i n anorgani zat i on may have token st at us whi ch i ncreases vi si bi l i t yand can have a number of negat i ve i mpl i cat i ons of how t hesewomen are percei ved and t reated. AS rel at i ve newcomers i nmany manager i al r ol es there coul d be subt l e di f f erences i nt he st ruct ural posi t i on of men and women i n an organi zat i on.

I n t he resul t s of thei r met a- anal ysi s, t he l argestoveral l sex di f f erence occurred on the tendency f or women t oadopt a more democrat i c or part i ci pat i ve st yl e and f or men toadopt a more aut ocrat i c or di recti ve styl e. Ni net y- t wopercent of avai l abl e compar i sons were i n the di rect i on ofmore democrat i c behavi or f romwomen than f rommen. Thesef i ndi ngs wer e consi st ent i n l aboratory exper i ment s,organi zat i onal st udi es, and assessment st udi es t hat assessedl eadershi p styl es of i ndi vi dual s not i n l eadershi p rol es.

The tendency f or women to adopt a more democrat i c st yl ei s i n l i ne w t h the reasoni ng for di f f erences as di scussedear l i er . They have more ful l y devel oped soci al ski l l s andt hese ski l l s are bet ter ut i l i zed w th a par t i ci pat i ve styl eof l eadershi p. They gai n acceptance by usi ng a col l aborat i vedeci si on maki ng process that encourages and sol i ci t s i nputf romt hei r subordi nates. And f i nal l y, as they become moreaccept ed and experi enced as managers, they gai n more sel f -conf i dence i n thei r abi l i t i es as l eaders.

21


28/101

Eagl y and J ohnson f ound that the tendency f or a f emal eto use a more i nt erpersonal and more democrati c st yl e ofl eadershi p decreased i f the rol e was mal e domnated. Thei rf i ndi ngs suggest that i n an ext remel y mal e domnat ed r ol e,women l ose author i t y i f they adopt a di st i nct i vel y f emni nest yl e of l eadershi p. I n order to survi ve i n t hese mal edomnated rol es, the women woul d probabl y adopt t he st yl e ofa t ypi cal mal e rol e model .

Ar t hur J ag0 and Vi ctor Vroom conducted anotheri mportant study that l ooked at par t i ci pat i ve l eader behavi or .Thi s st udy was consi dered i n the met a- anal ysi s di scussedabove and i s al so si gni f i cant on i t s own. I n t hei r st udy,"Sex Di f f erences i n the I nci dence and Eval uat i on ofPar t i ci pat i ve Leader Behavi or ", J ag0 and Vroom conducted twoexper i ments. The f i rst exper i ment i ndi cated the l evel ofsubordi nat e par t i ci pat i on that the subj ects of t he exper i mentwoul d encourage i n 30 hypothet i cal deci si on maki ngsi tuat i ons. The second exper i ment eval uated aut ocrat i cversus par t i ci pat i ve behavi or . I n the f i rst exper i ment , bot ht he f emal e st udent s and managers were f ound to be morepart i ci pat i ve i n l eadershi p styl e than thei r mal ecounterpar t s. I n the second exper i ment , mal es and f emal eswho were bel i eved to be part i ci pat i ve were rated f avorabl y,whi l e f emal es who were percei ved to be more autocrat i crecei ved negat i ve eval uat i ons. Mal es percei ved to beautocrat i c were gi ven modest but posi t i ve eval uat i ons. Thi s

22


29/101

i l l ust rates another reason why women are more par t i ci pat i vei n t hei r i nteract i on. when they behave i n an aut ocrat i cmanner, they "evoke msgi vi ngs i n both sexes. " Women w l luse a more par t i ci pat i ve styl e to avoi d negat i ve eval uat i ons. 5

I n thei r paper "Leadershi p i n the U. S. Army: A FrameAnal ysi s, " Dr . Di ck Hei movi cs, Prof essor of Organi zat i onalBehavi or at t he Uni versi ty of M ssour i - Kansas Ci t y and U. S.Army Maj ors J ames Fost er, Kenneth Maddox, Ti mothy St r oud, andM chael Street examned and compared the espoused anddemonst rated l eadershi p of t hi r t y- f our U . S . Army of f i cers.Usi ng cr i t er i a devel oped f romLee Bohan and Ter rence Deal ' smul t i - f rame or i entat i on, they f i rst eval uated st at ement s thatdescr i bed each of f i cers espoused theory of ef f ect i vel eadershi p. They t hen eval uated nar rat i ves that descr i bedhow each of f i cer had deal t w th a cri t i cal l eadershi p eventand compared the resul t s f romeach eval uat i on. The mul t i -f rame ori entat i on whi ch Bol man and Deal based on maj orschool s of organi zati onal research and theory was used t oeval uate both st atements. "Thei r f ramework def i ned f ourdi st i nct organi zat i onal perspect i ves t hat l eaders may adoptto underst and the many real i t i es of organi zat i onal l i f e:st ructural , human resources, pol i t i cal , and symbol i c. "6 Amore detai l ed expl anat i on of the f rames f ol l ows i n Chapt erThree: Research Methodol ogy.

I n general , t he study f ound " t he human resource f ramewas used as much as i t was espoused, and used much more t han

2 3


30/101

t he st ructural f rame. I t was t he domnant f rame found i n t henarrat i ve of cr i t i cal l eadershi p events. The st ructuraland symbol i c f rames were espoused much more t han they wereactual l y used. On the other hand, whi l e the pol i t i cal f ramewas rarel y espoused, i t was of ten used i n the descr i pt i on oft he cr i t i cal l eadershi p event . 8

Dr . Hei movi cs wrote that i t was not surpr i si ng that thepol i t i cal f rame was not f requent l y espoused. I t i s rarepii ncl uded i n i nst i t ut i onal l eadershi p t rai ni ng and i s notreadi l y ref erenced i n Army publ i cat i ons on l eadershi p. 9hi s anal ysi s of the di f f erence i n the use versus the espousalof t he pol i t i cal f rame, Dr. Hei movi cs wrot e w t hout

I n

acknow edgi ng t he pol i t i cal aspect of l eadershi pef f ect i veness, i t may be i mpl i ed that those who can adapt andadopt a pol i t i cal or i ent at i on w thout espousi ng i t may morel i kel y be successf ul . o

Soci al sci ent i st s have made and cont i nue to makesi gni f i cant cont r i but i ons to the study and underst andi ng ofl eadershi p. Thei r studi es pl ay an i mportant r ol e i n theresearch conducted i n other areas. Another prol i f i c andval uabl e source i s i n the f i el d of busi ness and management .Leadershi p i n organi zat i ons i s w del y researched, di scussed,and publ i shed. I n 1990, Harvard Busi ness Revi ew publ i shedWays Women Lead whi ch sparked a t remendous amount of debateon t he subj ect of how women l ead. The i mportance and i mpactof t he ar t i cl e was evi dent i n thi s revi ew of l i t erat ure as i t

2 4


31/101

was ref erenced i n most management ar t i cl es f ol l ow ng i t spubl i cat i on. J udy B. Rosener , a f acul ty member at t heGraduat e School of Management at the Uni versi ty ofCal i f orni a, I rvi ne, wrote the art i cl e. The Leadershi pFoundat i on commssi oned Rosener to conduct a study of men andwomen l eaders. The I nternat i onal Women' s Forumcreat ed TheLeadershi p Foundat i on to hel p women advance and to educat et he publ i c about the cont r i but i ons women can and are maki ngi n government , busi ness, and other f i el ds. The studyconsi st ed of an ei ght page quest i onnai re and was sent to al lof t he I nternat i onal Women' s Forum ( I WF) members. The I WFwas f ounded i n 1982 to gi ve promnent women l eaders aroundthe worl d a way to share thei r know edge. Each respondentwas asked t o suppl y the name of a man i n a si ml arorgani zat i on w t h si ml ar r esponsi bi l i t i es. He, i n t ur n,recei ved the same quest i onnai re to f i l l out . Rosener had 465respondent s i n her sampl e. The quest i onnai re asked quest i onsabout the i ndi vi dual ' s l eadershi p st yl e, organi zat i on, work-f aml y i ssues, and personal character i st i cs.

At the concl usi on of her st udy, Rosener present edseveral i nt r i gui ng f i ndi ngs. She f ound that women were morel i kel y t han men to use transf ormat i onal l eadershi p.Transf ormat i onal l eadershi p was l eadershi p that mot i vated"ot her s by t ransformng thei r sel f - i nt erest i nto goal s of t heorgani zat i on". Rosener f ound that women were more l i kel yt han men to use personal power as opposed to posi t i on power.

25


32/101

AS def i ned i n t he i nt r oduct or y chapt er , per sonal powerf ocused on t he i nt er per sonal r el at i onshi p bet ween t he l eaderand t he f ol l ower and i ncl uded i nf or mat i on, exper t i se, andgoodwi l l power . On t he ot her hand, posi t i on power f ocused ont he power pr ovi ded by one' s posi t i on i n t he or gani zat i on andi ncl uded aut hor i t y, r ewar d, and di sci pl i ne power . Rosenerf ound t hat women used power based on char i sma, wor k r ecor d,and cont act s. She f ound t hat most men and women descr i bet hemsel ves as havi ng a m x of t r ai t s t hat ar e consi der edf em ni ne, mascul i ne, and gender - neut r al . Women who descr i bedt hemsel ves as bei ng pr edom nant l y f em ni ne or gender - neut r al ,r epor t ed a hi gher l evel of f ol l ower shi p among t hei r f emal esubor di nat es t han women who descr i bed t hemsel ves asmascul i ne. L1 Thi s f ol l ows wi t h t he f i ndi ngs of J ag0 andVr ooms' st udy on appr opr i at e gender behavi or .

Rosener ' s ar t i cl e was based on t he r esul t s of herst udy. I n her ar t i cl e, she descr i bed a second gener at i on ofmanager i al women who wer e f i ndi ng success i n or gani zat i ons" not by adopt i ng t he st yl e and habi t s t hat have pr ovedsuccessf ul f or men but by dr awi ng on t he ski l l s and at t i t udest hey devel oped f r om t hei r shar ed exper i ence as women. " 12These women wer e dr awi ng on what was uni que t o t hei rsoci al i zat i on as women. Agai n, Rosener f ound t hat woment ended t o descr i be t hemsel ves as t r ansf or mat i onal . Shecal l ed t hei r demonst r at ed l eader shi p st yl e " i nt er act i vel eader shi p' ' n ccnt r ast t o t he t r adi t i onal command and

2 6


33/101

cont rol st yl e of l eadershi p character i st i c of men.I nt eract i ve l eadershi p encourages par t i ci pat i on and theshar i ng of power and i nf ormat i on. I t goes beyond thepr i nci pl es of par t i ci pat i ve management and works to energi zef ol l owers and to enhance thei r f eel i ngs of sel f - wor t h. Manyof t he women that Rosener i ntervi ewed descr i bed t hei rpar t i ci pat ory styl e of l eadershi p as comng nat ural l y tothem They di d not f eel that they had adopt ed t hi s st yl e ofl eadershi p f or i t s busi ness val ue. These l eaders recogni zedsome of t he di sadvant ages of part i ci patory l eadershi p: i tt ook more t i me: i t requi red gi vi ng up some cont rol by aski ngot hers to par t i ci pat e i n the deci si on maki ng/ i nf ormat i onshar i ng process: and the l eader was more vul nerabl e t ocri t i ci sm The women pref erred usi ng a par t i ci pat i ve st yl eof l eadershi p but coul d use other f orms of l eadershi p whennecessary.

Rosener at t r i buted her subj ect s' t endency towardi nt eract i ve l eadershi p styl e to soci al i zat i on and careerpat hs. Pr i or to the 1 9 6 0 s . expect at i ons f or men and womenwere di f f erent . Women were expected to be w ves, mothers,t eachers, nurses and communi ty vol unteers. These r ol esrequi red that they be cooperat i ve, nur t ur i ng, suppor t i ve,gent l e and ki nd. On the other hand, men were expected to best r ong, compet i t i ve, deci si ve and i n cont rol . Rosenerbel i eved that si nce women were cooperat i ve, emoti onal , andsuppor t i ve, they were more l i kel y than men to use i nt eract i ve

2 1


34/101

l eadershi p. I n terms of thei r career oppor tuni t i es, whenwomen f i rst entered the busi ness wor l d, thei r jobs wereconsi stent w th what they had been doi ng at home and whenvol unteer i ng i n the communi ty. They were more l i kel y to worki n a staf f posi t i on or i n communi cat i ons or human resources.These posi t i ons j ust rei nf orced thei r natural ski l l s.

The I WF survey showed that a nont radi t i onal l eadershi pst yl e woul d be ef f ect i ve i n organi zat i ons that accepted thi sst yl e. Rosener di d not l ook at l arge t radi t i onali nst i t ut i ons but l ooked at women i n medi umsi zedorgani zat i ons that exper i enced f ast growth and change. Bythei r very nat ure, these organi zat i ons created opportuni t i esf or women and were hospi tabl e to thei r nont radi t i onalmanagement st yl e. Not al l i ndi vi dual s agreed w th thef i ndi ngs of ROSener ' S art i cl e. I n the f ol l ow ng i ssue ofHarvard Busi ness Revi ew, many r eaders of f ered thei r opi ni onon t he i ssue of l eadershi p and gender . Cynthi a FuchsEpst ei n, a di st i ngui shed Prof essor of the Graduate Cent er atthe Ci ty Uni versi ty of New York, wrote that Rosener ' sresearch was f l awed because she rel i ed on the l eader ' s sel f -assessment . She st ated that "much current research showsthat men and women tend to stereotype thei r own behavi oraccordi ng to cul tural vi ews of gender - appropr i ate behavi or ,as much as they stereotype the behavi or of other groups. "12Freder i ca O i vares, presi dent and publ i sher of her ownpubl i shi ng company and f ounder and presi dent of The European

2 8


35/101

Foundat i on of Women wrote, that "adopt i ng a l eadershi p styl ethat draws on what i s uni que to thei r experi ence as women i sl ess new and surpr i si ng f or European observers. "count r i es that have st rong faml y- f ocused soci al i zat i on or avi gorous women' s movement make i t possi bl e f or women i nmanagement to ret ai n a gender - consci ous st yl e i norgani zat i ons. 14 Bernard Bass, di st i ngui shed Prof essor ofManagement at t he Cent er f or Leadershi p St udi es, St ateUni versi t y of New York at Bi nghamon, and author of t herevi sed and expanded edi t i on of St ogdi l l ' s Handbook ofLeadershi p agreed w th Rosener ' s resul t s. I n hi s st udi es, heal so f ound that women were somewhat more l i kel y t o bet ransf ormat i onal l eaders character i zed by char i smat i cl eadershi p, i nspi rat i onal l eadershi p, i ntel l ect ualst i mul at i on, and i ndi vi dual i zed consi derat i on. Whi l e Bassagreed w t h Rosener ' s approach to i nteract i ve l eadershi p, hedi d not l i ke her l abel si nce l eadershi p i s usual l y def i ned asan i nt eract i ve process. He subst i tuted the t e r m rel at i ons-or i ented l eadershi p versus t ask- or i ented l eadershi p. He al sosuggest ed that whi l e the general di f f erences bet ween sexesexi st , by the t i me a woman has reached the hi gher managementl evel s, she has soci al i zed hersel f to operat e i n t he domnantmal e mode so no real di f f erences between men and women woul demerge i n task and rel at i ons or i entat i on. 15 Thi s f i ndi ng i sconsi st ent w t h what was di scussed i n Eagl y' s and J ohnson' smeta-anal ysi s on Gender and Leadershi p Styl es.

European

29


36/101

The revi ew of l i terature f ound many ar t i cl es thatl ooked at the ways men and women l ead. I n "Nat i on' sBusi ness, " Sharon Nel t on' s ar t i cl e, "Men, Women andLeadershi p", addressed a new generat i on of women l eader s whowere br i ngi ng w t h thema styl e descr i bed as more consensusbui l di ng, open, and encouragi ng of part i ci pat i on. Thi s st yl eof l eadershi p was based on greater i nteract i on and wasespeci al l y sui ted t o the contemporary work force. Nel t onwrote that women can meet the chal l enge because t hey arecomortabl e w th persuadi ng, encouragi ng, and mot i vat i ngpeopl e. Nel t on wrote about El l en Ri chst one, Chi ef Fi nanci alOf f i cer of Bul l HN I nf ormat i on Systems, an otherw se al l mal ecorporate i nner ci rcl e. Ri chstone who supervi ses 700empl oyees st ated that her "f eel i ng i s that the women who w l ldo the best i n the l ong run are the ones who are comortabl ebei ng t hemsel ves" and not cl ones of thei r mal e counterpar t s.Nel t on wrote that two types of l eadershi p have appeared andthese t ypes have grown out of di f f erent exper i ences. Men' sl eadershi p styl es have been devel oped i n the ml i tary and onthe pl ayi ng f i el d, whi l e women' s have been devel oped i nmanagi ng the home and nurtur i ng husbands and chi l dren. I n herart i cl e, Nel t on al so addressed the i ssue that gender does notpl ay a rol e i n l eadershi p st yl e, but presents t he bel i ef ofl eadershi p st yl e as a funct i on of personal i t y and l i f eexperi ences. Less emphasi s shoul d be pl aced on thel eadershi p di f f erences between men and women. l h

3 0


37/101

A number of ar t i cl es addressed the i ssue of l eadershi pdi f f erences between men and women. J an Grant, i n"Organi zat i onal Dynamcs" consi dered the cur rent l eadershi psi t uat i on i n her ar t i cl e t i t l ed "Women as Managers: WhatThey Can Of f er To Organi zati ons. I n HR Magazi ne, J onathanSegal wrote about "Women on the Verge. . . f Equal i t y. " Hebel i eved that women were more l i kel y than men to encourage asubordi nat e' s part i ci pat i on i n deci si on maki ng si ncei ncl usi on i s at the core of women' s i nteract i ve l eadershi pstyl e. I n hi s ar t i cl e, he asserts that i t i s onl y when menreal i ze that women have di f f erent i nteract i ve st yl es thatthey w l l be abl e to appreci ate a women' s strengths. 17 MarkPowel l of t he Uni versi ty of Connect i cut i n hi s ar t i cl e, "OneMore Ti me: Do Femal e and Mal e Managers Di f f er ?" , wr ote thathi s r evi ew of st udi es di d not support a di f f erent vi ew of sexdi f f erences i n management. 18

Thi s revi ew of l i terature demonstrates that t here i sf i erce pol ar i ty on the i ssue of l eadershi p st yl e and gender .The ar t i cl es and studi es that have been ref erenced do,however , i ndi cate that women are di f f erent than men i n howthey l ead. I n part i cul ar , research general l y seemed tosupport t he premse that women used a more part i ci pati vestyl e of l eadershi p. At thi s t i me, there i s no def i ni t i veresearch on how women l eaders i n the Army mght di f f er f romthei r mal e count erpart s. I t i s st i l l the f ocus of thi s studyto research thi s aspect of l eadershi p.

31


38/101

Endnotesher ome Adams and J ani ce D. Yoder , Ef f ect ve Leadershi Df or Men and Women ( Nor wood, NJ : Al ex Publ i shi ng Corp, 1985) .43- 45.

Al i ce H. Eagl y and Bl ai r T. J ohnson, "Gender andLeadershi p Styl e: A Met a- Anal ysi s, " Psvchol oa cal Bul l et nVo1. 108 No. 2 (1990) : 234.3I bi d. , 248.4I bi d. , 235.5Arthur Yago and Vi ctor Vroom "Sex Di f f erences i n theI nci dence and Eval uat i on of Part i ci pat i ve Leader Behavi or , "J ournal of Am i ed Psvchol oav Vo1. 67 No. 6 ( 1982) : 776.6Di ck Hei movi cs, "Leadershi p i n the U. S. Army: A FrameAnal ysi s" (Uni versi ty of M ssour i - Kansas Ci t y, 1992) , 4.71bi d. , 17.8I bi d. , 15.gI bi d. , 19.I OI bi d. , 20.l l J udy B. Rosener , "Ways Women Lead, I Barvard Bus nessRevi ew (November- December 1990): 121.12I bi d. , 119.I 3. Debate: Readers and Authors Face Of f Over HBR' sLast I ssue. , Harvard Busi ness Re vi ew ( J anuary- February1991) : 150.14I bi d. , 151.15I bi d. , 152- 153.l 6Sharon Nel ton, "Men, women and Leadershi p, ' Nat i onsBusi ness (May 1991) : 19.17J onathan Segal , "Women on the Verge. . . of Equal i t y,HR Maaaz ne ( J une 1991) : 118.

32


39/101

18Mark Powell, One More Time: Do Female and MaleManagers Differ?, Acade v of Manaaement Execut ive Vo1. 4 No.3 ( 1990) , 7 4 .

33


40/101

CHAPTER THREERESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Thi s st udy' s premse i s t hat women of f i cers i n t heUni t ed St at es Army use a more par t i ci pat i ve l eadershi p st yl et han t hei r mal e counterpart s. I n general , t he researchdesi gn examned t he ef f ect of gender on l eadershi p st yl e. Aquasi - exper i ment al desi gn was sel ected t o creat e and execut ea research desi gn that al l owed the eval uat i on of l eadershi pst yl e based on gender . The quasi - exper i ment i s di st i ngui shedf romt he cl assi cal exper i ment pr i mar i l y by t he l ack of randomassi gnment of subj ect s t o an exper i mental group and to acont rol gr0up. l I n thi s st udy, an exper i ment al group and acont rol group were not f easi bl e si nce men and women' sl eadershi p st yl es were bei ng compared. The i ndependentvar i abl e i n thi s exper i ment was the gender of t he subj ect .The dependent var i abl e was hi s or her demonst rated l eadershi pst yl e, ei t her par t i ci pat i ve or aut ocrat i c. Thi s researchdesi gn eval uat ed l eadershi p styl e usi ng two di f f erenti nst rument s; t he Command Phi l osophy st atement and The LeaderBehavi or Anal ysi s I 1 survey devel oped by Bl anchard Trai ni ngand Devel opment .

34


41/101

The f i rst i nst rument was the command phi l osophyst at ement . Thi s st atement was sel ected f or eval uat i on ofl eadershi p st yl e because an i ndi vi dual ' s command phi l osophygeneral l y ref l ects hi s or her predomnant l eadershi p styl e.In a st udy t i t l ed "Command Phi l osophy Devel opment , " LTCVernon Hat l ey def i ned " command phi l osophy as a set of gener alpr i nci pl es governi ng a commander ' s conduct and t hought whi chcan be t ransmt t ed oral l y or i n wr i t i ng, f ormal l y ori nf ormal l y to groups or t hrough key subor di nat es. "2phi l osophy st atement al l owed subordi nates to l earn aboutt hei r l eader ' s standards, expectat i ons, and per sonall eadershi p st yl e. The Army War Col l ege' s Command andManaaement Theorv and Pract i ce Reference Text st ated:

A command phi l osophy shoul d descr i be what t hecommander consi der s to be the most i mpor t ant andprovi de i nsi ght i nt o how the commander goes aboutdoi ng hi s job . . . f ocus shoul d be broad enough topr ovi de ref erence poi nt s f or ethi cal personall eadershi p styl e and manager i al st yl e pref erencei ssues. 3

A command

I n hi s st udy, LTC Hat l ey ci t ed a survey of 20commanders at For t Benni ng dur i ng a t hree year peri od f r om1985- 1988. The commanders surveyed bel i eved t hat a commandphi l osophy shoul d i ncl ude obj ect i ves, val ues, purpose andm ssi on, a vi si on, and an out l i ne of l eadershi p styl e. 4 LTCHat l ey al so di scovered that addi t i onal si m l ar sur veysrei nf or ced and val i dat ed the resul t s of t he For t Benni ngsurvey.

35


42/101

Cl osel y l i nked to a l eader ' s command phi l osophy was hi svi si on. FM 22- 103, Leade rshi Q and Command at Seni or Level sdescr i bed vi si on as the uni t ' s desi red end st at e. I t wasonl y when t he commanders underst ood thei r uni t ' s l ong t ermobj ect i ves that they coul d ef f ecti vel y prepare and cl ear l ycommuni cat e preci se st atements of i ntent . The commandersthat had a wel l - devel oped vi si on and underst ood the requi si t el eadershi p responsi bi l i t i es were abl e to devel op t he desi redl eadershi p dept h i n the organi zat i on. 5 I t was al so t he seni orl eader ' s responsi bi l i t y to coach and devel op hi ssubordi nat es. Theref ore, l eadershi p and l eadershi p st yl epl ayed an i nt egral rol e i n the devel opment of a vi si on andcommand phi l osophy.

The i ntent of thi s research desi gn was to det ermne ani ndi vi dual ' s l eadershi p styl e i n terms of gender . Thepr i mary tool used to accompl i sh thi s i ntent was t he assi gnedcommand phi l osophy wr i t i ng requi rement . As part of t heresi dent phase of the Command and General Staf f Of f i cerCour se' s ( CGSOC) core curr i cul umi n l eadershi p i nst ruct i on,the Cent er f or Army Leadershi p ( CAL) requi red each st udentenrol l ed i n the CGSC to devel op and wr i t e a commandphi l osophy. The Cent er f or Army Leadershi p desi gned an open-ended wr i t i ng requi rement t o al l ow each st udent t he l at i t udeto f reel y express what he or she bel i eved was an appropr i at ecommand phi l osophy. ( See Appendi x B f or assi gnment , dat ed 17J ul y 1992, Subj ect : Wi t i ng Requi rement Gui dance, AY 92- 93. )

36


43/101

St udent s wr ot e thei r papers f romthe perspect i ve of a seni orl evel l eader , br i gade commander or hi gher , commandi ng al ar ge, compl ex organi zat i on, be i t combat , combat suppor t , orcombat ser vi ce suppor t . 6 The onl y mandat ory port i on of theassi gnment was t he wr i t i ng of a vi si on st at ement at thebegi nni ng of each command phi l osophy. The vi si on st atementhad to cl earl y communi cat e the desi red end that the commanderwant ed hi s uni t t o achi eve. The second por t i on of t he paperexamned component s t hat the l eader used t o devel op hi scommand phi l osophy to at tai n hi s or her end st at e. St udent ssel ect ed t opi cs that support ed thei r command phi l osophy andvi si on. The assi gnment suggest ed several t opi cs to i ncl udecommand cl i mat e, di rect and i ndi rect i nf l uence, l eaderdevel opment , and l eadershi p t heory, to name a f ew. St udent swere not rest r i cted to t he suggest ed t opi cs, but wer e al l owedt o address t opi cs that t hey f el t were essent i al to t hei rcommand.

St udent s di d not wr i t e thei r phi l osophi es w t hout someprel i mnary i nst ruct i on. The Cent er f or Army Leadershi pdesi gned i t s cur r i cul umt o suppor t t he wr i t i ng assi gnment .Al l st udent s recei ved the same i nst ruct i on. Papers were dueat the st ar t of l esson ten and had the ni ne precedi ng l essonsas a base and ref erence to assi st t hemi n wr i t i ng thei rcommand phi l osophi es.

The f i rst l esson di scussed the f oundat i ons ofl eadershi p and f ocused on devel opi ng a posi t i ve command

3 1


44/101

cl i mat e. Lesson Two l ooked at ethi cs and the seni or l eaderand Lesson Three concent rated on equal oppor tuni t y. LessonFour examned t he ml i tary appl i cat i on of l eadershi p t heory.Lesson Fi ve deal t w t h l eader devel opment whi l e Lesson Si xf ocused on command phi l osophy devel opment . Lesson Sevendi scussed seni or l evel l eadershi p and Lesson Ei ght consi deredt he l eadershi p chal l enges of combat . Dur i ng Lesson Ni ne,seni or l eaders f romout si de the cl assr oom conductedl eadershi p semnars f or the staf f groups i n the Command andGeneral Staf f Of f i cer Course. The semnars al l owed thest udent s t o query the seni or l eaders about t hei r exper i ences,thei r expectat i ons of subordi nate l eaders, and thei ref f ect i ve l eadershi p styl e( s) . Thi s sessi on al so gave thest udent s t he oppor tuni t y to di scuss t he Command Phi l osophystatements w t h a seni or l eader . The pract i cal advi ceof f ered by t he seni or l eaders hel ped the st udent s t o bet t erunderst and t he i mportance of an ef f ect i ve Command Phi l osophyst atement .

Thi s research desi gn sel ected the assi gned commandphi l osophy papers as a wa;l to determne l eadershi p st yl ebased on the assumpt i on that a st udent ' s st atement woul dref l ect hi s or her promnent l eadershi p styl e. I n order t oeval uate these command phi l osophi es, a mul t i - f rameori ent at i on devel oped by Lee Bol man and Terrence Deal wasused. Thei r book, Modern Amr oaches to Unde r st andi na and

38


45/101

Nanaai na Or aani zat ons di scussed t he mul t i - f r ame model i ndet ai l .

Bol man and Deal i dent i f i ed and descr i bed f our f r amest hat t hey based on t he maj or school s of or gani zat i onalt hought . These f r ames consi st ed of t he st r uct ur al f r ame, t hehuman r esour ce f r ame, t he pol i t i cal f r ame, and t he symbol i cf r ame

The st r uct ur al f r ame oper at ed under t he assumpt i on t hat" or gani zat i ons exi st ed pr i mar i l y to accompl i sh est abl i shedgoal s. " Each or gani zat i on had an appr opr i at e st r uct ur e t hatmaxi m zed i t s envi r onment , t echnol ogy, goal s andpar t i c i pant s . "Coor di nat i on and cont r ol i n t he st r uct ur alf r ame wer e accompl i shed best t hr ough t he exer ci se ofaut hor i t y and i mper sonal r ul es. " 7

The human r esour ce f r ame f ocused on t he peopl e of t heor gani zat i on. " The f r ame st ar t ed f r om t he pr em se t hatpeopl e wer e t he most cr i t i cal r esour ce i n an or gani zat i on. " aThi s f r ame l ooked at ways of mat chi ng and sat i sf yi ng peopl es'needs, ski l l s , and val ues wi t h t he goal s of t he or gani zat i on.

The pol i t i cal f r ame " saw or gani zat i ons as coal i t i onst hat i ncl uded a di ver se set of i ndi vi dual s and i nt er estgr oups. Because t hey wer e coal i t i ons, or gani zat i onsi nevi t abl y had mul t i pl e, conf l i ct i ng goal s, whi ch changed ast he bal ance of power i n t he or gani zat i on shi f t ed. " g

The f i nal f r ame di scussed was t he symbol i c f r ame." Fr oma symbol i c per spect i ve, or gani zat i ons wer e j udged not

39


46/101

so much by what they di d as by how they appeared. "1 When, peopl e coul d not underst and somethi ng, they created symbol s

to expl ai n whatever they were unabl e to comprehend. I n thesymbol i c f rame,

l eaders evoked ceremoni es, r i t ual s, or ar t i f acts i norder to create a uni f yi ng systemof bel i ef s. Thi sf rame cal l ed f or char i smat i c l eaders to arouse' vi si ons of a pref er red organi zat i onal f ut ure' andevoked emoti onal responses that enhanced anorgani zat i on' s i dent i t y and t ransf ormed i t to ahi gher pl ane of per f ormance and val ue. ( Bass,1985) .llThi s appl i cat i on of Bol man- Deal ' s mul t i - f rame

or i entat i on to anal yze Army l eadershi p was not new Dr . Di ckHei movi cs, Prof essor of Organi zat i onal Behavi or at t heUni versi t y of M ssour i - Kansas Ci t y, and U. S. Army Maj orsJ ames Fost er, Kenneth Maddox, Ti mothy St roud, and M chaelSweet , set t he precedence when they publ i shed a st udy t i t l ed,"Leadershi p i n the U. S. Army: A Frame Anal ysi s. " Thi s studyused t he mul t i - f rame or i entat i on devel oped by Bol man and Dealto examne t he di f f erences between how md- career U. S. Armyof f i cers descr i bed thei r command phi l osophi es and how theyactual l y appl i ed thei r espoused phi l osophi es when deal i ngw t h "cri t i cal l eadershi p event s. I

Dr . Hei movi cs and hi s f el l ow researchers eval uated thecommand phi l osophi es of 34 of f i cers who at tended the tenmonth resi dent phase of the Command and General Staf f Of f i cerCourse at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. They compared these

4 0


47/101

f i ndi ngs to r esul t s f r omt hei r anal ys i s of nar r at i ves by t hesame cont r ol gr oup t hat descr i bed how each i ndi vi dual hadac tual l y deal t wi t h a cr i t i cal l eader shi p event . I n gener al ,Dr . Hei movi cs and hi s gr oup exam ned t he di f f er ence bet weent he i ndi vi dual ' s espoused l eader shi p phi l osophy and hi sdemonst r at ed l eader shi p phi l osophy.

Dr . Hei movi cs used t he mul t i - f r ame or i ent at i on to codet he f r ame r esponses i n bot h set s of st at ement s, espoused anddemonst r at ed. I n r ef er ence t o t he st r uct ur al f r ame, t her esear cher s f ound t hat " obedi ence t o t he chai n of command andconf or m t y to r ul es and pol i c i es wer e dom nant i n t hi s f r ameas t hey appl i ed i n t he m l i t ar y. " 12

I n a m l i t ar y envi r onment , t he human r esour ce f r amei dent i f i ed t he sol di er as t he most c r i t i cal r esour ce. Dr .Hei movi cs wr ot e:

The ef f ect i ve human r esour ce l eader sear ched f or t hebal ance bet ween t he goal s of t he uni t of command andt he hopes and aspi r at i ons of i t s sol di er s by payi ngc l ose at t ent i on t o t he sol di er ' s aspi r at i ons ,f eel i ngs and pr ef er ences . . . . Thi s f r ame def i nedpr obl ems and i ssues i n i nt er per sonal t er ms andencour aged open communi cat i ons, t eambui l di ng andcol l abor at i on. 13I n an anal ys i s of t he pol i t i cal f r ame, Dr . Hei movi cs

f ound t hat t her e was a si gni f i cant di f f er ence bet ween t heof f i cer s' espoused t heor y and t heor y i n use as i t appl i ed tot he pol i t i cal f r ame. Most of f i cer s di d not i nc l ude apol i t i cal f r ame i n t hei r command phi l osophy st at ement s butdi d ref er t o i t when di scussi ng t hei r t heor y i n use as i tappl i ed t o t he cr i t i cal l eader shi p event . " Those who used

41


48/101

the pol i t i cal f rame exerci sed thei r personal andorgani zat i onal power. They were al so sensi t i ve t o theexternal f actors whi ch had i nf l uence upon i nternal deci si onsand pol i ci es. " 1 4

Fi nal l y, t he Hei movi c Leadershi p study found that Armyof f i cers espoused the symbol i c f rame far more t han theyactual l y appl i ed i t t o thei r l eadershi p pract i ces. Wt h i t suni t i nsi gni as, awards, uni t col ors, ceremoni es and handsal ut es, t he U. S. M l i tary has cl ear l y been st eeped i n thesymbol i c f ramework. The ml i tary used symbol s to ral l y i t sf orces. Dur i ng bat t l e, a uni t ' s col ors were al waysprotected. I f the col ors were captured, the uni t wasconsi dered l ost and def eated. A sol di er ' s rank and posi t i onof author i ty has been worn on hi s col l ar . J uni or of f i cersshowed respect to thei r super i ors w th a hand sal ute.M l i tary personnel have worn thei r awards and badgesdesi gnat i ng cer tai n ski l l qual i f i cat i ons on thei r uni f ormsf or everyone to observe. A certai n behavi or was expect ed ofml i tary personnel , they were al ways sol di ers, " i t was not aj o b , i t was a prof essi on and a way of l i f e. "

To i dent i f y the appropr i ate f rames, Dr . Hei movi cs andhi s r esearch teamdevel oped a cri ter i a f or codi ng the f rameresponses. They based thei r cr i ter i a on each f rame' s rel atedi ssues and acti ons: st ructural , human resource, pol i t i cal ,and symbol i c. Thi s cr i ter i a was used to eval uate the commandphi l osophy statements i n thi s st udy as wel l .

42


49/101

The st ruct ur al f r ame consi dered i ssues t hat deal t wi t hcoordi nat i on and cont rol ; cl ar i t y or l ack of cl ar i t y aboutest abl i shed goal s, expected rol es or expectat i ons; anyref erences t o pl anni ng, budget i ng, and eval uat i on; di scussi onof anal ysi s or t he absence of anal ysi s; and t he devel opmentor r el i ance on pol i ci es and procedures. Act i ons r el at ed tot he st r uct ural f rame i ncl uded t he reorgani zat i on,i mpl ement at i on or cl ar i f i cat i on of exi st i ng pol i ci es andprocedures; t he devel opment of new i nf ormat i on, budget i ng orcont rol syst ems; and any addi t i on of new st ruct ur al uni t s andpl anni ng processes.

The i ssues rel at ed to the human resource f r ame deal twi t h di scussi ons of i ndi vi dual s' f eel i ngs, needs, pref er encesor abi l i t i es; any ref erence to t he i mpor t ance ofpar t i ci pat i on, l i st eni ng, open communi cat i ons, t he ext ent ofi nvol vement i n deci si on maki ng, and moral e of per sonnel i n auni t ; di scussi on of i nt erper sonal r el at i onshi ps; an emphasi son col l aborat i on, and a sense of f am l y, t eam or communi t y.The correspondi ng act i ons t o thi s f rame were processes t hatemphasi zed par t i ci pat i on and i nvol vement ; t r ai ni ng andrecr ui t ment of new st af f ; empowerment ; organi zat i onaldevel opment ; and emphasi s on qual i t y of l i f e programs.

The pol i t i cal f r ame hi ghl i ght ed i ssues that deal t wi t hf ocusi ng on t he conf l i ct s or t ensi on that exi st ed amongdi f f er ent const i t uenci es, i nterest gr oups, or or gani zat i ons;compet i ng i nt erest s and agendas; evi dence of di sput es over

4 3


50/101

al l ocat i on of scarce resources: and games of power and sel fi nt erest . Cor respondi ng act i ons i n thi s f rame consi dered t heuse of bar gai ni ng, negot i at i on, advocacy and the bui l di ng ofal l i ances; as wel l as networki ng w th ot her key pl ayers.

The symbol i c f rame focused on i ssues t hat per t ai ned toany di scussi ons of i nsti tut i onal i dent i t y, cul t ure, orsymbol s; di scussi on of the i mage that woul d be proj ect ed t odi f f erent audi ences; di scussi on of t he symbol i c i mpor t ance ofexi st i ng pract i ces, r i t ual s, and possessi ons: and an emphasi son i nf l uenci ng how di f f erent audi ences w l l i nt erpret orf rame an act i vi t y or deci si on. The act i ons that cor respondedt o the symbol i c f rame were the creat i on or revi t al i zat i on ofceremoni es and r i t ual s; worki ng to devel op or rest at e t hei nst i t ut i on' s vi si on, worki ng on i nf l uenci ng theorgani zat i onal cul ture: and usi ng one' s sel f as a symbol . A san exampl e, t he ml i t ary l eader coul d represent dut y, honor,and demonst rat ed ethi cal l eadershi p. 15

The research desi gn i n thi s st udy used t he commandphi l osophy statement to i dent i f y an i ndi vi dual ' s pref er redl eadershi p st yl e. Command phi l osophy st atement s werecl assi f i ed as ei ther more part i ci pat i ve or more aut ocrat i c.To accompl i sh thi s t ask, each f rame response was eval uatedand associ at ed w t h the most appl i cabl e l eadershi p st yl e,par t i ci pat i ve or aut ocrat i c.

The st ructural f rame was more cl osel y rel at ed t o anaut ocrat i c l eadershi p styl e than to a democrat i c styl e. One

44


51/101


52/101


53/101


54/101


55/101


56/101


57/101


58/101


59/101


60/101


61/101


62/101


63/101


64/101


65/101


66/101


67/101


68/101


69/101


70/101


71/101


72/101


73/101


74/101


75/101


76/101


77/101


78/101


79/101


80/101


81/101


82/101


83/101


84/101


85/101


86/101


87/101


88/101


89/101


90/101


91/101


92/101


93/101


94/101


95/101


96/101


97/101


98/101


99/101


100/101


101/101

Leadership Style and Gender

Documents

Transcript of Leadership Style and Gender