A511.8.3.RB_BorutyAlan - Gender

Gender

Do gender issues still exist in the work place? I think pockets may exist, but gender discrimination is no longer a large-scale issue. I also believe the pockets are being actively resolved. In October, Secretary of the Air Force, Debra Lee Jones opened the last six Air Force jobs that were closed to women. For the first time in 68 years women can apply to and be accepted for any job in the U. S. Air Force. I know they will qualify and be successful in these demanding positions. I think the reasons that women have been excluded from any job whether stated or unstated really boils down to one thing...ego. If the military can do it the corporate sector should have no problem. If I remember correctly, women folk proved they they could do man's work and more in the 1940s. Discrimination on the basis of gender has been illegal since The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why are we still having this conversation?

In her interview with Harvard Business Review titled: Women, Ambition and (Still) the Pay Gap, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, talks about gender issues that still exist in corporate leadership. Kanter stated that women are highly represented at every level in the organization to include management, except for the top position. There are so many variables that it is hard to get a clear picture of why women do not get the top jobs. Kanter explained that the nature of these top positions could be the reason. Taking a CEO position is a heavy commitment. They are always on call; they have to be available 24/7. The work is greedy and demanding on time leaving very little time off for family and leisure (Harvard Business Review, 2010). She speculated that based on the nature of the job women may chose not to apply for these jobs or the board could decide, on the female applicants behalf, that it would be too intrusive to her family life and not consider her any further. Kanter also eluded to the 'good ole boy network' as a possible reason. She stated that people trust the judgement of those who are like them (Harvard Business Review, 2010). Is it possible that this could happen? Yes it is. I would like to think that we have grown beyond possibly putting the wrong person in such an important position because he plays golf, but I think it does happen.

Much research has been done on gender differences. The results on leadership behavior, task and relationship behavior, and effectiveness are inconsistent. Role requirements did show men and women to be more effective in different roles. Since the job demands both roles it is a wash having no effect on effectiveness. It was found that limitations applied to the research as well. The problems include definition consistency, lack of variable control, process issues and interpretation inconsistencies. It is extremely difficult to compare men and women and produce reliable results (Yukl, 2013). Yukl concluded that that Powell's conclusion in 1990 still applies. "There is little reason to believe that either women or men make superior managers, or that women and men are different types of managers. Instead, there are likely to be excellent, average, and poor managerial performers within each sex. Success in today's highly competitive marketplace calls for organizations to make best use of the talent available to them. To do this, they need to identify, develop, encourage, and promote the most effective managers regardless of sex" Powell's conclusion (as cited in Yukl, 2013).

Dr. Kanter mentioned the difficulty of accurately comparing men and women and the inconsistency of research results. Assuming that men and women are equal in leadership abilities, if no gender discrimination existed, then women would be filling 50% of all CEO positions. For emphasis of her point, I will accept her statement. For any other purpose, her statement is too vague and most likely inaccurate. However, her point is well taken; the numbers are too far off to be error or coincidence.

In the end Dr. Kanter settled on the nature of the top job as the reason for the discrepancy. She concluded that until the generation of men who are more family and leisure oriented there will not be significant changes in the current numbers. This statement assumes that the current generation of men are not family and leisure oriented. This may not be the case at all. The demands of the job may be forcing the current CEO to sacrifice that time.

Dr Kanter's interview then turned to the pay gap between men and women doing the same work. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 made this practice illegal. The interviewer stated the current rate is at 95% which is negligible, but still contrary to law. It would be hard to isolate this number to a single issue. Kanter explained poor negotiating skills or discrepancies in responsibilities that would affect pay could be a large part of the discrepancy. I see 5% as a rounding issue and definitely close enough to simply monitor it for changes.

In her interview, Kanter did not contradict the textbook that I noticed. While I thought that she made a couple questionable statements, a live interview is much different than written work. I found this one to be more interesting than her 'Zoom In/Out' interview, but not any more useful.

Areas of genuine gender discrimination may still exist, but it is no longer the norm. I see this as a success story. For the vast majority, women compete for and are represented at every organizational level and are compensated appropriately (Harvard Business Review, 2010). Is there still work to do? In the CEO area there may be. Identifying the root cause of the gap is required to ensure desired results.

References:

Harvard Business Review, (2010) Women, Ambition and (Still) the Pay Gap. (2010). Youtube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhquUOlBuOY&feature=youtu.be&t=5s

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

A511.7.3.RB_BorutyAlan - Self-Awareness

Self-Awareness 

As you can see, the title of my blog this week is self-awareness.  I, like many...okay every, student studying leadership have been told almost daily that self-awareness is critical to becoming an effective leader.  The research literature is filled with references to this and no one seems to disagree.  Therefore, I will agree that before one can effectively lead others they should first know something about themselves.  While I was reviewing some of the literature available on the subject, I did notice some authors use self-knowledge instead of self-awareness.  Awareness and Knowledge are not absolute synonyms as far as I know, so I decided to look them up.  Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2015) defines self-awareness as: an awareness of one's own personality or individuality, and self-knowledge as: knowledge or understanding of one's own capabilities, character, feelings, or motivations.  I felt as though self-knowledge was a bit more comprehensive, so, self-knowledge it is.  I like to have fun with things sometimes, but I absolutely do agree that knowing yourself is key to success as a leader.

If you are not aware of yourself, your followers will have a difficult time trying to figure you out, predict your next request, or even become comfortable around you.  If do not have self-knowledge, you could very well appear to be someone different every day of the week in the eyes of your followers.  I have worked for people that were inconsistent in there demeanor, attitude, and mood.  Be awesome or be an ass, but whatever you chose, be that consistently.  I will figure out the best way to work with you.  I know that is not the type of difference the prompt asked, but my point remains. Be whatever you are, and be that consistently.  In a discussion on authentic leadership, Yukl, (2013) noted, "The self-concepts and self-identities of these leaders are strong, clear, stable, and consistent.  These leaders have a high self-awareness about their values, beliefs, emotions, self-identities, and abilities" (p. 351).  These are a few traits and beliefs of the authentic leader.  By reading alone they are everything leadership good, and no leadership bad.

The point is that their followers observe this behavior, witness integrity, and feel their confidence on a daily basis.  And, they are positively influenced by the experience.  I do not know if an authentic leader even exists.  Yukl (2013), draws a picture of the perfect leader in his describing the authentic leader.  These leaders are not looking for acknowledgement or accolades with their performance and they are not concerned for their job.  They are motivated by self-improvement and self-verification.  Their behavior is always consistent with their true values sometimes referred to as their true self.

Not to be the naysayer, but I do not believe this leader exists.  If one does, he or she would be lonely.  That is just my opinion, of course.  However, the authentic leader model is one that leaders should all aspire to be.

There are some issues with the authentic leader model.  No clear definition has been presented that is acceptable to all (Yukl, 2013).  And, the theory is very new (1990s) to leadership theory and while it has gotten a great deal of attention, research and understanding is limited (Ladkin et al., 2009)(Yukl, 2013).

I was a leader in the Air Force for 24 years. I was not the best nor the worst, I was effective.  I will give my opinion first, then I will discuss some of the existing literature.  I stared out awkward and clumsy and I got better over the years.  I tried every theory presented to me in the schools I attended and they served to make awkward and clumsy also mechanical.  I managed to get the job done but my people probably felt sorry for me and did everything they could to make me look better.  Then it hit me.  That is the way it works.  A leader gets to know his or her people, well.  He or she assures they have the resources (tools, equipment, and money) to get the job done quickly and correctly.  He or she knows their families, what grades their kids are in at school, asks about their grandmother, prays with them , celebrates with them teaches them, and grooms them to take over when he or she leaves.  In return, the followers take care of the leader.  That is true leadership in one form. Is it true-self?  I don't know the answer to that, but I can say that I was different at home.  When I put on my uniform, I became Chief Boruty, a true part of self that developed over the years in my work environment.  I did not give or show some parts of me to my followers, but what I allowed them to see was always the truth.  If something happened out of the ordinary, and it did, I reacted.  I am human.  Why would I do anything differently?  I did not over react. In other words I did not render myself incapable...nor did I effect my team in any way that I saw or that any of them ever told me. We let it sink in, we regrouped, and we got back to our business.  I still believe the only way to lead people is honestly, openly, and sincerely.  Yes, exceptions do exist and they always will.  Handle those issues in the same manner and move forward.

 Research has referred to authentic leadership as grounded in true self.  Ladkin, et al., (2009) presented a new and different authentic leadership theory and called it Embodied Authentic Leadership.  Their argument was fairly simple, other theories could not be correct based on a few oversights.  One previous premise stated that the leader had to be true to their values and self as that is what followers used to assess authenticity.  How are values measured and evaluated, by each follower with consistency.  They are not is the answer.  Body language is what sends the message.  There are voluntary and involuntary reactions to input.  Humans can control the voluntary, but not the involuntary.  Therefore, if the leader was inauthentic, the lack of involuntary response immediately proved them true or not (Ladkin, et al., 2009). 

The argument continued that it is possible to enact true self using parallels derived from method acting.  Intelligently put together and simple enough in construct, the Theory of Embodied Leadership was presented.  It incorporates three key aspects which are: 1) self-exposure - leader must be in tune with the involuntary clues their body generates in different situations, and choose how to express them.  To be perceived as authentic, the internal feelings and emotions must be matched correctly to context, 2) relating - present in the here and now and in communion with themselves and others in situation and context at that moment, 3) leaderly choices - you can do everything right and still get it wrong depending how and when you apply it (Ladkin, et al., 2009).  I cannot argue against this theory because in theory I think it is probably right. You can teach a leader to perform in a way that is perceived as authentic, but at best in only embodies authenticity.  Embodied Authentic Leadership could be the next breakthrough in leadership research.  But, I cannot say that I am fond of it.  Why would we try to turn leaders into actors?

Do we need gimmicks, acts, and sleight of hand to lead people?  I do not think we do, nor should we use them. The danger is that, as it applies to the theory, the leader is present in the here and now, but, in reality, they could not be further distant from their followers.  Now we can finally get to the original purpose for this week's blog.  Goffee & Jones, (2006) use several examples of how an individual's difference or uniqueness can be used to their advantage and effectiveness.  Yes, Bill Gates is a geek, maybe the geekiest, and he was before he founded Microsoft.  It was his self-image and it definitely served him and Microsoft well.  Unfortunately, I was not familiar with the story of John Harvey-Jones, a UK manufacturing giant who did the same using his long hair and crazy ties.  The list of successful leaders that employed this strategy of using personal differences to their own advantage and that of whom they represented include: Akio Morita, founder of Sony, John Latham, head teacher at an award winning school, Darwin E. Smith, CEO of Kimberly-Clark for 20 years, and Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London (Goffee, & Jones, 2006).

The authors state that none of the examples they presented were likely planned but probably realized and utilized very effectively at some point.  They used their differences like a brand or a trademark that tied them specifically to their life's work.  The article encourages people to look for their own differences, embrace those differences and lead uniquely.  Used appropriately and in context they convey the right message, are an authentic form of self-expression, and they are real (Goffee, & Jones, 2006). 

These leaders were smart.  When they realized that they were being identified by the things that make them different, they did not enter into a self-help program, they embraced it.  Their differences were part of their true self from the beginning and they stayed true to it.  It was honest and real; it was authentic.

I do not know how to answer the question, what makes me different and able to lead and live according to my core values?  I think the military leader leads a sheltered life.  The culture is that different.  I am a hands on, get dirty, care about my people, love to see them succeed leader.  If I were to be defined by any one of those differences, I would be ecstatic. 

References

Goffee, R., &  Jones, G., (2006): Getting personal on the topic of leadership: Authentic self‐expression works for those at the top. Human Resource Management International Digest, 14(4), 32 - 34. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1108/09670730610666382.

Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S.,(2009). Enacting the 'true self': Towards a theory of embodied authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 64 - 74. doi: doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.005.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2015. Online. Retrieved from: www.merriam-webster.com

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall