AN AUTOPOIETIC, SYSTEMS THINKING EXPLORATION OF PROFESSIONAL WOMEN’S PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP ATTAINMENT IN A MASCULINIZED ENVIRONMENT: A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Argosy University, Online
College of Education
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership
By John Mevers January 2017
ii AN AUTOPOIETIC, SYSTEMS THINKING EXPLORATION OF PROFESSIONAL WOMEN’S PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP ATTAINMENT IN A MASCULINIZED ENVIRONMENT: A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY
Copyright ©2017 John Mevers All rights reserved
iii AN AUTOPOIETIC, SYSTEMS THINKING EXPLORATION OF PROFESSIONAL WOMEN’S PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP ATTAINMENT IN A MASCULINIZED ENVIRONMENT: A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Argosy University, Online College of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership
By John Mevers
Dissertation Committee Approval:
Roger Fuller, DM, Chair
Stan Mikalonis, PhD, Member
Dale Mancini, PhD, Program Chair
Date
iv ABSTRACT The purpose of this qualitative, constructivist grounded theory study was to explore the perceptions of women in a masculinized environment to address the gap in the existing research regarding the self-perceptions of women in junior positions of formal leadership attainment compared to the perceptions held by women in formal leadership positions of women in junior positions desiring to attain formal leadership positions. Through the use of semi-structured interviews, several barriers for women’s advancement were revealed regarding masculinized environments. Primary barriers included: (a) gender stereotypes, (b) organizational culture, and (c) the glass ceiling. Results of the study revealed that mechanistic (vs. organic) organizational structures are pronounced, and conventionally masculine aligned agentic traits are expected (and accepted) from leaders. Thus, women in the industry become habituated to trait approach leadership, which inflates agentic characteristics while diminishing communal characteristics. Because mechanistic organizational structures are learning averse and women’s habituation to these cultures negates workforce diversity, implementing cultural shifts to activate organic structures might enhance feedback and horizontal knowledge sharing that will help an organization’s human capital efficacy. Recommendations for future research include gathering the perceptions of men and minority groups regarding organizational cultural leadership expectations and generational perception variances.
v DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Jennifer, who inspires me to reach farther every day through faith and love that knows no bounds. Also to our children, Bree, Shelbie, and Chase, who provide unique insights characterizing love, wonderment, and joy about life and life’s possibilities. And of course, I dedicate this effort to my parents, Frank and Kathy, who love me as much now as when I was born.
vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank Jesus Christ, my savior and redeemer. Without God sending His son to die and be resurrected for us, there would be no purpose to life. I would like to acknowledge some of the countless people who have helped me get through this journey. Thank you to my wife, Jennifer, whose dedication to me and our family is unyielding. Jennifer’s drive is an inspiration to all of us. Our children, who always believe in me and help me keep perspective on what is really important in life. My mom and dad, who always supplied my needs—and almost always my wants— through showing their love for me as well as their devotion to each other for over 49 years. My sister, Lauren, who has always challenged me to be greater. My best friend, Phil, who had patience with me 28 years ago to lead me to Christ, forming a lifetime friendship. The boys of UNH Crew, whose friendship I will always cherish—always remaining mindful of our mantra: “Four years to row, a lifetime to learn.” I sincerely express thanks and appreciation to my dissertation chairman, Dr. Roger Fuller, and committee member, Dr. Stan Mikalonis. Their academic guidance through this process exposed many opportunities to develop my scholarship and subsequently this study. They challenged me to make the most of this effort, and for that I am deeply grateful. I express a special thanks to Dr. Fuller, who accepted my request to chair the dissertation and showed interest and concern for me not only as a student, but as a human being. Dr. Fuller’s belief in me helped me believe in myself during the process. I express gratitude to the 11 persons who participated in the study. I honestly appreciate their candidness and cooperation regarding their professional and personal experiences with working the in the banking and finance industry.
vii I am grateful to the faculty and staff at The Art Institute of Jacksonville. This group constantly encouraged me through the process. A special thanks goes out to Dr. Jordan Vosmik, who helped guide me through process of writing this dissertation through numerous proofreading efforts, suggestions, and motivational dialogs.
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xii LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1 Background of the Study .....................................................................................................3 Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................8 Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................10 Significance of the Study to Leadership ............................................................................13 Nature of the Study ............................................................................................................16 Research Questions ............................................................................................................17 Perspectives of Women in Junior Positions .................................................................19 Perspectives of Women in Formal Leadership ............................................................20 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................21 Definitions..........................................................................................................................26 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................29 Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations ...............................................................................32 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................34 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .....................................................37 Problem Overview .............................................................................................................40 Historical Perspective ........................................................................................................41 The Influence of Women in the Bible..........................................................................42 Influential women in the Old Testament .............................................................. 44 Influential women in the New Testament ............................................................. 44 The Influence of Women in the Classical Period ........................................................45 The Influence of Women in the Medieval and Renaissance Periods ...........................47 Feminism in the 20th and 21st Century Organizational Climate .................................49 Post-Positivism and Feminism .....................................................................................50 A Brief Historical Overview of Leadership Theory Development ....................................51 Trait Approach .............................................................................................................53 Ohio State Leadership Studies .....................................................................................53 Path-Goal Theory .........................................................................................................55 Contingency Model ......................................................................................................56 Leader-Member Exchange ...........................................................................................56 In-group................................................................................................................. 57 Out-group .............................................................................................................. 58 Transactional Leadership .............................................................................................59 Transformational Leadership .......................................................................................60 Theoretical Framework for the Current Study ...................................................................61 Feminism............................................................................................................................66 Glass Ceiling ................................................................................................................68 The Glass Cliff .............................................................................................................70
ix Agentic Traits...............................................................................................................71 Communal Traits .........................................................................................................72 Backlash .......................................................................................................................73 Stereotypes .........................................................................................................................74 Opting Out ...................................................................................................................75 Stereotype Threat .........................................................................................................77 Implicit Theory ............................................................................................................78 Self-Handicapping .......................................................................................................80 Role Congruity Theory ................................................................................................81 Systems Thinking...............................................................................................................82 Organizational Culture .................................................................................................84 Double-Loop Learning.................................................................................................87 Mental Models .............................................................................................................88 Autopoiesis ..................................................................................................................89 Organizational Learning ....................................................................................................90 Knowledge Management .............................................................................................92 Tacit Versus Explicit Knowledge ................................................................................94 Conflict Management...................................................................................................94 Communication ............................................................................................................97 Psychological Safety and Identity: Forming Teams from Groups...............................98 Motivation ..................................................................................................................100 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs .............................................................................. 102 Self-determination theory ................................................................................... 103 Acquired needs theory ........................................................................................ 104 Herzberg’s motivation–hygiene model of motivation ........................................ 105 Model of team effectiveness ............................................................................... 106 Emotional Intelligence ...............................................................................................108 Social Networks ...............................................................................................................109 Organizational Ecology Theory .................................................................................111 Structural Contingency Theory ..................................................................................111 Resource Dependence Theory ...................................................................................112 Mentorship .................................................................................................................113 Grounded Theory Discussion ..........................................................................................115 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................117 Summary ..........................................................................................................................120 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................122 Research Methods ............................................................................................................123 Quantitative Method ..................................................................................................124 Qualitative Method ....................................................................................................125 Mixed Methods Research ..........................................................................................127 Appropriateness of the Qualitative Research Method for the Study ...............................128 Types of Qualitative Research Designs ...........................................................................130 Ethnography ...............................................................................................................131 Case Study .................................................................................................................132 Phenomenology..........................................................................................................132 Grounded Theory .......................................................................................................133
x Research Design...............................................................................................................135 Theoretical Saturation ................................................................................................136 Population ..................................................................................................................136 Sample........................................................................................................................138 Data Collection ..........................................................................................................139 Informed Consent.......................................................................................................142 Participant Confidentiality .........................................................................................142 Instrument ..................................................................................................................143 Women in Junior Positions Questions .......................................................................144 Women in Formal Position Questions .......................................................................145 Reliability and Validity ....................................................................................................146 Reliability...................................................................................................................148 Internal Validity .........................................................................................................149 External Validity ........................................................................................................151 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................152 Methodological Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................154 Summary ..........................................................................................................................155 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..............................................157 Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................157 Participant Recruitment ...................................................................................................159 Participant Profiles ...........................................................................................................160 Women in Junior Positions ........................................................................................160 Women in Formal Leadership ...................................................................................161 Data Collection and Storage ............................................................................................162 Credibility and Transferability.........................................................................................163 Theoretical Saturation ......................................................................................................164 Overview of Grounded Theory Analysis .........................................................................166 Presentation of Results .....................................................................................................167 Open Coding ..............................................................................................................168 Axial Coding ..............................................................................................................169 Selective Coding ........................................................................................................172 Primary Themes ...............................................................................................................173 Women in Junior Positions ........................................................................................174 Commitment to the organization ........................................................................ 174 Support from the organization ............................................................................ 175 Mutual openness ................................................................................................. 178 Confidence .......................................................................................................... 179 Women in Formal Leadership ...................................................................................180 Professional development ................................................................................... 180 Expectation of contributions to organization ...................................................... 181 Trust/trustworthiness........................................................................................... 182 Building confidence ............................................................................................ 183 Research Findings ............................................................................................................185 Research Question 1 ..................................................................................................185 Research Question 2 ..................................................................................................192 Research Question 3 ..................................................................................................197
xi Research Question 4 ..................................................................................................201 Research Question 5 ..................................................................................................207 Research Question 6 ..................................................................................................213 Narratives––Women in Junior Positions .........................................................................223 Narratives-–Women in Formal Leadership .....................................................................224 Emergent Theories ...........................................................................................................229 Summary ..........................................................................................................................230 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................232 Study Assumptions Addressed ........................................................................................233 Findings in Relation to the Research Questions ..............................................................236 RQ1: Systems Thinking .............................................................................................236 RQ2: Stereotype Threat/Role Incongruity .................................................................238 RQ3: Glass Ceiling ....................................................................................................239 RQ4: Organizational Culture .....................................................................................240 RQ5: Organization’s Implicit Belief System .............................................................242 RQ6: Leadership Styles .............................................................................................243 Relating the Study Findings to Literature ........................................................................244 Stereotypes .................................................................................................................245 Systems Thinking.......................................................................................................246 Organizational Culture ...............................................................................................248 Summary of Findings for Leaders ...................................................................................249 Recommendations for Leaders ........................................................................................252 Interdependence .........................................................................................................253 Organizational Learning ............................................................................................253 Coaching ....................................................................................................................254 Internal Cultural Changes (Mechanistic to Organic Models) ....................................255 Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................255 Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................259 Additional Researcher Thoughts......................................................................................260 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................261 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................263
xii LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Research Questions ....................................................................................................158 2. Number of Open Themes for Interview Questions (Excluding IQ6) ........................169 3. Axial Themes for Interview Questions (Excluding IQ6) ...........................................171 4. Selective Themes for Interview Questions (Excluding IQ6) .....................................173 5. Primary Themes for Interview Questions ..................................................................174
xiii LIST OF APPENDICES Page A. Request for Permission from Professional Websites .................................................310 B. Social Networking Group Message Board Post .........................................................312 C. Informed Consent.......................................................................................................315 D. Participant Demographic Questions ..........................................................................318
1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Women account for half of the workforce in the United States and have been equally as proficient in educational attainment as men for many years (Fetterolf & Eagly, 2011; Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2011; Khan & Vieito, 2013; Schuh et al., 2014). The number of educated and experienced women in the workforce leads to the inference that women should be on equal ground in leadership roles, yet the disparity in corporate board positions (Carrasco, Francoeur, Labelle, Laffarga, & Ruiz-Barbadillo, 2015; Emerson & Murphy, 2015) and executive officer positions (Emerson & Murphy, 2015; Grijalva et al., 2015) is ubiquitous. The prevalence of masculinized traits being expected and imposed in leadership roles, along with the prominent perception of women as subordinate to men in Western culture (Burns, 1978/2012; Skaggs, Stainback, & Duncan, 2012), might be impeding women’s opportunities to advance to formal leadership roles within their organizations. The increasing cultural and geographical diversification of organizational environments brings new challenges for leaders whose responsibility is to keep their organizations competitive. There are numerous methods available to create organizational value, but one that deserves more focus is learning to appreciate the available human resources by dedicating more time and commitment to personnel decision-making and job alignment approaches (Boxall, 2013; Lecuona & Reitzig, 2014). In addition, theories regarding effective leadership require flexibility and adaptation (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010) to help negotiate the dynamic circumstances within organizations related to cognitive and cultural diversity (Mendenhall & Bird, 2013; Vanmeter, Grisaffe, Chonko, & Roberts, 2013). Interestingly, as organizational members
2 learn to adopt the methods necessary for congruence with many of the competitive challenges of diversity, there remains a noticeable gap that might prohibit organizations from realizing valuable gains. Organizational learning requires employee motivation (Chadwick & Raver, 2015; Muo, 2013), team collaboration (Hillier & Dunn-Jensen, 2013; Salminen-Karlsson, 2014), and knowledge management (Evans, Dalkir, & Bidian, 2014; Nonaka, Kodama, Hirose, & Kohlbacher, 2014). Because many organizations operate within dynamic environments, Rijal (2010) explained that conventional leadership paradigms—such as the mechanistic command and control ideologies—might be incongruent with the needs and expectations of employees and other organizational stakeholders. Consequently, the concept of a learning organization might align more pertinently when viewed as an organic construct, where self-reproduction through flattened hierarchies might augment an organization’s learning capacity (Boso, Story, Cadogan, Micevski, & Kadic-Maglajlic, 2013; Gronhaug & Stone, 2012). There is a gap in the research regarding the self-perceptions held by women in junior positions compared to those held by the women to whom the women in junior positions are directly exposed who hold formal leadership positions (Latu, Mast, Lammers, & Bombari, 2013). Therefore, this exploration of why the number of women in formal leadership roles is disproportionate to men, specifically the apparent prevalence in the finance and banking industry (Gregory, Jeanes, Tharyan, & Tonks, 2013; Griffin, 2013), from a new standpoint was designed to provide insight for organizational leaders who are interested in invoking a learning culture that more adequately addresses the diverse needs of global businesses (Chiva, Ghauri, & Alegre, 2014; Conti, 2011;
3 Mendenhall et al., 2013). While the study could be conducted with nearly any industry, the finance and banking industry is an industry of which the principal researcher was knowledgeable and could conveniently access. Understanding the perceptions of women as organizational leaders, from the perspectives of women holding junior positions and women in formal leadership, enabled themes to emerge that can be used to enhance organizational opportunities for navigating the dynamic environment. Background of the Study Evidence supports that the presence of women in corporate boardrooms and executive positions adds value to organizations while improving other facets of corporate governance, leaving questions as to why there is an apparent lack of women in formal corporate leadership positions (Bart & McQueen, 2013; Huang & Kisgen, 2013; Mahadeo, Soobaroyen, & Hanuman, 2012; Spearly, 2007). Bart and McQueen (2013) indicated that women represent only “around 9% of corporate board memberships— despite the availability of talented, experienced, and educated females” (p. 94). Women have achieved virtual equality with men in educational accomplishments and workforce representation (Khan & Vieito, 2013; Schuh et al., 2014). The aforementioned statistics support the current study and the consideration of why there is an apparent gap in the number of women advancing to formal leadership roles in finance and banking (Gregory et al., 2013; Griffin, 2013; Huang & Kisgen, 2013). One recognized theory for the apparent gap in women’s advancement to formal leadership roles is the glass ceiling, described as an artificial barrier for the advancement of groups within certain domains (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013). The U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) acknowledged that the presence of the glass ceiling might lead to a
4 human capital pipeline problem. For example, a deficiency in the number of women holding formal leadership roles might signify to women in junior positions that formal leadership is unattainable or undesirable for women (Hoobler et al., 2011). In a study regarding the effect of glass ceiling beliefs among women, Smith, Caputi, and Crittenden (2012) found traits of denial and resilience to be strongly correlated with career satisfaction and engagement. Consequently, women who deny the existence of a glass ceiling or exhibit optimism in overcoming the barriers presented by the glass ceiling might enhance their opportunities for organizational advancement into formal leadership roles (Smith et al., 2012). Another reason recognized for the gap in women’s formal leadership is the prevalence of gender stereotypes (Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Stereotypes symbolize “mental representations of the characteristics of a particular social or cultural group that are shared among the members of a society” (Afolabi, 2013, p. 5698). Heilman (2012) found occurrences of gender bias because of prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes, which define beliefs about how men and women should act and how they actually are. Burkley, Andrade, Stermer, and Bell (2013) found that women who use negative in-group stereotypes as excuses for poor performance might initially protect their self-esteem, though there are often long-term negative consequences of using such excuses. Western culture has masculinized leadership paradigms based on culturally established stereotypes and role congruity expectations of women (Afolabi, 2013; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Koenig et al., 2011; Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, & Bongiorno, 2011). Consequently, the disparity of
5 women in formal leadership roles might exacerbate the perceptions of stereotypes and role congruity, thus facilitating the demotivation of women in junior positions. An additional possibility is that the disproportionate female to male ratio in formal leadership roles might limit the capability for women in junior positions to capitalize on robust social networks (Perrault, 2015). Clemson and Evans (2012) found that in many organizations, the majority of organizational members followed the decisions made by only a few people. Network theory suggests that similarity among organizational agents, despite popularity, might lead to greater chances of connectivity— known as homophily (Dobrow, Chandler, Murphy, & Kram, 2012; Papadopoulos, Kitsak, Serrano, Boguñá, & Krioukov, 2012). Accordingly, because there are fewer women in formal leadership roles compared to men (Bart & McQueen, 2013; Carrasco et al., 2015; Emerson & Murphy, 2015), there is a likelihood that women neglect opportunities to build networks and bolster homophily among women in organizations, perhaps deterring growth opportunities. In 1971, Miller and Mothner called for increased consideration of women in psychiatric studies, rationalizing this by construing the power of dominant groups while conveying the strategies of subordinate groups to undermine or overcome the power of the dominant philosophies. Currently, women’s ideological associations with feminism or the feminist movement might serve as an inhibitor for network construction, as the media depicts negative connotations surrounding such terminology (Cotter, Hermsen, & Vanneman, 2011; Moses, 2012). Moses (2012) discussed the historical underpinnings of feminism, describing how formally or informally organized women’s movements regarding sexuality, reproduction, peace initiatives, and pay equality came into existence
6 and adapted over time, as well as provided examples of the influence of these feminists on political agendas. Presently, women as feminists are portrayed as outliers who defy typical feminine cultural expectations (Cotter et al., 2011; Moses, 2012), perhaps threatening a subordinate group—feminists (Koenig & Eagly, 2014). Thus, some women who might be inclined to display feminine ideals, even while holding aspirations to progress into formal leadership roles, might hamper their networking potential; subsequently, identification with a larger group, which could contribute feedback that would be beneficial for learning (Hillier & Dunn-Jensen, 2013), might be sacrificed. Organizational culture is another consideration regarding the paucity of women in formal leadership roles. Cultural constructs might be, in general, societally identified (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; Podrug, 2011). However, organizational cultures might also be considered separate constructs, as leaders and leadership styles can influence organizational strategic trajectories (Amernic & Craig, 2013; Woolliams & Trompenaars, 2013), employees’ intent to stay with or leave the company (Mohammad, Lau, Law, & Migin, 2014), and stakeholder perceptions of organizational ethical and social responsibility (Cording, Harrison, Hoskisson, & Jonsen, 2014). Consequently, considering an organization’s dominant cultural traits might be important in realizing how the perceptions of women in junior positions as well as women in formal leadership could contribute to human capital development. Gronhaug and Stone (2012) examined the shift in organizational dynamics from having mechanistic and bureaucratic predispositions to entities with organic, selfrenewing capacities. Mechanistic organizations rely primarily on vertical knowledge flow where management passes down information to accomplish the organization’s
7 objectives (Rijal, 2010). Contrastingly, organic organizations might allow for a more free flow of information that perhaps is more horizontally oriented, where knowledge sharing might lead to innovative ideas and knowledge creation (Nonaka et al., 2014). Urrestarazu (2011a, 2011b) argued that autopoiesis, which explains an organism’s attempt to balance internal and external forces to remain in existence, might be useful when studying social systems. In the current study, organizational learning (Duden, 2014; Nieminen, Biermeier-Hanson, & Denison, 2013; Senge, 1990) referred to the maximization of the input of women employed by companies within the finance and banking industry, regarding how these contributions of women in junior positions might contribute to organizational sustainability and growth. Finding the balance while maximizing women’s contributions might be challenged by the argument of women who desire to raise a family or women who seek more work–life balance (Blair-Loy, Wharton, & Goodstein, 2011; Roebuck, Smith, & Haddaoui, 2013; Woolliams & Trompenaars, 2013). Defining leadership is complex (Gould, Voelker, & Griffes, 2013), as conceptualizations of leadership are constantly developing and new theories are emerging in an effort to negotiate the dynamic circumstances organizational leaders face as a result of cognitive and cultural diversity (Colbert, Judge, Choi, & Wang, 2012; Daft, 2007; Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986). Therefore, organizations whose leaders want to adapt to the vigorous pressures caused by amplified diversity and environmental uncertainty might need to consider new sources for leadership development. The dichotomy between leaders and followers may depend on factors such as the organizational climate and culture (Ahmad & Veerapandian, 2012; Handy, 1986; Nieminen et al., 2013), sanctioning
8 a systems thinking approach to understand the complexity of organizational paradigms where there are multiple causes leading to events and actions within organizational constructs (Caldwell, 2012; Checkland, 2012; Magzan, 2012; Senge, 1990). Society’s migration toward an increasingly knowledge-based workforce (Rennstam & Ashcraft, 2013) has created an economy in which leaders find value in retaining employees with heterogeneous viewpoints and tacit knowledge of organizational procedures and culture (Daghfous, Belkhodja, & Angell, 2013; Heine & Rindfleisch, 2013; Lecuona & Reitzig, 2014; Nakano, Muniz, & Batista, 2013). Thus, leaders of organizations who are looking to maximize human capital might endorse leadership styles that are harmonious with the current or desired organizational environment. Problem Statement This grounded theory study was designed to begin a process that can help organizations and organizational leaders learn to maximize human capital (Boxall, 2013; Lecuona & Reitzig, 2014). Specifically, the problem addressed was the gap in the existing research regarding the self-perceptions of women in junior positions desiring formal leadership attainment, compared to the perceptions held by the women to whom the women in junior positions are directly exposed who hold leadership positions (Latu et al., 2013). Latu et al. (2013) stated: There are no studies that investigated or reported the effects of role models on women’s actual behavior in leadership tasks, and based on current literature, it is unclear whether we should expect positive or negative effects. (p. 445) Thus, the question was whether direct exposure to women in power perceptively influences the desire of women aspiring to leadership roles within their industry. For example, Latu et al. found that women who were subtly exposed to images of female political leaders (i.e., Hilary Clinton & Angela Merkel) and charged with making a
9 persuasive public speech gave better self-reports and were perceived by blind coders as giving more effective speeches than were men and women who were exposed to different images. Consequently, women’s exposure to women who are recognized as formal leaders might also be a positive phenomenon in other arenas, although prescribed gender roles might cause women to self-sabotage their aspirations. American Banker (2015) ranked the top 25 women according to their power in the industries of finance and banking. In 2015, the fourth ranked woman, Diane Offereins of Discover Financial Services, was described by Discover as the “face of the company” (American Banker, 2015, para. 5). Number one on the banking list, Karen Peetz, the first woman Vice Chairman of BNY Mellon, was described by a competitor as “a leader in every program she supports, every group she joins, and every event that she participates in” (American Banker, 2015, para. 7). Furthermore, Peetz was distinguished as “a connector of people and ideas” (American Banker, 2015, para. 5), and “inspir[ing] generations of women in financial services and beyond” (American Banker, 2015, para. 7). Val Soranno Keating, CEO of Barclaycard and number four on American Banker’s finance list, values diversity and stated, “Resist the temptation to hire in your own image” (American Banker, 2015, para. 1), and is credited with “introduc[ing] the U.K.’s first payment-enabled mobile phone” (American Banker, 2015, para. 2). Andrea Moss, President and CEO of American Express Centurion Bank, was ranked number 22 on American Banker’s Finance list. Moss denoted the importance of “set[ting] some foundational priorities” (American Banker, 2015, para. 1) to help maintain a work–life balance. Could women in junior positions who are directly exposed to women holding
10 formal leadership positions in finance and banking be positively influenced toward assuming formal leadership roles within the aforementioned industries? This exploration of the perceptions of women holding formal leadership positions as well as those of women in junior positions who desire to attain formal leadership positions in a defined organizational context was designed to develop an emergent theory to augment the leadership path paradigm for women. The sample consisted of six professional women holding formal leadership roles and five women holding junior positions, with the intention of achieving theoretical saturation (Cotton & Shen, 2013; Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006; M. Mason, 2010). Through conducting semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and reflexive journaling (Creswell, 2013), the study design allowed for confirmability and transferability, leading to opportunities for future empirical testing of the emergent theory (R. B. Johnson, McGowan, & Turner, 2010). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this qualitative grounded theory study was to explore the perceptions of leadership from the viewpoints of women who held junior positions and who desired to attain formal leadership positions within organizations as well as women in formal leadership roles. The intended purpose was to gain a better understanding of the barriers (see Chapter 2 for additional barriers discussion), if any, to the opportunities for women in junior positions to grow into formal leadership positions within their organizations. Because there were unclear expectations about whether there would be positive or negative effects of female “role models on women’s actual behavior in leadership tasks” (Latu et al., 2013, p. 445), interviews were conducted with women in junior positions as well as women who held formal leadership roles, as this contribution
11 was designed uncover gaps that are significant for practical application as well as future studies. The identification and retention of organizational talent could be relevant for organizational consideration, as Bergelson (2014) noted predictions of a “15-year period of growing talent shortages” (p. 19) related to a combination of economic diversity and baby boomer retirements. Kurtulus and Tomaskovic-Devey (2012) found that women in formal leadership play a vital role in mentoring women in junior positions within an organization, thus offering a model for emulation and encouragement (Appelbaum, Shapiro, Didus, Luongo, & Paz, 2013a; Ghosh & Reio, 2013). In an effort to attain theoretical saturation (Cotton & Shen, 2013; Guest et al., 2006; M. Mason, 2010), the researcher interviewed women in finance and banking who worked in the Southeastern United States. The researcher believed the perspectives of women working in companies with expectedly masculine dominated cultures, such as within some banking and finance companies, would provide significant insight for women who might have anticipated a demand for agentic traits to advance in their careers (de Lemus, Spears, Bukowski, Moya, & Lupiáñez, 2013; Eagly, 2012; Phelan, MossRacusin, & Rudman, 2008). For example, at Deutsche Bank (2015) the number of female officers, managing directors, and directors has increased since 2010, yet there is still noticeable gender disparity that is representative of a male-dominated culture. Griffin (2013) asserted that in the global political economy, “masculinity is a symbolic incarnation of power” (p. 14). Catalyst (2016) showed that in the S&P 500 Finance sector, women made up 2.1% of CEOs while women maintained less than 19% of board seats. In addition, women in “management, business, and financial operations occupations,” as identified by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016), earned less than
12 77% of wages compared to men. Therefore, exploring the perceived experiences of women from this demographic allowed for greater research depth, leading to increased confirmability, trustworthiness, and transferability (Agostinho, 2005; C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014; Raymond, 2013). Gaining the perceptions of women in junior positions regarding stereotypes, gender roles, implicit beliefs, corporate culture, and recognized women leaders was intended to enable further insight regarding the women’s aspirations to attain formal leadership roles. These characteristics were built into the research questions, with the intention of exploring the perceptions based on the themes derived from the interview answers. Some or all of these variables were thought to interconnect, perhaps producing nonlinear interrelationships that may contribute to the emergence of themes (Andriani & McKelvey, 2009), and further contributing to the exploration of women’s advancement into formal organizational leadership roles. The importance of women willingly activating behaviors that are congruent with the needs of an organization might contribute to their greater emergence into formal leadership roles (Andriani & McKelvey, 2009; De Florio, 2014). Qualitative research allows for the interpretation of unspecifiable information (Lincoln, 2010), which can be especially important for research around contentious topics, such as in the current study. A qualitative study allows for greater research depth, creating insight that might contribute to marginalizing the assumptions inherent in normally distributed mechanisms and uncovering the power laws that increasingly govern the current dynamics in organizations (Andriani & McKelvey, 2009; McKelvey & Andriani, 2005; Mondani, Holme, & Liljeros, 2014). Thus, gathering in-depth data to
13 develop themes surrounding the perceptions of women holding junior positions, specifically concerning their experiences on the path to formal leadership, initiated a structure that was appropriate for the qualitative method (Darawsheh, 2014). Paretian distributions refer to instability, where extreme events might be considered more normal than the assumptions of normal distribution, as particular variables might have inestimable outcomes (McKelvey & Andriani, 2005; O’Boyle & Aguinis, 2012). For example, women attaining formal leadership roles in a variety of domains (Eisner, 2013; Gervais & Hillard, 2011; Ibarra, 2015) might seem to defy the androcentric Gaussian assumptions embedded in many institutions (Sewpaul, 2013). Cooperrider (2012) exclaimed, “We live in a world our inquiries create” (p. 108) and Sewpaul (2013) emphasized the importance of reflecting on lived experiences to foster an environment of learning and change. Furthermore, in considering the social and perceptual variables aligned with the research, the answer was not likely to be a linear model, as there might be a multivariate dynamic system of explanations. Consequently, there was a plausible argument for understanding the research problem from a nonlinear perspective (Bozionelos, Bozionelos, Polychroniou, & Kostopoulos, 2014; Liang, 2013; Schultz, 2014), perhaps aligning with systems thinking archetypes (Palaima & Skarzauskiene, 2010). Significance of the Study to Leadership Women have progressively taken a more active role in the workforce, accounting for half of the workforce and achieving educational similarity with men (Fetterolf & Eagly, 2011; Khan & Vieito, 2013; Schuh et al., 2014). However, research has revealed many reasons for women’s disproportion to men in formal leadership roles.
14 Considerations of phenomena such as the glass ceiling (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013; Baumgartner & Schneider, 2010; Isaac, Kaatz, & Carnes, 2012), stereotype threat (Fogliati & Bussey, 2013; Reuben, Sapienza, & Zingales, 2014; Steele, 1997), cultural norms (Burns, 1978/2012; Eagly, 2012; Mendenhall et al., 2013), and gender role congruity expectations (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2012) might expose interferences regarding women’s advancement into the realms of formal leadership. As organizations mature, there is often a need for an expansion of organizational physical and mental capital capabilities (Gronhaug & Stone, 2012). Implementing a systems thinking approach with a renewed focus on the entirety of the organization’s stakeholders might enhance the organization’s capacity to nurture a learning environment, perhaps creating an environment that is conducive to growth (Caldwell, 2012; Gronhaug & Stone, 2012). This researcher intended to create additional inroads to help organizational leaders understand the perceptions of women in junior positions who might want to advance into formal leadership roles. Clarifying junior women’s perceptions of women who currently held a position to which the junior women aspired helped develop a theory to augment the pathway to higher-level leadership positions. There are various considerations for organizations and their leadership teams when corresponding with internal and external stakeholders. Many organizations comprise rudimentary capital, such as land, equipment, technology, and customers, while also encompassing the complexities of effectively managing and utilizing human capital (Muo, 2013). The increasing diversification and globalization of business might magnify the importance of multicultural, arguably heterogenic, perspectives (Eken, Özturgut, & Craven, 2014; Mendenhall et al., 2013), which might further cultivate competitive
15 advantage and stakeholders’ perceptions of ethical conservancy (Maruffi, Petri, & Malindretos, 2013; Su, 2014). Challenging an organization’s cultural norms might enrich leadership (Nieminen et al., 2013) through assessing, understanding, and redefining mental models (Nguyen & Bosch, 2013; Senge, 1990), and might contribute to a better utilization of human capital (Gronhaug & Stone, 2012; Saini, 2013; Senge, 1990). Many European countries have implemented gender quota requirements for corporate boards and executive management positions (Deutsche Bank, 2015; Groysberg & Bell, 2013; Matsa & Miller, 2013). Accordingly, organizations located in the United States having interest or obligations to work with organizations located in these European countries might consider the implications of the perspectives of women within the organization. Increasingly, the globalized business community calls for diverse leadership methods and the use of multicultural perspectives to adapt within varying organizational contexts (Lisak & Erez, 2015; Mendenhall, Reiche, Bird, & Osland, 2012), which might help reduce entry barriers and facilitate competitive advantage (Magretta, 2012; Wada, Ichikohji, & Ikuine, 2014). Organizations might call upon consultants to provide unbiased input regarding organizational performance (Hu, Found, Williams, & Mason, 2014). The consultant’s role implores an ability to grasp nuances such as corporate culture (Schnell, 2005). White and Shullman (2012) discerned, “Western leadership principles, specifically U.S. leadership principles, are in demand, especially in emerging nations” (p. 268), possibly emphasizing the need to uncover the perceptions of women in junior positions in the United States. Therefore, consultants might have an interest in learning about the
16 perceptions of women who hold junior positions within specific organizational contexts to guide organizations and their leaders to enhance human capital development. Organizational leaders, primarily executives, human resource professionals, and other key decision-makers, might benefit from the contributions of this study. Understanding the perceptions of women in junior positions led to insight concerning several factors related to organizational strength and flexibility. For example:
Human capital and team development strategies (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Saavedra, 2013; D. J. Woehr, Arciniega, & Poling, 2013)
Leadership style preferences (Aime, Humphrey, Derue, & Paul, 2014; Khalid et al., 2012; Odetunde, 2013)
Stabilizing or destabilizing the normative undercurrents found within organizations (Gregory, 2012; Yucel, McMillan, & Richard, 2014)
Cultural antecedents prevalent for hiring and socialization procedures (Blake & Mouton, 1982; Changhong Lu & Tjosvold, 2013; Guldberg, Mackness, Makriyannis, & Tait, 2013) Nature of the Study
The use of a qualitative research methodology provided an inductive method of inquiry to develop theories and hypotheses based on the perceptions shared by the study’s participants (Creswell, 2009; Lincoln, 2010). The development of theory, based on the open-ended research parameters permissible via qualitative methodology, allowed for research depth when compared to the research breadth of quantitative methodology (Lincoln, 1995; Steinberg, 2010). Because this study was based on the perceived experiences of women in formal leadership roles and the perspectives of women in junior
17 positions, there was importance in unifying the data extrapolated from participants to find common themes for theoretical emergence (Lincoln, 2010). Using a post-structural standpoint, which challenges the belief that truths are objective, enabled the researcher to use participant feedback to generate themes that defined truth as observed through the perceptions of the participants (Armstrong, Davis, & Paulson, 2011; Powell, 2012). Using the participants’ responses to semi-structured interview questions while carefully observing communicatory elicitations enabled a more in-depth exploration (Armstrong et al., 2011). In addition, the ability to remain subjective, through reflexivity and purposeful analysis of participants’ responses, allowed for insight that generated information enabling the development of robust and valid emergent theories (Lincoln, 1995). A quantitative study might yield a greater number of participants; however, Adkisson (2014) explored various perils with quantifying culture, including the complexity of multiple value structures as well as the progressive changes inherent in cultural norms. Thus, because of this study’s focus on exploring cultural and societal expectations and the implications of those expectations for women in junior positions, a quantitative study might not have elicited the in-depth, explorative responses that create new perspectives intended to purvey an organizational mindset. Research Questions This qualitative grounded research study was designed to explore two dimensions: (a) the perceptions women in junior positions held regarding the influence of women who currently held formal leadership roles, and (b) the perceptions of women in formal leadership about women in junior positions. A study from this perspective about women’s disparity to men in formal organizational leadership was intended to reinforce
18 opportunities for organizations to examine their espoused mental models of leadership, while perhaps extending to women in leadership or aspiring to leadership an opportunity to adjust their expectations regarding leadership. For example, in mechanistic organizations with predominately vertical hierarchies, the expectation might be that leaders possess agentic characteristics, defined by traits like dominance, ambition, and assertiveness, which align culturally with the masculine persona (Berkery, Morley, & Tiernan, 2013; Hoyt, Simon, & Reid, 2009; Mosher & Danoff-Burg, 2005). Therefore, evaluating organizational context might become valuable when developing paradigms for effective leadership criteria (Dust, Resick, & Mawritz, 2014; Eagly & Karau, 2002). Knowledge is becoming an increasingly important asset for remaining competitive in such dynamic environments (Ihrig & Macmillan, 2015; Rennstam & Ashcraft, 2013; Shewchuk, n.d.). Accordingly, situational models of leadership might align with organizational learning objectives (Andressen, Konradt, & Neck, 2012; Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013; Rijal, 2010), where evaluating the interrelationships between people and events develops the tendencies for leaders to resourcefully drive results (Hanson, 1979; Myers, 2006; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). Interestingly, in areas where cultural norms are individualistic, like the United States (Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012; Hofstede et al., 2010; Shi & Wang, 2011), endeavors to mimic or adapt management styles from collectivistic cultures (e.g., Japan) have humbled organizational leaders in the predominately individualistic national culture (Gill, 2012; Gronhaug & Stone, 2012; Nonaka, 2007). Grounded theory research is used to determine conceptions based on patterns and categories that emerge from data created by participant interviews, perceptions, and
19 experiences (Glaser, 2002, 2010). Glaser (2002) asserted that these conceptualizations should be set apart from specific phenomena like time and place to separate the concepts and perceptions from individual realities. Thus, the nature of changing the leadership path paradigm for women should focus on using holistic processes to explore the perceptions of women holding junior positions and then developing concepts into an emergent theory to enable organizational leadership to identify ways to enhance human capital development. In addition, exploring the perceptions of women already in formal leadership roles, regarding women in junior positions, might edify an autopoietic viewpoint. The following research questions were designed to address the influence of cultural expectations, both socially and professionally, on women in junior positions who aspired to advance into formal leadership roles within their organization from both the junior and formal leader women’s perspectives. Perspectives of Women in Junior Positions Research Question 1: Are the perceptions held by women in junior positions of women in formal leadership roles within their organization systems thinking driven? Research Question 2: How, if at all, do stereotype threat and role incongruence affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions to achieve formal leadership positions? Research Question 3: What influence, if any, does the perception of women in formal leadership roles breaking the glass ceiling have on the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions who are trying to advance into formal leadership?
20 Research Question 4: What, if any, perceptions of organizational culture might affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles within their organization? Research Question 5: How, if at all, does an organization’s implicit belief system (entity or incremental) determine the decision of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles? Research Question 6: What role, if any, do the leadership styles of women in formal leadership positions play in the perceptions held by women in junior positions of effective leadership? Perspectives of Women in Formal Leadership Research Question 1: Are the perceptions held by women in formal leadership positions of how women in junior positions perceive the advancement of women to formal leadership positions within their organization systems thinking driven? Research Question 2: How, if at all, do stereotype threat and role incongruence affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions to achieve formal leadership positions? Research Question 3: What influence, if any, does the perception of women in formal leadership roles breaking the glass ceiling have on the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions who are trying to advance into formal leadership? Research Question 4: What, if any, perceptions of organizational culture might affect the autopoietic motivations of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles within their organization?
21 Research Question 5: How, if at all, does an organization’s implicit belief system (entity or incremental) determine the decision of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles? Research Question 6: What role, if any, do the leadership styles of women in formal leadership positions play in the perceptions held by women in junior positions of effective leadership? Theoretical Framework Implementing organizational learning necessitates a holistic attitude (Senge, 1990). Organizations that foster an environment of techniques that allows various stakeholders to participate in cognitive and task-oriented behaviors might legitimize the actors’ experiences within the organizational context (Cooperrider, 2012; Parboteeah & Jackson, 2007). In biology, autopoietic theory explains the interrelationships of an organism’s external influences and that organism’s inherent biological characteristics expected for self-reproduction, adaptation, and maintenance within the organism’s environment; consequently, reducing uncertainty to mitigate imbalance (Liang, 2013; Maturana, 2014; Nakajima, 2015; Zeleny, 1977). Organizations often reside in open systems (Hanson, 1979), which, by definition, leave the organizations and their actors exposed to external stimuli that should necessitate constant consideration (Still, Huhtamäki, & Russell, 2014). An organization’s exposure to interrelated systems, socially and physically, refers to organizational ecology (F. Becker, 2007). Heine and Rindfleisch (2013) acknowledged the importance of understanding organizational ecology through a spectrum of changes derived from external and internal provocations. Ultimately, according to the theory, an organization
22 will die, nonetheless; much like a living organism the organization’s life span might be determined largely by the organizational stakeholders’ reactions and adaptation to the surrounding environment (Heine & Rindfleisch, 2013). Two primary reasons for organizational decline include what Heine and Rindfleisch called malabsorptive incompetence and maladapted competencies, which explain an organization’s inability or unwillingness to explore and exploit available resources as well as neglecting opportunities for embracing new learning opportunities. This perspective provides occasion to explore how organizations might maximize their available human capital in order to prosper and extend their lifecycles. An autopoietic framework might be cohesive with organizations expecting results-oriented leadership, as autopoiesis provides proactive measures that enable new paradigmatic exploration (Liang, 2013; Sice, Koya, & Mansi, 2013). For example, Gershenson (2015) opined, “A measure of autopoiesis has been proposed as the ratio between the complexity of a system and the complexity of its environment” (p. 866). Thus, developing system components (e.g., leadership candidates) capable of adapting to increasingly complex environments (i.e., globalization, diversity, technology) might strengthen outputs, augmenting the system’s equilibrium throughout its ecological interactions and influences (Liang, 2013; Zeleny, 1977). The perspectives of women holding junior positions as well as those of women holding formal leadership roles in various organizations were explored in an effort to develop an emerging theory to allow organizations to enhance their use of human capital. There is literature examining the benefits for organizational management and the development of human capital (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, & Ketchen, 2011; Kwon &
23 Rupp, 2013; Lips, 2013; J. E. Olson, 2013). Knowledge is a critical resource for organizations in such a dynamic business environment (Mihi Ramirez & Girdauskiene, 2013), and subsequently, understanding knowledge management and knowledge creation (Barzinpour, Jafari, & Mousavi Biuki, 2014; Jasimuddin & Zhang, 2014; Muo, 2013) can provide frameworks that might emphasize the importance of learning to stimulate an organic organizational model. The disparity between the number of women and men in formal organizational leadership roles has stimulated investigations into the sociocultural and socioeconomic reasons for these discrepancies; however, there is a gap regarding how direct exposure to women in formal leadership positions might affect the aspirations of women in junior positions to advance to formal leadership within their organizations (Latu et al., 2013). Evidence of phenomena like the glass ceiling (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013; Baumgartner & Schneider, 2010; De Alwis, 2013), gender role congruity expectations (Appelbaum, Shapiro, Didus, Luongo, & Paz, 2013b; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Hoyt & Burnette, 2013; Tolciu & Zierahn, 2012), and stereotype threat (Reuben et al., 2014; Steele, 1997; Tomasetto & Appoloni, 2013) reflect possible cultural impediments regarding women’s progress into formal organizational leadership. However, there are examples of women who have become prominent figures in many realms, including politics and business. Around the turn of the 20th century, Hetty Green was the richest woman in the United States (“Wealthy women,” 1890), and had a net worth equivalent to $1.7 billion (in 2004) by the time of her death in 1916 (Adams, 2004; Boser, 2004). Hillary Clinton might be considered prominent in politics, as presidential campaigns and high-level positions within the U.S. government are indicators of her power and influence (Latu et
24 al., 2013; Taylor, Lord, McIntyre, & Paulson, 2011). Carly Fiorina, a former candidate for the U.S. Presidency, was the Chief Executive Officer at Hewlett-Packard, ran for the U.S. Senate, and holds strong opinions on political and business policies (Dempsey, 2015; Heffes, 2005). Hence, Griffin (2013) opined that an underrepresentation of women in these professions is not enough to remove the assumption that women are disadvantaged in these fields, arguing for a holistic reconsideration of the masculine gendered nature of these industries. This qualitative grounded theory study was designed to use an organizational autopoietic perspective, where reciprocity and networking among women in junior positions and women in formal leadership positions might help determine the development and sustainability of the organization (Sice et al., 2013). Autopoiesis explains the ecological self-reproduction of organisms based on the interrelationships and adaptation of their biological characteristics and the external influences imposed on the organisms with the intent of mitigating uncertainty and imbalance (Liang, 2013; Maturana, 2014; Nakajima, 2015; Zeleny, 1977). Using the metaphor of autopoiesis with organizations is not unique to this research, as Sice et al. (2013) and Parboteeah and Jackson (2007) provided examples of previous associations. By means of a systems thinking lens (K. H. Becker & Haunschild, 2003; Caldwell, 2012; Checkland, 2012), this study involved an exploration of emerging theories to enrich organizational learning through ascertaining constructs from perceptions of the characteristics of women in formal leadership as recognized by women in junior positions within those organizations. Furthermore, interviews with women in formal leadership roles were designed to reveal principles, aspects, or characteristics of a leadership style or styles that enhance or
25 diminish the motivations of women in junior positions desiring formal leadership positions. Remaining competitive in dynamic markets requires organizational leaders to think systematically, which might expose composite veracities despite specialized perceptions (Conti, 2010; Molleman & Broekhuis, 2012). Daft (2007) related systems thinking as a sort of peripheral vision for leaders that might allow for dynamic decisionmaking (Gharajedaghi, 2007; Palaima & Skarzauskiene, 2010). Magzan (2012) contended that a leader’s responsibility is to re-evaluate mental models, understanding that previously effective practices might not coincide with current or future organizational needs. Leadership performance may include the need for proficiencies in: (a) cognitive competencies, or the ability to recognize patterns and think systematically (Chadwick & Raver, 2015; Schneider & Newman, 2015); (b) emotional intelligence, or an awareness of one’s own strengths and weaknesses (Fiori, 2015; Goleman, 1995); and (c) social intelligence, or the ability to build and manage relationships (Emmerling & Boyatzis, 2012; Njoroge & Yazdanifard, 2014; Skarzauskiene, 2010). A leader modeling excellent performance might identify the relationships among individual parts and form ideas by distinguishing emerging patterns that affect the networks making up the whole (Daft, 2007; Molleman & Broekhuis, 2012). Examining the perceptions of women in junior positions as well as those of women in formal leadership through conducting semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and keeping a reflexive journal (Lincoln, 1995) while using a heuristic approach to the research (Douglass & Moustakas, 1985) elicited patterns that can help organizations learn to maximize human capital, primarily women holding junior positions
26 within their organizations. This study involved an exploration of organizational learning through a systems thinking lens utilizing an autopoietic perspective to help organizations nurture their distinctive human capital by managing knowledge. Subsequently, leadership styles emerged, feasibly offering insight regarding characteristics preferred by women in junior positions. Definitions The following definitions demonstrate context for the audience in order to align the audience’s perceptions of meaning with the research’s conceptual meaning.
Agentic traits: Personality characteristics generally prescribed for men and prototypical leaders (Isaac et al., 2012; Rosette & Tost, 2010). Examples of these traits are assertiveness, dominance, and competence (Eagly, 2012; Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr, 2014).
Autopoiesis: The study of the interrelationships and interdependencies of organizational stakeholders to identify their needs to perpetuate selfreproduction within the organization (Nakajima, 2015; Urrestarazu, 2011a, 2011b).
Barriers: Circumstances that prohibit upward mobility within an organization or obstacles that hinder access to varying organizational constructs. For example, von Hippel, Sekaquaptewa, and McFarlane (2015) opined that women in banking and finance who feel stereotyped might be less inclined to recruit women into the field. In addition, Ezzedeen, Budworth, and Baker (2015) found that the women participants in their study “believe[d] the glass
27 ceiling to be alive and well” (p. 363), calling for the need for proactive measures to alleviate the glass ceiling phenomenon.
Communal traits: Personality characteristics generally prescribed for women (Eagly, 2012; Isaac et al., 2012). Examples of these traits are passiveness, compassionate, nurturing, and supportive (Eagly, 2012; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014; Rosette & Tost, 2010).
Direct exposure: Implies contact with the formal leader through regular communication (i.e., at least every 2 weeks). The formal leader may or may not have a direct effect on the participant’s actual career trajectory; however; there is an assumption of the formal leader’s influence personally or professionally.
Double-loop learning: The act of reflecting on decision-making processes and challenging mental models based on feedback—intended to bring forth new paradigms (Argyris, 1976; Caldwell, 2012; Evans et al., 2014).
Entity theory: The belief that abilities are fixed and will not change despite circumstances and experiences (Emerson & Murphy, 2015; Sevincer, Kluge, & Oettingen, 2014).
Formal leadership position: A titled leadership position within an organization that is responsible for managing other stakeholders within the organization or coordinating directly with external stakeholders to benefit the organization.
Glass ceiling: A theory describing an artificial barrier that impedes the vertical advancement of a certain group of people (in this case women) within
28 organizations (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013; Smith et al., 2012; U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995).
Human capital: Relating to the human resources organizations inherently possess, such as intangible skills, expertise, and tacit knowledge (Guthrie, Dumay, Massingham, & Tam, 2015; Lecuona & Reitzig, 2014; Tan, 2014).
Implicit beliefs: The beliefs individuals hold regarding their abilities (Dweck, 1986; Sevincer et al., 2014).
Incremental theory: The belief that abilities are malleable, and experiences and circumstances can influence those abilities (Niiya, Brook, & Crocker, 2010; Sevincer et al., 2014).
Knowledge creation: The exploration and exploitation of knowledge found within an organization that combines to develop new knowledge that stimulates innovation (Guldberg et al., 2013; Maruta, 2014; Nonaka et al., 2014).
Knowledge management: An organization’s ability and procedure of managing knowledge resources for value creation and augmenting organizational performance (Barzinpour et al., 2014; Evans et al., 2014; Maruta, 2014).
Masculinization: Culturally inducing masculinized characteristics into an organization.
Masculinize: The attribution of characteristics typically applied to men (see agentic traits).
29
Systems thinking: The realization of an organization in holistic terms (Caldwell, 2012); understanding that when organizations operate in open systems, there are interdependencies among the totality of stakeholders that might be crucial for organizational wherewithal (Conti, 2011; Nguyen & Bosch, 2013).
Women in junior positions: Women who held a position at least one organizational level lower than the women of whom they shared their perceptions. In addition, women in junior positions look to these senior women as professional role models. Assumptions
One assumption in the current study was that organizational leaders and their stakeholders have the desire and anticipated need to manage human capital more efficiently. This might create benefits for the entirety of an organization’s stakeholders, including financial savings (Evans et al., 2014), increased organizational commitment (Briggs, Jaramillo, & Weeks, 2012; Dhar, 2015), improved corporate governance (Boxall, 2013; Mahadeo et al., 2012), and upgraded perceptions of corporate social responsibility (Amernic & Craig, 2013; Bear, Rahman, & Post, 2010). In addition, there was an assumption that some organizations have underutilized employees who, with the right motivation and direction, might have the capability to advance into increasingly responsible roles of leadership. A second assumption was that the junior level participants aspired to escalate their roles into formal leadership positions within their organizations. The interviews were designed to ask questions to determine the intent of the junior level participants along a
30 path toward formal leadership roles. Screening the participants in this manner helped define perceptions, consequently appropriating the confirmability and transferability of the results (Creswell, 2013; Guest et al., 2006). Triangulating a heuristic research approach (Douglass & Moustakas, 1985), combined with reflexive journaling and participant observations (Darawsheh, 2014; Lincoln, 1995), allowed for a depth of data to substantiate future studies. The third assumption was that organizational cultures in the industries of finance and banking tend toward masculine dominated or, at least androgynous (Bem, 1974; Koenig et al., 2011), leadership expectations. Berkery et al. (2013) found that, especially in masculinized organizations, men in management were viewed as having agentic traits, while women in management were viewed as portraying androgynous traits. Ryan et al. (2011) explained that women in leadership, compared to their male colleagues, generally receive lower evaluations while wage gaps persist between women and men (Lips, 2013), exacerbating the gender role prescriptions. Consequently, the professional and social expectations for leaders might misalign with women’s desires to appear feminine, perhaps leading to apprehensions about advancement into formal leadership. A fourth assumption was that the participants had been directly exposed to women who held formal leadership positions within their organizations—and vice versa– –which was a noted participant criterion. This assumption was important because of the intimacy implied through a dyadic relationship. Evidence supports the idea that women’s positive identification with gender roles reduces conflicts with establishing leadership roles (Karelaia & Guillén, 2014). Finding patterns within the interviews was intended to establish some background concerning the effects of women’s relationships with the
31 women to whom they were directly exposed to add context to how women view roles of formal organizational leadership. Interestingly, Pfafman and McEwan (2014) found that women’s lack of assertiveness might often be a strategy through subjugating agentic characteristics to being foremost perceived as feminine; in other words, emphasizing their identification with culturally prescribed gender roles. The opportunity to build sufficient networks led to a fifth assumption in the study, which was that informal or formal mentors might enhance organizational knowledge (Cotton & Shen, 2013; Daghfous et al., 2013; Teagarden & Schotter, 2013). Clemson and Evans (2012) found that existing networks, which generally comprise a few influential agents, often limit the influence of newly introduced phenomena. Thus, assuming masculine or androgynously induced organizational cultures might inhibit the double-loop learning shown to be beneficial for systems thinking agendas (Argyris, 2002; Henderson, Ruikar, & Dainty, 2013; McAvoy & Butler, 2007). A sixth assumption was that there were negative perceptions regarding feminism or feminist ideologies among many of women who were interviewed (Cotter et al., 2011; Moses, 2012). North’s (2012) research uncovered themes that feminism conjured enmity beliefs among men and women throughout interview responses, while the women in the same study who adopted feminist ideals separated the ideology from their career paths. Koenig and Eagly (2014) opined that women’s progression into the workforce “has put them in occupational roles that are perceived as not especially agentically demanding but highly communally demanding” (p. 385), conceivably intensifying stereotypical conventions of women’s, and men’s, expectations of communality. Therefore, because the stereotype of feminists might enlist characteristics including insecurity, anger, and
32 extremism (Cotter et al., 2011; Moses, 2012; North, 2012), this might lead to women’s reticence regarding feminist ideologies when considering discussions of leadership and career advancement in general. Finally, assumptions regarding the interviewees included accurate self-reporting, which entailed the women’s willingness and ability to answer interview questions openly and honestly. Lopez-Zafra and Gartzia (2014) found that self-reporting activates gender stereotypes, thereby affecting outcomes in many cases. Structuring the interview questions objectively and openly was designed to mitigate potential researcher biases; however, using keen listening and observations of body language and voice inflections often led to follow-up probing questions to gather additional pertinent data. Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations The scope of this study was to include the perceptions of women in junior positions within their organizations in addition to exploring the perceptions of women in formal leadership roles regarding women in junior positions. The participants’ organizational settings were within the banking and finance industry, allowing for a closer look at the organizational culture and attitudes toward women in leadership and those aspiring to leadership. The organizations operated within the United States, although the organizations might have had operations in other locations globally. The participants were working primarily in the United States and had U.S. citizenship, thus being accustomed to Western cultural ideologies. The perceptions were from the point of view of women in junior positions regarding solely women to whom they were exposed who held formal leadership positions. Furthermore, the study involved an exploration of the perceptions of women in formal leadership roles regarding women in junior positions
33 looking for career advancement. In addition, the participants had demographic variances in educational attainment and positional roles and responsibilities, while holding differing opinions about effective leadership. The qualitative data collection required a heuristic approach (Douglass & Moustakas, 1985; Moustakas, 1994), which was designed mitigate biases throughout the research and data collection and dissemination processes. Understanding the participants’ perceptions of reality (Powell, 2012) was instrumental in constructing an emergent theory enabling new concepts that are paramount for legitimizing the perceptions of women in junior positions, and creating prospects to alleviate the real or invented boundaries to progression into formal organizational leadership roles. A reflexive journal enabled concept patterning throughout the research process, allowing for reflection on participant observations during the interviews (Darawsheh, 2014; Lincoln, 1995). The subjective nature of qualitative research requires emotional intelligence, discernment, and relational skills, which should benefit the research findings by allowing for better connections and transparency with the participants (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014). The limitations of the study are discussed below. First, the participants’ misidentification, consciously or subconsciously, as to their intentions to advance into formal leadership roles. Participants may have been motivated to advance for various reasons (e.g., increased income, title/position, recognition, etc.), of which there was an additional assumption that some of these motivational reasons would emerge based on the interview question design. In addition, although confidentiality was intended, the participants might have—consciously or unconsciously––withheld vital information,
34 perhaps hampering significant gains from the research. The interview questions and follow-up were designed to permit individualized insights; thus, the importance of distinguishing nuances to develop the patterns enabled valid discovery. Another limitation aligned with the participants’ implicit beliefs. For example, women holding an incremental theory had different views regarding their abilities to rise to formal leadership compared to women holding an entity theory (Dweck, 1986; Sevincer et al., 2014). Interview questions, probing questions, follow-up, and reflection were geared toward uncovering each participant’s implicit beliefs. The veneer of masculine domination might be cloaked in social and cultural gender role expectations where women generally choose to align with feminine characteristics. Therefore, the importance of understanding research biases from the perspective of a man required emotional intelligence and trust building with participants in addition to the study’s audience (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014; Lincoln, 2012). Furthermore, there are disagreements regarding the timing of literature reviews for grounded theory due to fears of creating biases before collecting data from participants (Elliott & Jordan, 2010). This researcher attempted to mitigate biases through the aforementioned practices. Chapter Summary Maximizing resources helps to create advantages for organizations and is especially important in today’s dynamically diversified and globalized organizational climate (Boxall, 2013; Lecuona & Reitzig, 2014; Mendenhall et al., 2013). Organizational learning is a process (Senge, 1990), where managing the knowledge base found within the organization’s stakeholder arena might be a valid premise for increasing
35 organizational wherewithal (Evans et al., 2014; Nonaka et al., 2014). Subsequently, as women make up half of the workforce in the United States (Fetterolf & Eagly, 2011; Khan & Vieito, 2013; Schuh et al., 2014), there appears to be a need to study why there are disparities between men and women in formal organizational leadership roles (Carrasco et al., 2015; Emerson & Murphy, 2015; Grijalva et al., 2015). This chapter contained an introduction to this study regarding junior positioned women’s perceptions of women in formal leadership to whom the junior positioned women were directly exposed. In addition, this study involved an exploration of the perceptions of women in formal leadership regarding junior positioned women who were seeking career advancement. Understanding these perceptions was intended to identify new pathways and opportunities for women, and subsequently organizations, to maximize knowledge management and creation, which might lead to innovative strategies. Self-reproduction is a common theme in nature and has been adapted metaphorically within the research about organizational growth (Boso et al., 2013; Gronhaug & Stone, 2012; Urrestarazu, 2011a, 2011b). This qualitative grounded theory study was conducted through the lens of systems thinking (Caldwell, 2012; Conti, 2010, 2011) and an autopoietic perspective (Maturana, 2014; Sice et al., 2013; Zeleny, 1977) to develop an emergent theory regarding women’s opportunities to grow into formal organizational leadership roles. The significance of this study to leadership arose from the proposition of a lack of heterogenic perspectives needed for systems thinking and organizational advancement in an increasingly diversified and dynamic competitive environment (Eken et al., 2014; Mendenhall et al., 2013). The possibility for organizations to augment strategies and for
36 scholars to continue the research from the information uncovered is the intent of this researcher. Definitions of terms were provided to clarify the meaning behind the research questions and the nature of the study’s parameters. The results of the study uncovered further questions as well as provided opportunities for future research. Contained in Chapter 1 were an introduction to the problem, the background of the study, a statement of the problem, the study’s purpose, the significance and nature of the study, the theoretical framework, definitions, assumptions and scope, limitations, and delimitations. Chapter 2 contains the results of a detailed review of existing research surrounding theories intertwined with this study. Seminal concepts, established theories, and current research are discussed in an effort to provide a basis for this grounded theory exploration.
37 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Presented in this chapter are the results of a review of the literature pertinent to addressing the gap in the existing research regarding the self-perceptions of women in junior positions regarding formal leadership attainment, as well as those held by the women to whom the women in junior positions were directly exposed who held leadership positions (Latu et al., 2013). The history of leadership in the United States and the constructs that have connected leadership expectations with masculinized characteristics (Burns, 1978/2012; Skaggs et al., 2012) might encumber women who want to advance into formal leadership roles within their organizations. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative, grounded theory study was to explore and describe the perceptions of leadership between two categories of women. Exploring and describing the viewpoints of women holding formal leadership roles as well as those of women who held junior positions in organizations was designed to gain a better understanding of the barriers, if any, that might be created as a result of the inherently masculinized nature of leadership. Therefore, the exploration and description of these perceptions was intended to lead to emerging leadership paradigms that could further enable organizational learning and growth, to the end of exploiting women’s roles in organizational leadership, directed at maximizing an organization’s human capital utilization. The literature review was conducted by searching journals from the ProQuest Central database as well as keyword searches on EBSCOhost and Google Scholar. In addition, leadership and business-oriented books, as well as corporate websites, allowed for a more secularized view of the contributions of literature, providing insight regarding statistics that might be crucial to demonstrating opportunities for organizations to
38 implement learning platforms. Boolean operators helped to identify relevant search criteria, while the use of wildcard operators increased the scope of the findings. In addition, finding historical articles from authors as well as using references relevant to this study was instrumental in reviewing the literature. Increasing the scope of the search ability in these ways created opportunities to find more information, allowing for greater opportunities to saturate the literature findings for this review. The first section of the review of literature contains a restatement of this study’s identified problem, a historical perspective of the problem, and the importance of this research to the fields of organizational learning, predominantly focused within the parameters of systems thinking and human capital development. Following the problem overview, the historical overview includes several sections intended to build a platform for the research. The first section of the historical overview provides a review of the influence of women in the Bible, uncovering the plausibility of women’s historical opportunities to play lead roles in patriarchal cultures, and subsequently recounting examples in the Old and New Testaments. Contrastingly, the biblical viewpoint also provides the groundwork to establish a perceived pattern through history that led to the current ideologies that seem to support masculinized leadership ideals—apparent in the discussion of the influence of women in the Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance Periods—carried into a discussion of the influence of women in the 20th and 21st centuries. Finally, leadership theories that were relevant throughout this study’s topic exploration are reviewed. While this leadership theory overview provides only a relatively small number of leadership theories (see Dionne et al., 2014), the literature review distinguishes what seems to be a pattern of expansion in leadership
39 epistemologies to enhance this study. The study’s theoretical framework follows to explain the purpose and appropriateness of the current study. Key research opportunities are identified through a discussion of the study’s assumptions to provide the audience an opportunity for critical evaluation based on the review of pertinent literature. The sections following provide historical overviews of literature regarding subject matter deemed relevant to uncovering the perspectives of women holding formal leadership positions, as well as junior women pursuing formal leadership in masculinized industries. An overview of the feminist perspective guides the discussion concerning the challenges women have faced in attempting to mitigate androcentric mindsets in many fields, including banking and finance. Subsequently, the discussion turns toward the barriers many women face in leadership advancement. For example, theories such as the glass ceiling, backlash effects, gender stereotypes, and implicit beliefs are explored to enlighten the audience regarding their historical and current existence. Next, introducing a discussion of systems thinking presents arguments regarding historical views of mechanistic management systems and change ideologies surrounding perceptions of organically inclined systems, which in general, may rely on horizontal motivation. Culture, an important component in this study, is explicitly addressed in a short organizational section in addition to culture and cultural discussions being appropriately infused throughout the chapter sections. A section on organizational learning provides an overview on the subjects of knowledge management, conflict, communication, motivation, and emotional intelligence. Finally, an exploration of theories of social networking includes a discussion of mentorship.
40 Problem Overview There is evidence to support that the presence of women in formal organizational leadership positions might improve factors of corporate governance—such as long-term (vs. short-term) decision-making, higher returns on investments, and team collaboration (Bart & McQueen, 2013; Huang & Kisgen, 2013; Mahadeo et al., 2012; Spearly, 2007). However, there is an apparent disparity between the number of men and women holding formal leadership positions (Appelbaum et al., 2013a; Schuh et al., 2014). Knowledge is becoming increasingly important for organizational competitiveness (Ihrig & Macmillan, 2015; Rennstam & Ashcraft, 2013; Shewchuk, n.d.). In addition, the progressively dynamic contexts many organizations are experiencing, such as technological advances and globalization—along with the subsequent need for diversity accompanying these shifts—seem to indicate that organizations emigrate from traditional mechanistic and vertical management ideologies (Rijal, 2010) toward organic and horizontal philosophies of management (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Dust et al., 2014; Gronhaug & Stone, 2012). A shortage of women in formal leadership positions might hinder opportunities for organizations to maximize their available human capital. Increasing the number of women in formal leadership roles might prove to be instrumental in implementing robust organic management models. For example, Latu et al. (2013) found that women who were subtly exposed to images of prominent women in political leadership (i.e., Hilary Clinton & Angela Merkel), when charged with giving a persuasive speech, self-reported and were perceived by blind coders as giving more effective speeches than were men and women exposed to the same images. These findings support that women in leadership might have a positive effect on women in junior positions. However, there is a gap in the
41 research surrounding how direct exposure to women in formal leadership might influence women in junior positions who are aspiring to advance to formal leadership (Latu et al., 2013). This research study involved an exploration of the perceptions of women in junior positions regarding women in formal leadership in the finance and banking industries. In addition, the perceptions of women in formal leadership regarding women in junior positions were explored, with the goal of clarifying some challenges that might be associated with the disproportion of women to men in formal organizational leadership roles. Historical Perspective Christian and Islamic theologies that traditionally engendered women’s subordination to men both sexually and socially (Quinn, 1977) have dominated worldviews for centuries. In his book, Leadership, Burns (1978/2012) explained, “Over the centuries femininity has been stereotyped as dependent, submissive and conforming, and hence women have been seen as lacking leadership qualities” (p. 50). Heilman and Eagly (2008) argued that communal traits, or those associated primarily with women, “tend to be inconsistent with the attributes believed to be required for success in many key organizational positions” (p. 394). Consequently, this might lead to continued findings of women’s penalization in performance evaluations (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007; Parks-Stamm, Heilman, & Hearns, 2008) as well as perhaps providing at least a partial explanation for the persisting salary disparities between men and women (see Eagly, 2012; Lips, 2013; J. E. Olson, 2013). Werhane (2007) reported that more than a century might pass before realizing equality between men and women in formal corporate leadership. Oakley (2000) pointed
42 to a 1992 survey of CEOs in U.S. firms, in which results showed that only 2% of the CEOs considered the likelihood of a woman being appointed to a CEO position within their company inside of 10 years. Interestingly, Garcia-Retamero and López-Zafra (2006) found that women, when considering the organizational promotions of other women, attributed the likelihood of women’s promotions lower than the possibilities of promotions for men no matter the industry. In other words, Garcia-Retamero and LópezZafra showed that women believe men make better candidates for promotion and that men would consequently fare better than would women in a leadership role. Although women currently run parallel to men in terms of workforce participation and educational attainment (Bart & McQueen, 2013; Fetterolf & Eagly, 2011; Hoobler et al., 2011; Khan & Vieito, 2013; Schuh et al., 2014), their identification as subordinate to men in Western culture (Burns, 1978/2012; Skaggs et al., 2012) might implicitly hinder women from attaining formal organizational leadership positions. Through the historical lens outlined below, the exploration of potential reasons for the disparity of women to men in formal leadership and exposure to theories and platforms regarding leadership development can open discussions about why there is a disparity and whether overcoming this disparity might enrich sustainability and growth in the traditionally masculinized environment of finance and banking. The Influence of Women in the Bible Genesis 3:6 points to what might be the original conceptions of secularized leadership, as the woman (later named Eve) may be considered the first leader, leading her husband by first partaking of the forbidden fruit. Later, Eve’s husband told God, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the [forbidden] tree,
43 and I ate it” (Genesis 3:12, New International Version [NIV]). Subsequently, God cursed humankind, designating to Eve (women) that “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16, NIV), while explaining to Eve’s husband (men) that “because you listened to your wife” (Genesis 3:17, NIV), the responsibilities of men would become laborious, “produc[ing] thorns and thistles” (Genesis 3:18, NIV). Whether interpreting the Bible as a literal source, which is the origin of many religions and ethical belief models, or simply relying upon it as a mythological or symbolic book, there might be justification to consider these passages as a starting point for understanding the roots of women’s subjugation to men in societally manufactured leadership paradigms (Fuchs, 1999; Tumanov, 2011). Burns (1978/2012) illustrated the cultural importance of myths and symbols as pertaining to societal facets of leadership. In addition, a precedence of biblical interpretation for leadership study—whether literal, mythical, or symbolic—has been established (Carmy, 2010; Gordon, 2015; Parris & Peachey, 2013; Rowe, 2014; Sekano & Masango, 2012). Generally, the Bible established powerful women as marginal and owing their authority to genealogy (Lubitch, 1993), and often construed as a mere appendage to men because of the traditional patriarchal ideals (Hope, 1975). The Virgin Mary’s ability to give birth, for example, was derived through “the highest (divine) authority” (Tumanov, 2011, p. 514). Fuchs (1999) asserted that the women responsible for saving the life of Moses, in various stages of Moses’s lifetime, might have only held significance because of Moses’s subsequent authority and actions. A discussion of women who provided examples of influence and authority in both the Old and New Testaments follows.
44 Influential women in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, the book of Judges, chapters 4 and 5, portrayed a woman, Deborah, who was charged with the roles of judge and prophet while also leading the Israeli army into a battle with Sisera. The book of Micah, chapter 6:4, labelled another woman, Miriam, as a prophet who helped lead the Israelites out of Egypt. Exodus 15:20 (NIV) stated, “Miriam the prophet . . . took a trimbel in her hand, and all the women followed her, with trimbels and dancing.” In another example, Esther exhibited bravery and wisdom when she successfully pleaded with King Xerxes to spare the Jews (Esther 7-8, NIV). Influential women in the New Testament. The New Testament houses two frequently cited passages (i.e., 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34) rejecting the notion that women should lead, although there are passages (i.e., Ephesians 4:11-12) as well as examples of women who provided leadership, fortifying arguments that might help justify the portrayal of women in leadership (Mowczko, 2015). For example, in Romans 16, Paul mentions “our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church” (Romans 16:1, NIV), as well as “Priscilla and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus . . . Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them” (Romans 16:3-4, NIV), also referring to several other women “who work hard in the Lord” (Romans 16:12, NIV). In John 20:17, Jesus instructs a woman (Mary Magdalene) to tell the disciples about the good news of his resurrection. However, Fuchs (1999) opined that despite examples such as these, “women continue to function as foils, marginal to the central plot” (p. 470), perhaps due to the patriarchal and androcentric cultural ramifications of traditional biblical study (Eicher-Catt, 2005; Sekano & Masango, 2012).
45 The Influence of Women in the Classical Period The Classical Era incorporated the empires of ancient Rome and Greece in the West, widely regarded as Rome’s founding as a Republic in 509 B.C. through the empire’s fall in 476 A.D. Plutarch, a Greek author residing in Rome, contrasted an intellectual Greece with the political and military might of Rome (Riad, 2011). Valdez (2009) explained, “Rome carried out the task which Greece had begun but was too weak to complete, of overcoming the matriarchal East and asserting patriarchal civilization against it” (p. 429). Bachofen, writing in the mid-1800s, asserted that before the rise of Rome’s Republic, Western culture was dominated with matriarchal societies (Osborne, 1997; Valdez, 2009), or what Bachofen called mother-right (Bachofen & Partenheimer, 2007; Valdez, 2009). Interestingly, Osborne’s (1997) question, “If women are subordinate to men in every known society today, as most scholars believe, how and why did patriarchy arise?” (p. 51) might help to create a platform to validate Bachofen’s assertions. Osborne exposed many assumptions regarding archaeological findings in the early 20th century. Osborne alluded to the discovery of the remains of women warriors by archaeologist Davis-Kimball in the 1990s, which, according to Osborne, were often previously assumed to be men. In addition, radical feminist archaeologist Gimbuta claimed the existence of ancient matriarchal cultures due to the findings of thousands of artifacts. Bachofen explained the assertions of mother-right in the book, Mutterrecht (German translation of mother-right), extrapolating historical data regarding the culture of pre-Republic Rome. Bachofen even attributed the ascension of Rome’s empire to “the universality and inescapability of this confrontation between the feminine-material and
46 the masculine-spiritual principles” (Valdez, 2009, p. 424). Therefore, according to Bachofen’s premise, this materiality allowed women to maintain societal power through the ability to transfer real or observable power to men within those societies (Valdez, 2009). C. Eller (2013) and Valdez (2009) established Bachofen’s premise that corporeality, or the physical nature of being, is feminine, consequently attaching mythical, spiritual, or mindfulness to masculinized archetypes. Alluringly, despite Bachofen’s “nostalgic yearning for . . . Goddess worship and women rule” (C. Eller, 2013, p. 192), Bachofen considered patriarchy to be a necessity for societal evolution (C. Eller, 2013); perhaps Bachofen himself represented the deep-rooted paradox in Western societal cultures. Because the attitudes of patriarchy and androcentrism carried forward into the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome, women often remained outliers in the literature, inculcated by belief systems held by the domineering masculine ideals of those times (Riad, 2011; Valdez, 2009). Riad (2011) explained that Cleopatra “is the most famous woman of classical antiquity” (p. 833), perhaps due to the contradictions of true power and cultural mystique aligned with Cleopatra’s 20-year rule of Egypt. Earlier writers like Plutarch (see also Burns, 2003) “consider[ed] Cleopatra a danger to Rome” (Riad, 2011, p. 836), while Shakespeare ascribed masculinized traits to Cleopatra (Riad, 2011), illustrating the need for the Roman Empire to emasculate Cleopatra’s reign. The early 20th century’s Caesar and Cleopatra, by George Bernard Shaw, allowed for an interpretation of Cleopatra’s dependence on Rome for the protection of Egypt (Pasini, 2008). Consequently, assigning feminine characteristics to Egyptians and masculine
47 characteristics to Romans may have helped to establish Rome’s empire (Pasini, 2008; Valdez, 2009). The Influence of Women in the Medieval and Renaissance Periods The Medieval period, defined in this research as about 1400 years, began with the collapse of the Roman Empire around 5th century A.D. and proceeded through 19th century A.D. during the Renaissance (see Monter, 2011). The focus of this section is on women in organizational leadership—sovereign queenship or, as Monter (2011) proclaimed, “female kingship” (p. 533), throughout these periods. Slater (2015), concerning the delicacy of medieval queenship, stated, “The queen’s position was contingent on the strength of her connection to a stable male public authority, whether natal, conjugal or familial, or a combination of all three” (p. 53). Another challenge to the appropriateness of a queen’s sovereignty arose from theological tensions pertaining to varying religious beliefs and practices throughout these periods (Goncalves De Abreu, 2003). Saint Augustine the Hippo (Hippo) was a primary figure in transitioning religious rhetoric from the Classical into the Medieval periods (“The fall of Rome,” 2015; Mendelson, 2012), and these established traditions, in many respects, remain widely held thus far throughout 21st century Western culture (Beeley, 2009). One of the primary tenets of the religious shift between periods was a focus on the perceptions of moral law, which asserted that Christian doctrines should supersede secular rules (Beeley, 2009; Goncalves De Abreu, 2003). For example, Hippo’s writings consisted of matters such as juxtapositions regarding God’s judgment on the human soul and the corporeal judgment of human beings accused of earthly crimes (“The fall of Rome,” 2015), superstitions and idolatry (396: Hippo, 2012), and the nature of an
48 individual’s perception of truth (Augustine, 2015; Mendelson, 2012). Goncalves De Abreu (2003) elaborated on how Hippo’s rhetoric was interpreted by many antigyneacocratic (p. 166) writers in the medieval period, specifically John Knox, who radically challenged the appropriateness of sovereign queenship. Knox condemned women rulers; for example, comparing the English queen with Jezebel (Goncalves De Abreu, 2003), who was married to the biblical ruler “Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, urged on by Jezebel his wife” (I Kings 21:25, NIV). Symbolism was another important aspect concerning leadership during the Medieval and Renaissance periods (Normington, 2013). Since the time of the Roman Empire, Monter (2011) acknowledged, “Coins have provided specific and concrete markers of official, legitimate political sovereignty” (p. 533). The first woman known to be depicted on a coin was Cleopatra—Egypt’s final Ptolemaic sovereign leader (Monter, 2011). Monter’s study of monarchial women and numismatics between the years 1300 A.D. and 1800 A.D. also acknowledged how propaganda paralleled the acceptability of a leader’s authenticity. In addition, Monter’s work established what might have been understood as an inherent stereotype concerning queenly self-representation on coins. Monter maintained that images of power and might (e.g., raising swords, horseback riding) were prohibited for women, who were destined to imagery or typefaces rendering a perception of women as purveyors of justice (e.g., sitting on a throne), perhaps relating to Valdez’s (2009) aforementioned assignment of weakness regarding intellectual pursuits.
49 Feminism in the 20th and 21st Century Organizational Climate In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the concerns of the feminist movement have included issues regarding sexuality, human reproduction, and equal pay initiatives (Moses, 2012). The media has continued its scrutiny of feminists, aligning the movement with insecurity, anger, and extremism (Cotter et al., 2011; Moses, 2012; North, 2012). Consequently, women who idealize the concepts of feminism might demonstrate reticence concerning feminist principles when talking about career paths (North, 2012), perhaps even to the point of invisibility (Stead, 2013). Kelan (2013) considered professional women to be in a double bind, as they “have to be careful to appear feminine, while still emulating the masculinity entailed in business leadership” (p. 48). Consequently, women who are promoted into leadership might become invisible through an alignment of actions conducive with organizational (or industrial) norms, culture, and values (Stead, 2013). Such a double bind might create unnecessary distractions for women in leadership while increasing the perceptions of barriers for women looking to assume formal leadership positions. Women in formal leadership positions who are visible might be regarded as tokens (Gheaus, 2015; Schwartz & Rago, 1973; von Hippel et al., 2015). Tokens, described as people who are obviously in the minority of a group’s membership (Syed & Murray, 2008; Turco, 2010), are often visible and sometimes scrutinized based on their minority status (Bible & Hill, 2007; Ezzedeen et al., 2015; Stead, 2013). In 1973, Schwartz and Rago opined, “Trouble comes when management pays lip service to integration, but in reality is committed to ‘tokenism’” (p. 75) concerning the promotion of women into formal organizational leadership ranks. In 2015, von Hippel et al. asserted
50 that women in masculinized industries would first have to reach a critical mass before perceptions of tokenism could be reduced. Thus, the complexities of women adhering to feminist rhetoric (visibility), compared to women abiding by an organization’s traditional norms, culture, and values (invisibility), when attempting to advance into the conventionally masculinized paradigm of leadership might become a challenging endeavor (Bastia, 2014). Post-Positivism and Feminism Eagly and Riger (2014) asserted that positivistic science (i.e., a sense of what realness is, as measured empirically) was widely accepted by feminists as an androcentric phenomenon through the 1960s; meaning that men were the primary researchers and little, if any, regard was given for experimental biases. Subsequently, Bem’s (1974) call to “begin focusing on the behavioral and societal consequences of more flexible sex-role self-concepts” (p. 162) and V. E. Schein’s (1973) seminal findings of possible feminine advantages in management roles may have opened the door for studying perceptions regarding women in leadership (Coder & Spiller, 2013). However, Coder and Spiller (2013) contended that the methodologies used by Bem (1974) and V. E. Schein (1973) might require more empirical testing, although Bem’s Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and Schein’s Descriptive Index (SDI) have been used frequently, and recently, in peerreviewed studies (see Berkery et al., 2013; Choi, Herdman, Fuqua, & Newman, 2011; Paris & Decker, 2012). Post-positivism, or perhaps postmodernism (Lincoln, 2010), allows for flexible insight into data, making information subjective based primarily on the cognitive perceptions of participants, which might be particularly useful in social sciences (Eagly
51 & Riger, 2014); although Zexian and Xuhui (2010) argued that positivism and postpositivism might complement one another for increasing the robustness of a study’s results. However, Eagly and Riger (2014) asserted that the discovery of (androcentric) research bias in the 1960s “is the bedrock of modern post-positivist psychological methods and epistemology” (p. 687) that led to greater exploration into realms such as experimenter expectancies and participants’ preconceptions regarding the outcomes of experiments. Therefore, utilizing positivistic and post-positivistic paradigms as complements might be useful in the feminist argument; furthermore, there might be a benefit in valuing the perceptions of a group, especially when that group might hold the perception that they are marginalized (Eagly & Riger, 2014; Lincoln, 2010). Following is a discussion regarding how the development of leadership studies has unfolded since the early 20th century as a result of increased workforce diversity and evolving stakeholder expectations. A Brief Historical Overview of Leadership Theory Development This section provides evidence of some of the voluminous literature that exists regarding leadership studies and theories. Leadership might correlate with power in the minds of many, but Burns (1979) recognized that power and leadership could be mutually exclusive, as leadership acknowledges the well-being of actors while power is, quite simply, the control of possessions. In fact, an exact definition of leadership is not agreed upon (da Cruz, Nunes, & Pinheiro, 2011; Dansereau, Seitz, Chiu, Shaughnessy, & Yammarino, 2013), as there are numerous proposed leadership styles in the literature (Bass, 1990; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Goh & Zhen-Jie, 2014; Kort, 2008; PaustianUnderdahl et al., 2014; Yukl, 2012). For example, Gould et al. (2013) found that
52 participants in their study lacked an exclusive definition of leadership; however, the participants shared common characteristics that, in their view, described effective leaders. Moreover, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War contains qualities considered for ideal leadership rather than a succinct definition of leadership (Dimovski, Maric, Uhan, Durica, & Ferjan, 2012). Kort (2008) opined that considering the actions of leadership rather than focusing on a definition might instigate discussions about the ethical responsibilities and competencies aligned with formal leadership designations (see also Dansereau et al., 2013). Yukl (2012) explored various leadership behaviors and their effects on employee performance at various organizational levels. As stated above, the conceptualizations of formal leadership paradigms that emphasize the importance of a leader’s influence on the entirety of the organization’s stakeholders are abundant. Aptly, the concept of leadership seems remarkably pliable, exhibiting numerous opportunities for extension, discussion, and clarification. As organizational environments become increasingly dynamic (Ihrig & Macmillan, 2015; Mendenhall et al., 2013; Rennstam & Ashcraft, 2013; Shewchuk, n.d.), exploring different models of leadership might be applicable for consideration with regard to operationalizing the ideology of organizational learning (Andressen et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2013; Rijal, 2010). The following section contains a review of historical and current literature regarding different leadership models. The information provided about differing leadership theories can be used by an organization’s leadership team when contemplating leadership styles in accordance with the organization’s norms, ethics, values, and culture. For the purpose of the current study, the following overview of how the study of leadership has advanced was designed to provide a foundation for the
53 research regarding the increasingly diverse human capital currently held by many organizations. Trait Approach Early theorists espoused the trait approach, suggesting that certain people held innate characteristics that predicted their ability to lead effectively (da Cruz et al., 2011; Gehring, 2007; Stogdill, 1975). Northouse (2010) described some characteristics, such as charisma, appearance, intelligence, self-determination, and trustworthiness, as being important attributes for followers to perceive in leaders (see also Stogdill, 1948). The trait approach was dominant through the World War II era (Stogdill, 1975), when scholars raised concerns with inconsistencies in the study of trait theory (Colbert et al., 2012; Hollander, 1979; Lord et al., 1986; Stogdill, 1948). Thus, instead of holding a myopic view comprised solely of a leader’s observable characteristics, the focus shifted to the relationships between leaders and followers (Blake & Mouton, 1982; Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Lambert, Tepper, Carr, Holt, & Barelka, 2012; Shartle, 1979; Stogdill, 1975). As shown in the following sections, the focus on relationships started a shift in leadership studies toward generating the situational and transformational leadership theories that govern current leadership scholarship (Armandi, Oppedisano, & Sherman, 2003; da Cruz et al., 2011). Ohio State Leadership Studies In 1945, the Ohio State Leadership Studies program initiated a movement to study leader behavior within organizations (Hollander, 1979; Shartle, 1979). The studies were “often criticized for a lack of theory” (Shartle, 1979, p. 132) and were accused of unaccountability to situational variables (Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy, & Stogdill, 1974).
54 In addition, Shartle (1979) acknowledged that the group of researchers in the Ohio State studies was referred to as a “hypothesis factory” (p. 131) by outside consultants. However, Schriesheim and Bird (1979) stated, “[The Ohio State studies were] clearly guided and focused on a single objective—to advance knowledge of leadership phenomena” (p. 136) and the emphasis on interdisciplinary—or perhaps more appropriately, multidisciplinary (see Shartle, 1979, p. 130)—research contributed to the future developments of leadership theories (Hollander, 1979; Schriesheim & Bird, 1979). The Ohio State studies germinated leadership theorists who have been instrumental in developing theories that can be applied to many different situational leadership models (Shartle, 1979). Schriesheim and Bird (1979) asserted that one of the fundamental contributions of the Ohio State studies was identifying leadership as an interaction between fluctuating variables; primarily, as Fleishman (1953) stated, “the problems of leadership and human relations” (p. 153). Hollander (1979) found strong correlations between the positive perceptions of followers and a leader’s ability to retain legitimate authority over those followers. Thus, leaders who appear to get positive results are deemed as successful by followers (and perhaps other stakeholders) and will be granted the opportunity to continue legitimately as leaders unless, or until, their efforts are deemed unsuccessful by followers (Hollander, 1979). Therefore, emerging from the Ohio State studies, new concepts such as initiating structure and consideration—where the supervisor’s responsibilities to delineate group interaction toward goal realization and remain mindful of the emotional state of subordinates (Fleishman, 1953; Hollander, 1979; Kerr et al., 1974; Schriesheim & Bird, 1979; Shartle, 1979)—bestowed a new prominence on
55 leadership studies. Consequently, some of the new theories that emerged from the Ohio State studies are shared below to build a foundation for how these leadership styles might interact with the current study’s participants. Path-Goal Theory House (1971) built upon seminal studies of employee motivation (Georgopoulos, Mahoney, & Jones, 1957) to develop the path-goal theory, which focuses on the influence of leaders’ initiation of task structure and consideration on subordinate motivation. House found that, in general, subordinates “were probably dependent on their superiors for (job) satisfaction, regardless of (the subordinates) response to the jobautonomy scale” (p. 335). Georgopoulos et al. (1957) considered path-goal as a supplemental technique for leading subordinates that might be best suited for short-term, task oriented performance. Path-goal theory attributes the leader’s attitude with subordinate motivation and satisfaction, ultimately driving performance (Vandegrift & Matusitz, 2011). Interestingly, path-goal theory developed out of House’s (1971) original conception coinciding with transactional leadership paradigms to a more relational form of leadership (Evans, 1996), allowing for measures of directive and supportive leader behavior, subordinate decision-making, and achievement orientation (Hanson, 1979; House, 1996; Indvik, 1986; Vandegrift & Matusitz, 2011). In a meta-analysis of pathgoal theory, Indvik (1986) found support for the importance of situational factors regarding the path-goal leadership ideology, primarily, as Hanson (1979) directed, the interaction of leadership with the individualities comprising the subordinates and the
56 operating environment of the organization. Consequently, path-goal theory contributes to arguments regarding the complexities of leadership (Stogdill, 1975). Contingency Model The contingency model of leadership, originating with Fiedler (1967), promotes the hypothesis that a leader’s effectiveness might be predicted by a situation’s favorableness in terms of giving the leader power and influence over followers (da Cruz et al., 2011; Fiedler, 1967, 1972; Hunt, 1967; T. R. Mitchell, Biglan, Oncken, & Fiedler, 1970). The contingency model classifies leadership utilizing three dimensions regarding a leader’s applicability and favorability of style demonstration: (a) task-orientation, (b) relationship-orientation, and (c) positional power (Fiedler, 1967, 1972; Hunt, 1967; T. R. Mitchell et al., 1970). Fiedler’s (1967) contingency model assumes that a leader’s personality is static—in other words, the leader does not adapt to the environment that is created by internal or external influences (T. R. Mitchell et al., 1970). Consequently, if an organization finds leaders who utilize the contingency model effectively, there might be benefit in structuring the organization’s environment to create a fit with the leaders. Leader-Member Exchange Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) was founded upon the seminal principles of Dansereau, Graen, and Haga’s (1975) vertical dyad linkage (VDL) approach to leadership (Dansereau et al., 2013; Myers, 2006; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). In 1975, Dansereau et al. began to study the dyadic interactions between leaders and subordinates, focusing primarily on the latitude offered to subordinates regarding the negotiation of positional duties and responsibilities, based in large part on the leader’s perception of each subordinate’s dependability and aptness to pursue such negotiations.
57 Thus, according to VDL, the leader and subordinate have a relationship that is necessarily interdependent—not based on the superior’s authority so much as the dyadic relationship—ultimately opposing the traditional views of leadership, which attributed personal effectiveness and the organization’s efficiency to a leader’s innate characteristics (Dansereau et al., 1975; Gehring, 2007; Stogdill, 1975). While the theories of VDL and LMX contain similarities, the primary distinction seems to lie in the scope of each theory (Dansereau et al., 2013). Dansereau et al. (2013) shared that the concept of VDL infers that individual dyads “[focus] primarily on negotiating latitude and delegation” (p. 809), while LMX incorporates many other factors (e.g., interpersonal skills, support, trust). In addition, LMX operates “interdependently within a larger organizational environment” (Myers, 2006, p. 294), including analyses of team level development and interactions (Naidoo, Scherbaum, Goldstein, & Graen, 2011; Schyns & Day, 2010), differentiating the two theories. Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) opined that LMX is leader intensive, as the responsibility for relationship building aligns with the leader. As a result, a leader’s focus might often be learning how to build high quality relationships with subordinates, which, in turn, might lead to increased individual (Dansereau et al., 2013; Schyns & Day, 2010) and team (Naidoo et al., 2011) performance. Leader-member exchange generally exhibits two specific dyads––in-group and out-group––that might alter a leader’s focus on differentiating tasks and responsibilities among various stakeholders. In-group. In VDL, members of a subordinate in-group have a higher degree of latitude in negotiations with leaders, supporting a leader’s determination of the subordinate’s dependability (Dansereau et al., 1975). Transferring this logic to LMX,
58 subordinate in-group members have high-quality dyadic exchanges with leaders (Myers, 2006), which Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) opined might often be the result of “social construction created by followers” (p. 86) based on the followers’ overestimation of the leader’s influence. In addition, a leader might choose in-group members (Naidoo et al., 2011) because the leader perceives superior skill and competence (i.e., dependability) in those subordinates over others. Myers (2006) found that in-group members show higher levels of intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction, which translates into the in-group members’ willingness and efficacy to take on challenging tasks and acquire new roles within the organization (Scandura & Graen, 1984). In addition, membership in the ingroup might increase the leader’s confidence in assigning nontrivial tasks and giving additional responsibility to the in-group members (Schriesheim, Neider, & Scandura, 1998). Out-group. According to Dansereau et al.’s (1975) theory of VDL, subordinates who are not given, or do not pursue, latitude in negotiations are labeled as members of an out-group. As a result, out-group members in LMX contexts might have low-quality dyadic exchanges with leaders (Dionne et al., 2014; Myers, 2006), whereby strictly contingent task orientation is the leader’s preferred relationship with an out-group member (Naidoo et al., 2011). In addition, Dionne et al. (2014) explained that leaders, and members of the in-group, might often devalue the contributions of out-group members, which might consequently hinder organizational processes involving collaboration, knowledge sharing, and potential for coworker networking. Interestingly, according to Dansereau et al. (1975), out-group members emphasize an external locus of
59 control toward the leader as ineffectively communicating expectations and “as more of a source of job problems” (p. 63). Transactional Leadership Transactional leadership involves the exchanges made between a leader and follower to reinforce the self-interests of each party (Bass, 1990, 1999; Burns, 1978/2012; Den Hartog et al., 1997; Hollander, 1979). Carter and Greer (2013) opined, “The rationale for transactional leadership is straightforward. Followers who perform their responsibilities [as defined] are rewarded for meeting performance standards” (p. 381). Indeed, transactional leadership focuses on the implicit contingencies of rewards (for a job well done) or punishments (for task failure or incompetence) between a leader and subordinate, thus requiring less leadership ability compared to some other models of situational leadership (Verlage, Rowold, & Schilling, 2012). In addition to rewards and punishments, active and passive management by exception correlate with transactional leadership (Bass, 1999; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Verlage et al., 2012). As described by Bass et al. (1996), active management by exception occurs when managers monitor the tasks of subordinates to provide guidance and corrective action if needed. Verlage et al. (2012) designated active management by exception as a process intent on preventing task failure as well as a method to keep subordinates on track with task completion and organizational standards. In contrast, passive management by exception occurs when leaders take action to correct mistakes or take disciplinary action only after an error transpires (Bass, 1999; Verlage et al., 2012). Also considered in the realm of transactional leadership, Bass (1999) described laissez-
60 faire leadership, where a leader is hands off or even absent from the processes of any kind of subordinate development. McGregor’s (1960) formulation of Theory X might create a platform for considering transactional leadership. Theory X postulates that leaders hold cynical views about subordinates (Kopelman, Prottas, & Falk, 2012); thus, Theory X leaders might view subordinates as lazy, unmotivated, and untrustworthy, and consequently feel justified in using command and control to manage the actions of subordinates (Kopelman et al., 2012; McGregor, 1960; E. Schein, 2011). Transformational Leadership Bass (1990) warned that “transactional leadership is a prescription for mediocrity” (p. 20), as a leader’s willingness to lead and the actual ability to control rewards and punishments, combined with follower motivation (toward rewards or away from punishment), might hinder organizational progress. Burns (1978/2012) indicated that transformational leadership is a leadership style that “is more concerned with endvalues” (p. 426), and leaders might achieve favorable results through stimulating followers emotionally, intellectually, or both (Bass, 1990; Bono & Anderson, 2005; Eisenbeiss & Boerner, 2013). Yucel et al. (2014) found that transformational leadership strongly correlated with employees’ normative organizational commitment. Transformational leaders equip employees to transcend expectations, set by either the organization or themselves, giving employees the feeling of working toward a higher purpose (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Eisenbeiss & Boerner, 2013; López-Domínguez, Enache, Sallan, & Simo, 2013).
61 Andressen et al. (2012) opined that transformational leadership’s characteristics of individualized consideration and idealized influence, defined respectively as a leader’s willingness and ability to develop subordinates and selflessness, might motivate selfmanagement by employees. Furthermore, Keung and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2013) contributed that transformational leaders might equip employees with the tools necessary to alter an environment of static thinking through the characteristic of intellectual stimulation, which promotes problem-solving and prudence (see Bass, 1990). Subsequently, transformational leadership might align with organic leadership (Conti, 2011; Muo, 2013), as transformational leadership supports empowerment and trust in employees (Al-Swidi, Nawawi, & Al-Hosam, 2012; Masi, 2000; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006). In traditionally masculinized environments, women might find more value in their contributions if there is a no perceived discount of those contributions. McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y upholds a leader’s view of employees as diligent, responsible, self-motivated, and useful (Kopelman et al., 2012). E. Schein (2011) maintained that Theory Y leaders might lead according to the task requirements, having a better understanding of the organizational needs and the expectations of valued employees. Thus, Theory Y might enable considerations of a style closely resembling transformational leadership’s epistemological juxtaposition. Theoretical Framework for the Current Study The constancy of theory development in leadership practices—especially considering that the aforementioned examples of leadership models provide merely an infinitesimal representation of existing theories (see Dionne et al., 2014)—might have helped produce the foundation for viewing organizations as environmentally interactive
62 systems (Andrade, 2015; Hanson, 1979; Krech, 1950; Parsons, 1956; Valentinov, 2012; von Bertalanffy, 1988). Conti (2011) explained that mechanistic models of management prevailed through the World War II era, as during the Industrial Revolution organizations primarily utilized machinery to accomplish efficiencies and realize competitive advantage. A consequence of the Industrial Revolution was the widespread acceptance of Frederick Taylor’s methodology designed to distinguish laborers from management (Conti, 2011; Levinson, 2003), a model that is maintained in the assumptions of many hierarchal organizational structures (Cilliers & Greyvenstein, 2012). Diverging from Taylor’s mechanistically understood method, organizational ecology provides an organic assessment of organizational design, referring to an organization’s exposure to interrelated systems socially and physically (F. Becker, 2007). Shewchuk (n.d.) defined organizational ecology as “the study of ‘life’ in an organizational habitat” (p. 3). Singh and Lumsden (1990) explained that organizational ecology involved the study of how organizations determine processes to adapt to changes based on intra-organizational diversity as well as an organization’s external (e.g., environmental) diversity. Therefore, looking at organizations through a lens of organizational ecology might justify viewing organizations as living systems— accordingly implying an acquiescence that those organizations will eventually perish (Heine & Rindfleisch, 2013; Singh & Lumsden, 1990). However, the lifespan of organizations might be determined by the reactions and adaptations of stakeholders to environmental ambiguities (Heine & Rindfleisch, 2013; Roberts, 2015), especially in consideration of diversity implications caused by increases in multicultural perspectives
63 and technological innovations appearing, in large part, because of avaricious organizational globalization (Lisak & Erez, 2015; Mendenhall et al., 2013). Anderson and Anderson (2010) identified the early 1990s as a time when many organizations began shifting from virtually a sole focus on the needs of external stakeholders to emphasizing intra-organizational culture. Firoozmand (2013) opined that leading people, rather than managing tasks, procedures, and processes, might enable change in a currently unpredictable organizational environment. Consequently, the shift that began in the early 1990s might require a determined effort from organizational leadership to focus less on vertical and mechanistic management, favoring instead organic organizational cultures through allowing horizontal communication that might allow leaders a measure of benevolence, which might then have a positive influence on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and ultimately organizational health (Schermerhorn, Osborn, Uhl-Bien, & Hunt, 2011). For organizations to learn in this way requires a holistic attitude (Senge, 1990), and allowing for an environment where heterogeneous stakeholder groups to participate in cognitive and task-oriented behaviors might legitimize the actors’ perceptions of organizational participation (Cooperrider, 2012; Parboteeah & Jackson, 2007). Organizations often reside in open systems (Hanson, 1979). Valentinov (2012) described open systems as “never being, so long as it is alive, in a state of . . . equilibrium but maintained in a so-called steady state” (p. 538). Consequently, organizations functioning in an open system are distinctly complex from the environments in which they operate (Valentinov, 2012). Krech (1950) explained that open systems constantly make exchanges with the environment. The realization that organizations often operate
64 in open systems perhaps helped divert the attention of scholars from mechanistic and Newtonian paradigms of exactness in organizational studies toward understanding organizations as complex systems that rely on external and internal stimuli to operate efficiently in an increasingly dynamic culture (Chiva et al., 2014; Liang, 2013; McKelvey, 2004; Neumann, 2013). Therefore, an organization’s willingness, ability, and desire to (a) exploit and subsequently create knowledge for competitive gains (Mendenhall et al., 2013; Nonaka et al., 2014), (b) understand the characteristics of employees who might be best suited to act as mentors to junior employees (Ghosh, 2014; Stefaniak, 2014), and (c) grasp the cultural nuances of internal and external culture expectancies (Eken et al., 2014; Nieminen et al., 2013) might justify systems thinking. While the addition of women into leadership circles in typically masculinized environments might initially create a perception of imbalance, the dynamic cultural shifts toward interdependence these organizations are experiencing might mitigate any discomfort relatively quickly. Systems thinking refers to a method of understanding an organization as a set of parts that act, often out of necessity, interdependently (Caldwell, 2012; Nguyen & Bosch, 2013; Senge, 1990; von Bertalanffy, 1988). Caldwell (2012) explained systems thinking as being “concerned with disclosing the universal ‘feedback structures’ of system change and organizational learning” (p. 2). Checkland (2012) acknowledged the importance of resisting reductionist thinking and identifying the system’s emergent properties for effective systems thinking. In a mechanistically oriented organization, the changes that occur in systems might often conform to that organization’s historical cultural pattern of operation (Gharajedaghi, 2007). However, when considering the complexity of an
65 organization’s organic orientation, there might be value in shifting focus from deterministic causality (if A, then B) to probabilistic causality, which offers variable possibilities when A is chosen (Argyris, 1997). Thus, systems thinking recognizes subjectivity in these processes and interconnections, offering a certain flexibility for scholars and practitioners that might be vital when analyzing systems thinking with many of the aforementioned leadership scenarios (Dawidowicz, 2012; Laszlo, 2012). Interpreting organizations as organically inclined systems—where complexity and probability override the objectivity of the mechanistic assumptions of purely inputoutput—requires a discussion of the intrinsic complexities of human behavior (Neumann, 2013). Insinuating autopoiesis, Liang (2013) distinguished the exactness of Newtonian scientific principles (e.g., closed systems) from studies involving issues of complexity (e.g., open systems). Autopoiesis, according to Varela, Maturana, and Uribe’s (1974) seminal hypothesis, refers to an organism’s biological functioning and considers a living organism’s inherent abilities to adapt to and relate with the external environment for the purposes of self-maintenance and self-reproduction. Autopoietic theory dictates that systems continually regenerate based on knowledge that is contextual and interpretable (Koskinen, 2010; Sice et al., 2013); thus, attempting to constantly generate balance through the interactions and interrelationships of individual (i.e., autopoietic) and group (i.e., systems) knowledge bases, norms, and cultures (Liang, 2013; Zeleny, 1977). Moe (2011) related autopoietic theory to chaos theory and explained, “Chaologists use the term [autopoiesis] to explore the patterns (and life) that emerge from the edge of chaos” (p. 111). The edge of chaos represents a pivotal point for open systems where the system has an opportunity to adapt to the internal and external
66 environments (Carlisle & McMillan, 2006; Chiva et al., 2014). Carlisle and McMillan (2006) pointed to research suggesting that organizational rigidity, bureaucracy, and control diminish open communication and employee ingenuity, while organizations displaying the opposite characteristics could jeopardize organizational longevity. Furthermore, Moe (2011) opined, “If the systems falls deeper into disorder, the intensity of change threatens to overwhelm it entirely, pushing it into sheer randomness” (p. 111). However, autopoiesis, defined by Gershenson (2015) “as the ratio between the complexity of the system and the complexity of its environment” (para. 14), might allow for a level of environmental predictability for organizations operating at the edge of chaos (Berson, Da’as, & Waldman, 2015; Moe, 2011). Consequently, Chiva et al. (2014) acknowledged that organizations should facilitate learning, thus necessitating the “break down [of the organization’s] mental and physical barriers in order to learn, innovate, and internationalize” (p. 700). Feminism Sewpaul (2013) proclaimed that “androcentric and patriarchal thinking and practices . . . [are] inscribed in our blood” (p. 116). Eicher-Catt (2005) acknowledged that organizational models, norms, and values are “thoroughly steeped within religious doctrine” (p. 23), perhaps perpetuating the androcentric and patriarchal mindsets that men are prototypes for the current organizational environment (Sewpaul, 2013). Consequently, women aligning with feminism or the feminist movement were depicted as interlopers who defied the expectations set forth within a culture dominated by androcentric and patriarchal ideologies (Cotter et al., 2011; Moses, 2012). In 1972, Rosenwasser proclaimed, “The Women’s Liberation Movement is one of the most
67 controversial movements sweeping America today and . . . promises to liberate not just women but all of humanity” (p. 45). Miller and Mothner (1971), in an effort to expose the power of male-dominated philosophies, called for an increase in women’s participation in psychiatric studies, helping to introduce a new era of women’s movements toward equality. The 1970s were fertile ground for what might now be considered the current feminist movement (Bastia, 2014; B. L. Hillman, 2013; Moses, 2012) and marked the beginning of formal studies regarding the topic of women’s advancement into more formal management positions in organizations (Coder & Spiller, 2013). In addition, Barger (2011) illustrated that prevalent movies during the 1970s challenged the notion that women should remain in traditional roles as mothers and wives. Thus, considering formal methods of organizational leadership, the development of differences in leadership characteristics between men and women began to flourish during that time (Lemasters & Roach, 2012). In the early 1970s, women researchers such as Virginia Schein and Sandra Bem created studies to explore the psychological influences of cultural expectations regarding man-ness and woman-ness, which were subsequently adapted to many studies of leadership and management (Coder & Spiller, 2013). The importance of such scholarship may have arisen because of the recognition that women’s self-perceptions of reality “[are] biologically based . . . the condition of femaleness” (Hope, 1975, p. 17). Although Gilligan (2014) opined, “Care is a feminist, not a ‘feminine’ ethic, and feminism, guided by an ethic of care, is arguably the most radical . . . liberation movement in human history” (p. 101), negative connotations persist surrounding
68 ideologies labeled or otherwise associated with feminism or the feminist movement (Cotter et al., 2011; Moses, 2012). Throughout history, cultures have generally abided by norms that include biological assumptions based on an individual’s sex (Gramick, 2001; Rosenwasser, 1972; Sewpaul, 2013). In the 1970s, the anti-feminist movement focused on feminists’ self-representations (e.g., short hair, pants suits) as undermining femininity, thus attempting to detach the commonly accepted peculiarities between men and women, while the conventional media attacked the feminist movement through portrayals of the ugliness and unfemininity of women associated with the movement (B. L. Hillman, 2013). Women’s perceptions might then be based not only on the internal struggle of being a woman in a masculinized culture, but additionally the struggle against external forces or barriers seemingly beyond the woman’s control. Glass Ceiling Akpinar-Sposito (2013) described the glass ceiling as an artificial barrier for the advancement of groups within certain domains (see also Dominguez, 1991). The term glass ceiling was ushered into the business community in a 1986 Wall Street Journal article (Eisner, 2013). In 1995, the U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission acknowledged that a glass ceiling might lead to problems with the pipeline of human capital, a statement that was further expressed in research denoting the uncertainty of young women’s desires to pursue formal organizational leadership (i.e., executive) roles (Ezzedeen et al., 2015). In 1991, Dominguez explained that the Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative, conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor, contained the following results concerning women and minorities (p. 716):
69
The level of the glass ceiling was lower than expected—although varying by company
The responsibility for equality of employment was most often attributed to a single person in human resources, as opposed to a corporate-wide initiative
Insufficient monitoring of compensation—exposing the possibility of discriminatory practices (intentional or unintentional)
Lack of presence in line positions (e.g., those typically leading to executive positions)
Unequal access to talent development initiatives
Lack of referrals for qualified candidates in recruitment practices
There is evidence that, especially in masculinized organizational domains, these elements have persisted over time (Booysen & Nkomo, 2010; Heilman, 2012; Pfafman & McEwan, 2014). The perception of glass ceiling barriers exists across the global marketplace and might be exacerbated by stereotypes, cultural identification, and employer policies (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013). Akpinar-Sposito (2013) presented evidence that women’s perceptions of a glass ceiling might hinder their pursuit of formal leadership positions due to stereotype threat. In addition, women’s leadership efficacy might become affected, as Appelbaum et al. (2013b) found that, in general, women compared to men rate themselves lower on self-evaluations, potentially limiting women’s advancement opportunities. Furthermore, Newman and McGinn (2012) found that women leaders expressed common themes of loneliness and discrimination in masculinized organizational cultures, while earning 77% of the salaries of men in similar positions.
70 However, Collay and Cooper (2008) found that their study participants gained confidence from their experiences through attaining knowledge and receiving positive feedback for accomplishments. Baumgartner and Schneider (2010) noted a disparity with women who successfully shattered the glass ceiling, citing the “queen bee syndrome” (p. 561) where women who broke through the glass ceiling perceived themselves as working harder than others to achieve their success and perhaps intentionally or unintentionally established barriers for other women attempting to do the same. Accordingly, ParksStamm et al. (2008) found that women who achieved success in masculinized industries, in general, would negatively affect the self-evaluations of women colleagues or peers, because women who achieve leadership in masculinized industries are generally perceived as encroaching upon prescribed gender roles. Although women who have achieved formal leadership positions might play an important role in developing junior women (Kurtulus & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2012), junior women might consciously or subconsciously have apprehensions based on knowledge of a glass ceiling, perhaps combined with a fear of confirming a negative stereotype (Akpinar-Sposito, 2013). The Glass Cliff The glass cliff describes a phenomenon whereby women overtake leadership roles in organizations with risky environments (Bruckmüller & Branscombe, 2010). While women might have the opportunity to display heroic leadership in perilous organizations, the glass cliff signifies the dangerous position of leading in a deteriorating organization (Hunt-Earle, 2012; Ryan & Haslam, 2009). Ryan and Haslam (2005) proposed the theory of a glass cliff to counter arguments suggesting that the presence of women on corporate boards detracted from a company’s performance. What Ryan and Haslam
71 found was that companies that appointed women to boards had lower performance in the months leading up to women’s appointments, suggesting, upon further review, that the women’s appointment to boards may not have caused an organization’s depressed performance. For example, in February of 2014, about a month after the appointment of Mary Barra as the first woman Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of General Motors (GM), U.S. government agencies began investigating the terms surrounding the recall of millions of GM automobiles (Trop, 2014). Interestingly, Trop (2014) reported that Barra’s appointment as GM’s CEO was somewhat unforeseen despite her 33-year history with the company. Another example is Carly Fiorina, who became the first woman CEO of a Fortune 50 company (i.e., Hewlett-Packard) in 1999, “just as the tech bubble of the dotcom era was bursting, hurting most technology companies and destroying many” (Covert, 2015, para. 4). Dempsey (2015) opined that Fiorina’s failure to bring the desired changes to HP’s processes, in part as a result of her decisiveness and driven nature, caused conflict with HP’s staff and board and might hurt her candidacy for President of the United States. Barra and Fiorina are examples supporting a glass cliff theory, as both women had an opportunity to provide power and influence in a perilous situation, although paradoxically faced challenges that were unprecedented for leaders (men or women) in those industries (Hunt-Earle, 2012; Trop, 2014). Agentic Traits Isaac et al. (2012) illustrated that women who exhibit agentic traits in masculine organizational cultures are perceived as more capable than women displaying communal traits. Generally prescribed for men, agentic traits fundamentally endure as the prototype
72 for leaders (Isaac et al., 2012; Katila & Eriksson, 2013; Rosette & Tost, 2010). A preference for agentic traits, which are exemplified by assertiveness, dominance, control, and independence (Eagly, 2012; Katila & Eriksson, 2013; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014), has been shown to cause organizational biases for decision-making about hiring candidates into formal leadership positions (Farrington, 2012; Phelan et al., 2008). A consequence of these long-standing organizational biases—perhaps propagated by the aforementioned social and political traditions—is women’s progression toward espousing agentic traits when competing with men in masculine organizations (de Lemus et al., 2013). However, in general, coworkers perceive agentic women as less likable than those perceived as communal (von Hippel, Wiryakusuma, Bowden, & Shochet, 2011), resulting in perhaps another double bind for women attempting to advance into formal leadership positions, as “their high competence [is] devalued and their low social skills [are] overemphasized” (Phelan et al., 2008, p. 408). In 1988, Grant emphasized that women should “learn to value their own experiences, believe in their own values, and listen to their own inner voices and the voices of other women” (pp. 62-63) in order to expose the voices of women within an organization. Currently, stereotypes of women, portrayed as caretakers, and men, portrayed as those who lead, still dominate many organizational cultures (Eisner, 2013). Communal Traits Communal traits are stereotypically prescribed to women (Eagly, 2012; Isaac et al., 2012), and include the characteristics of passiveness, compassion, warmth, and support (de Lemus et al., 2013; Eagly, 2012; Isaac et al., 2012; Rosette & Tost, 2010).
73 The expectation of women to act communally might trace back to the origin of humankind, as the Bible alludes many times to the people of the Christian church as being responsible to serve, and Jesus calls these servants His Bride. Eagly (2009) described the importance of behavioral observations for the evaluation of sex roles, and stated, “To the extent that people observe men and women engaging in a division of labor, they regard them as psychologically different” (p. 650). Furthermore, Bruckmüller, Hegarty, and Abele (2012) found evidence from studies of linguistic norms that corresponded with the societal beliefs of men being able to hold greater power and authority in organizational leadership settings due to the perception of their agentic traits. Consequently, this finding promotes the existing stereotypes regarding women’s inequality in the realm of formal organizational leadership due to women’s prescribed communality (Bruckmüller et al., 2012). Backlash Amanatullah and Tinsley (2013) defined backlash as the repercussions women face when violating gender role prescriptions. Bergman and Salter (2013) explained that backlash toward women might occur when women receive what is perceived to be undue recognition or promotion. Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, and Nauts (2012) hypothesized, and found, that backlash justified the preservation of gender hierarchy. Social dominance theory supports that gender differences exist between men and women and remain constant despite contextual circumstances (Batalha, Reynolds, & Newbigin, 2011). Therefore, the prescription of agentic traits to men might often lead to the acceptance of dominant leadership styles from men; in turn, the prohibition of women
74 acting as agentic might show agentic women as ostensibly incongruent, consequently threatening the generally accepted traditions of femininity (Rudman et al., 2012). Backlash can occur because of a perceived need to defend gender roles, as women displaying agentic characteristics can incur a dominance penalty, which explains a perceived need for women to exhibit agentic traits beyond those of men in the same positions (Rudman et al., 2012). Pullen and Rhodes (2008) ascertained that high profile leaders are generally portrayed in the media as decidedly agentic (e.g., Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban, and Michael Eisner). Following this logic, women who hold high profile leadership positions (e.g., Oprah Winfrey, Mary Barra, and Sheryl Sandberg) should be expected to hold the same personality accountability to an organization’s stakeholders. However, a dominance penalty might hold these women to a different standard (Rudman et al., 2012), as a woman’s assumption of power, perhaps especially in masculinized cultures, might incur backlash (Brescoll, 2011). Stereotypes Stereotypes can serve to justify the mental models ascribed to members of a particular group or society (Afolabi, 2013; Koenig et al., 2011). Consequently, the stereotypical beliefs that men are agentic and women are communal might perpetuate think-manager-think male paradigms (Berkery et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 2011), introduced with V. E. Schein’s (1973) aforementioned framework (Koenig et al., 2011). Women who consent to such gender stereotypes might preclude themselves from advancement into formal leadership roles (Appelbaum et al., 2013b), as these women might hold a perception of being inferior to men regarding their leadership capabilities (Branson, Chen, & Redenbaugh, 2013). In addition, gender stereotypes might serve to legitimize a
75 masculinized organization’s cultural principles, subsequently reducing the selfevaluations, salary demands and expectations, and promotional opportunities for women (Asgari, Dasgupta, & Stout, 2012; Chalabaev, Major, Sarrazin, & Cury, 2012). Bolat, Bolat, and Kiliç (2011) asserted that stereotypes shape societal norms and might therefore create boundaries for groups attempting to attain a particular status or position in society. For example, Koenig et al. (2011) found that women in business who were exposed to gender stereotypes were less inclined to pursue leadership roles than were unexposed women. In addition, Carr and Steele (2010) discovered that when salient, gender stereotypes stimulated women’s averseness to risk, while women who were protected from the gender stereotype expectations showed more willingness to take risks. Chu and Xiang (2013) suggested that an organization’s inability to utilize talent effectively leads to the inability to utilize human capital for innovation, subsequently leading to the possible degradation of an organization’s human capital. Because innovation often stems from creativity and risk-taking (Yidong & Xinxin, 2013), organizations gripped by gender stereotypes might consider reframing mental models to provide women a safe environment to take risks, which can enhance an organization’s innovativeness (Bergelson, 2014; Mahsud, Yukl, & Prussia, 2011). Opting Out Belkin first used the term opting out in a New York Times Magazine article in 2003, referencing highly educated and professionally successful women who chose to leave the workforce primarily due to the challenges of achieving work–life balance. In the article, Belkin (2003) subsequently asked and answered the rhetorical question, “Why don’t women run the world? Maybe it’s because they don’t want to” (p. 45). Stone
76 (2013) revealed several myths regarding highly educated and capable women who chose to opt out of career tracks; many of these myths allude to societally prevalent stereotypes such as women’s lack of ambition, commitment to family, or compliance with traditional gender roles. Although these stereotypes may not have directly affected these women’s decisions to leave the workforce, the indirect consequences of prescribed stereotypes might have helped these women to make the decision (Belkin, 2003; Ely, Stone, & Ammerman, 2014; Stone, 2013) The traditional stereotypes of men as breadwinners and women as homemakers are still rampant, as Brescoll and Uhlmann (2005) found that employed mothers were perceived as acting selfishly and stay-at-home fathers were perceived as lacking the abilities for such a role. In a New York Times op-ed piece, Goldin (2006) proclaimed, “We are told . . . highly educated women will either have a family or career” (para. 2), substantiating such persistent societal stereotypes. In relating a story of a woman who decided to leave a high-level management position, Stone (2013) told of the woman’s decision to “[tell] a little white lie in favor of family [as that] was the expected, genderconsistent, and unquestioned rationale that provided cover . . . favorable references . . . and good relations with valued former colleagues” (p. 6). Furthermore, Kuperberg and Stone (2008) showed that the media generally ignores the barriers women who opt out face, “attributing women’s failure to get to the top to their choices” (p. 506). In a study of women who opted out of their (most were male-dominated) professions (N = 54), Stone (2013) found that 90% of the women interviewed left their jobs because of “rigid, inflexible workplaces where a common refrain was that jobs were ‘all or nothing’” (p. 6). Stone also asserted that over 60% of the women who opted out
77 planned to return to work, and follow-up interviews showed that two-thirds did in fact return to their professions. Interestingly, men and women often start out with similar career building goals (Barbulescu & Bidwell, 2013). However, when getting older (i.e., further into their careers), both men and women often equated success with achieving a healthy work–life balance (Ely et al., 2014; Roebuck et al., 2013), which might indicate the presence of barriers related, at least in part, to prescriptions of societally imposed stereotypes (Stone, 2013). Stereotype Threat In accordance with the above discussion, women in business settings are often stereotyped as having a lower proficiency for leadership than men (Emerson & Murphy, 2015). Fogliati and Bussey (2013) opined that a consequence of women’s competition with men in business environments is that it might summon stereotype threat, or “a level of performance that is not commensurate with their true ability” (p. 2). Steele’s (1997) seminal work on stereotype threat explained that women who self-identify with the stereotype (e.g., inferiority to men in business), might have more doubts about their ability to lead in masculinized environments. Schmader, Croft, and Whitehead (2013) found that stereotype threat might affect an individual’s self-identification, “shift[ing] self-definition from an automatically reflexive process to a more consciously reflective process” (p. 6). Therefore, according to stereotype threat theory, a woman who attempts to lead in a masculinized environment might risk either (a) the confirmation of the stereotype through failure, or (b) disengagement with her peer group if outcomes are deemed successful (Steele, 1997; von Hippel et al., 2015).
78 Davies, Spencer, and Steele (2005) found that women who were directly exposed to traditional gender stereotypes sought roles differing from leadership when asked to complete tasks. However, Davies et al. (2005) and Hannah et al. (2008) found that removing stereotype threat by providing a benign leadership environment helped to restore women’s desires to lead on tasks (see also Koenig et al., 2011). Latu et al. (2013) found that subtly exposing women to socially regarded women role models—women who are generally perceived as successful through popular media––seemed to decrease stereotype threat. Shapiro, Williams, and Hambarchyan (2013) expanded the research on stereotype threat, distinguishing stereotype threats as either against-group or against-self, arguing that an individual’s “concerns are rooted in the burden of representing . . . [an entire] race/ethnicity . . . [or] personally being reduced to a stereotype” (p. 277). Shapiro et al. implied that to have a positive effect, interventions to overcome stereotype threats require specifically tailored mediations that depend on situational variables. Implicit Theory Murphy and Dweck (2010) explained implicit theory as “the way an individual conceives of intelligence—one’s personal philosophy about it” (p. 284). Implicit theory explains what a person believes about the flexibility, or lack thereof, of human characteristics (Hoyt & Burnette, 2013). Entity theorists believe human abilities are fixed and do not change based on experiences or contexts (Dweck, 1986; Emerson & Murphy, 2015; Sevincer et al., 2014). Conversely, incremental theorists believe experiences and contexts allow human abilities to adapt and change (Dweck, 1986; Niiya et al., 2010; Sevincer et al., 2014). Implicit theories have been included with studies regarding stereotypes (for examples see Hoyt & Burnette, 2013; de Lemus et al., 2013; Plaks &
79 Halvorson, 2013) and can play a role in the exploration of prejudicial attitudes among differing groups (Carr, Dweck, & Pauker, 2012). Thus, implicit theories can play an important role in relating with women in the proposed study as well as with the current study’s audience, as entity theorists might align with positivistic science while incremental theorists might engage with post-positivistic research. Rudman and Phelan (2010) asserted that cultural influences from an early age might instill implicit gender stereotypes that describe the general societal perceptions (e.g., stereotypes) associated with the abilities and characteristics expected from men and women. In general, the expectations that women are nurturing and expressive while men are in control and dominant permeate society (de Lemus et al., 2013). Hoyt and Burnette (2013) explained that because “women have historically held lower status positions” (p. 1), there is perpetual prejudice toward women attaining leadership positions. Subsequently, as women progress into leadership roles, especially in realms where implicit gender stereotypes remain relevant (e.g., masculinized organizations), prejudice can occur related to the perceived incongruity between role and fit (Bosak & Sczesny, 2011; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2012). Interestingly, Pollack, Burnette, and Hoyt (2012) found that “women presented with an incremental theory . . . showed resilience after being presented with a more masculine stereotype” (p. 290); thus, suggesting organizations that create mental models directed toward incremental theory might help mitigate potential threats of the stabilized cultural attitudes regarding women in leadership.
80 Self-Handicapping C. M. Brown, Park, and Folger (2012) described that self-handicapping can occur as a result of ill task preparation (behavioral) or the perception of obstacles that subsequently interfere with success (self-reported). Some of the symptoms related to self-handicapping include procrastination, decreased effort, detachment, and selfpunishment (Arazzini Stewart & De George-Walker, 2014; Berglas & Jones, 1978; Callan, Dawtry, & Kay, 2014; Leon & Matthews, 2010; Niiya et al., 2010). C. M. Brown et al. discovered that although men, in general, tend to engage more in behavioral selfhandicapping than do women, behavioral self-handicapping occurred most frequently for women when they held the beliefs of entity theory. Interestingly, Niiya et al. (2010) found a strong link between self-handicapping and self-esteem. There is a likelihood that failure, or a threat of failure, for incremental theory holders enhances self-handicapping due to the risk of an effort’s, and accordingly the person’s, devaluation (Niiya et al., 2010). Berglas and Jones (1978), in a groundbreaking study on self-handicapping, found that “people are shown to select the available environment best designed to protect their image of self-competence in the event of poor performance” (p. 416). For example, Berglas and Jones opined that women who acknowledge successes as being the result of luck—consequently subverting skill or intelligence—might find less of a need to defend their successes. Furthermore, Arazzini Stewart and De George-Walker (2014) identified a positive correlation between an external locus of control and self-handicappers, such that self-handicappers have an opportunity to attribute failures—or perhaps even deter stereotype threat or backlash in the event of women’s success in masculinized industries
81 (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Parks-Stamm, 2013)—to outside sources (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Leon & Matthews, 2010). Role Congruity Theory Role congruity theory focuses on the perceived congruency of gender roles and leadership and stipulates possible ideas leading to prejudicial judgments regarding role incongruity related to a perceived lack of fit in gendered expectations (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014). As discussed above, Rudman et al. (2012) asserted the importance of gender hierarchy, and consequently maintained that backlash toward women violating gender stereotypes might be a measure invoked to protect this hierarchy. Eagly and Karau’s (2002) pioneering study on role congruity theory showed that women might face two distinct prejudicial disadvantages as leaders, stemming from descriptive norms and injunctive norms regarding gender roles, which, in turn, might “produce or maintain subordination of social groups” (p. 589). Consequently, women who are in formal leadership, especially in masculinized environments, might be perceived to oppose such norms, and women in junior positions (i.e., subordinates) might be fearful of such opposition. Instead, looking at women in formal leadership as norm shifters might create a perception of greater role congruity. Descriptive norms “are consensual expectations about what members of a group actually do” (Eagly & Karau, 2002, p. 574), while injunctive norms specify “consensual expectations about what a group of people ought to do or ideally would do” (Eagly & Karau, 2002, p. 574). Thus, Eagly and Karau (2002) found disadvantages for women from both of these perspectives, as descriptive norms fulfilled the stereotype that women
82 have a lower ability than men as leaders, while injunctive norms resulted in lower evaluations for women in leadership and furthermore emphasized the difficulty for women to become recognized and attain leadership roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002). S. K. Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, and Reichard (2008) found relevance for women to portray masculine and feminine behaviors to be perceived and rated as effective leaders, compared to men, whose display of primarily masculine characteristics generally sufficed for ratings and perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Further support came from a study by Wang, Chiang, Tsai, Lin, and Cheng (2013), in which the researchers found that subordinates reacted more positively to benevolent behavior from men (while benevolence is presumably expected from women), in addition to finding that authoritarian styles of leadership from women were perceived negatively compared to men’s authoritarianism. Systems Thinking Von Bertalanffy (1988) founded general systems theory, emphasizing the importance of open systems showing equifinality—a principle similar to Argyris’s (1997) aforementioned concept of probabilistic determination. Von Bertalanffy stated that the call for systems thinking was an attempt to re-orient the study of science from mechanistic to more organically inclined constructs. Organizations engaging in systems thinking consider stakeholders, and stakeholder groups, holistically by encompassing the considerations of both internal and external stakeholders when considering the implementation of change (Caldwell, 2012; Conti, 2010; Dawidowicz, 2012; Senge, 1990). Because “organizations are not chance driven, they are human intelligence driven systems” (Conti, 2010, p. 255), leaders utilizing systems thinking might enlighten various
83 stakeholders as to the composite veracities involved with viewing the organization as a whole, despite the specialized perceptions each stakeholder, or stakeholder group, might embrace (Eddy, 2012; Eisenbeiss & Boerner, 2013; Molleman & Broekhuis, 2012). While one of a leader’s responsibilities involves aligning vision among independent variables (Berson et al., 2015), there is value to understanding that these variables might often be interdependent (Greer, Caruso, & Jehn, 2011). Consequently, applying systems thinking might prove valuable for an organization and the organization’s leadership when considering and implementing new organizational paradigms (Caldwell, 2012; Checkland, 1992; Senge, 1990; Way & McKeeby, 2012). For an organization to effectively integrate systems thinking, there must be openness to learning (Dawidowicz, 2012) and unlearning (Dunnion & O’Donovan, 2014; Gharajedaghi, 2007) in order to better utilize resources in an effort to enable continued competitiveness in an industry or marketplace. Palaima and Skarzauskiene (2010) asserted that to achieve a systems thinking mentality, an organization needs to understand its parts as “open socio-cultural systems that are capable of self-organization” (p. 332). Consequently, because of the dynamic nature of many organizational transactions, there is a likelihood that a variety of the system’s members will contribute concerning feedback toward decision-making processes (Dawidowicz, 2012); therefore, recognizing a system subjectively as interconnections among stakeholders, as opposed to objectively as structural tenets might allow flexibility, which has been found to benefit many current leadership scenarios (Laszlo, 2012). The assumption that “all organizations are open systems” (Hanson, 1979, p. 102) develops a platform for exploring the potential influence of systems thinking regarding
84 women’s advancement into formal leadership positions within their organizations. Checkland (2012) opined, “The underpinning abstract concept is that of a system as an adaptive whole, which can survive as its environment may change and deliver shocks to it” (p. 466). A closed system’s exposure to linearity and decomposition (Liang, 2013)— such as the Newtonian idea of entropy—precludes its ability to adapt to new information and other stimuli (Krech, 1950; Nakajima, 2015). Open systems, on the other hand, “have a constant import and export of material and energy with the outside world” (Krech, 1950, p. 348), which can lead to the open system’s maintenance in a steady state, perhaps amassing the potential for enhanced order and organization and decreasing the risk of entropy (Valentinov, 2012). Thus, considering the organization as a holistic structure and accounting for all of the organization’s components, including human intelligence (i.e., human capital), might lead to more robust competition in dynamic organizations (Crook et al., 2011; Duden, 2014; Guldberg et al., 2013; Nonaka et al., 2014). Organizational Culture Described as “a set of key values, assumptions, understandings, and norms shared by members . . . and taught to new members as correct” (Ahmad & Veerapandian, 2012, p. 92), organizational culture defines the characteristics that enable an organization’s members to feel a part of the firm’s mission and vision. In determining a direction for the organization, leaders should recognize the current organizational culture and find ways, if necessary, to adjust the culture according to the desired direction (Ahmad & Veerapandian, 2012). Organizational employees often set the tone for an organization’s culture, which might be demarcated by internal and external stakeholders, and
85 leadership’s appreciation of these organizational values should solidify stakeholder OCB (Bellou, 2010). Rijal (2010) opined that organizational culture is a primary component in promoting adaptive change and innovative processes throughout an organization’s internal and external environments. With the importance of organizational adaptation in such increasingly dynamic environments, cultural adaptations that include expectations and acceptance of heterogeneous viewpoints—such as accepting women into leadership in masculinized cultures—seems to be a natural, intelligent shift. Organizationally, cultural intelligence is imperative because of the increased need for interrelationships across cultures (Keung & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2013). According to Keung and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2013), evidence exists to positively link cultural intelligence with behavior, innovation, creativity, and decision-making abilities. Therefore, proactively understanding and defining the host culture’s expectations and demands will mitigate barriers encountered when entering the realm (Spreitzer, De Janasz, & Quinn, 1999). The finding that cultural values are antecedents of leadership style (Dorfman et al., 2012) adds to the importance of the argument for cultural intelligence as a primary determinant for behavior and overcoming cross-cultural barriers of entry. Therefore, the cohesiveness of an organization’s internal and external values systems will help it to become more other-focused, developing an alignment and consistency of values and ethical conduct (Marsh, 2013) that will presumably benefit all parties. With knowledge at the forefront of organizational capital and assets (Boxall, 2013; Jasimuddin & Zhang, 2014; Ojedokun & Idemudia, 2014; Shewchuk, n.d.), ascertaining which leadership styles are appropriate for creating a fit with the
86 organization’s culture is important (Woehr et al., 2013). Especially in heterogeneous environments, effective member socialization should include aligning goals as cooperative, thus helping to stabilize perceptions of interrelatedness among stakeholders (Changhong Lu & Tjosvold, 2013). Leading an organization that is diverse, or at least promotes diversity (Brady, Kaiser, Major, & Kirby, 2015), necessitates malleability, conscientiousness, and candor (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012; Hui-Wen, Mu-Shang, & Nelson, 2010; Suliman & Al-Shaikh, 2007); thus, finding leaders with such qualities should help optimize the firm’s resources (Muo, 2013). Resource dependence theory (RDT) recognizes organizations as open systems that rely on environmental feedback to optimize competitive advantages (A. J. Hillman, Withers, & Collins, 2009). Rivas (2012) distinguished between internal and external efficiencies regarding RDT including reducing environmental uncertainties and control of resources—comprising an emphasis on matters such as board variety and psychological diversity—where decision-making might best include outside directors who are likely to pursue risk and have diverse ideologies (Nienhüser, 2008; Rivas, 2012). The practice of RDT assumes “that the environment provides ‘critical’ resources needed by the organization” (Nienhüser, 2008, p. 12); consequently, these adaptive cultures are transformational, presumably augmenting the motivation and commitment of stakeholders (Rijal, 2010). Social network analysis (SNA) describes the connectivity of groups through social relationships, creating a virtual web of nodes (agents) who are integral, often in distinct degrees, to a system’s effectiveness (Terblanche, 2014; Wu, Ying, Jia, Zhang, & Chen, 2013). Hence, when developing organizational plans to enter or expand cross-cultural relations, leadership must comprehend the communicatory
87 expectations of the cultural environment (Masi, 2000; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010)—cultural values, human needs, and individual expectations—identified as cultural intelligence (Keung & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2013; Shockley-Zalabak, 2012). Diversity is not just a multinational concept (Eagly & Chin, 2010), as Muo (2013) stated that “culture is an environment of human-created beliefs . . . develop[ed] in each person . . . that together determine the way individuals approach their jobs” (p.122). Therefore, considering cross-cultural opportunities implies that one should create pathways by considering the needs and epistemologies of minorities—such as women in masculinized environments (Amason, 1996; Grimes & Parker, 2009). Brady et al. (2015) found that “the presence (vs. absence) of a diversity structure [within an organization] increased women’s perceptions of procedural fairness” (p. 108), further emphasizing the importance of organizational culture and leadership. Double-Loop Learning Gharajedaghi (2007) opined that a system changes based on historical knowledge through double-loop or reflective learning, consistent with Koskinen’s (2010) and Parboteeah and Jackson’s (2007) analyses of organizational learning, thereby legitimizing the systems thinking paradigm. Gronhaug and Stone (2012) linked organizational learning with competitive advantage, asserting, “The organic new learning organization understands ‘interdependence’ and views it as a source of strength” (p. 271). Furthermore, organizational culture is a primary indicator of job satisfaction, which is a heavily examined concept within the organizational behavior discipline (Bellou, 2010; Schermerhorn et al., 2011). Leaders utilizing a systems thinking approach might better grasp how to align employee expectations with organizational values, thus creating a
88 fluid environment (Merl & Schönbauer, 2014; Nieminen et al., 2013), which should produce a unified organizational “internal image of what [the organization] wants to be” (Gharajedaghi, 2007, p. 474). Double-loop learning, forged in large part by Argyris’s (1976) foundational work, calls for an organization’s leadership to modify mental models (H. Kim, MacDonald, & Andersen, 2013) by communicating frankly and openly (Argyris, 1976) to promote questions regarding an organization’s perceptions of current knowledge (Evans et al., 2014) and resulting in re-evaluating organizational norms and exploring opportunities for growth (Mano, 2010). Witherspoon (2014) suggested, “The ability to think and act effectively depends on leaders’ capacity for double-loop learning” (p. 261); however, Argyris’s (2002) assertion that because many professionals rarely encounter failure, a willingness or ability to engage in double-loop learning might be compromised due to lacking the compulsory skills to learn from failures. Therefore, organizational leaders, in order to maximize retained human capital, might benefit from questioning and reexamining the criteria used for leadership promotions and reinterpreting the culture’s ecological demands to identify shifting needs and expectations from the perspective of stakeholders. Mental Models A viable aspect of learning realizes the willingness for stakeholders to revisit mental models while maintaining competitive advantage through educating stakeholders about organizational processes and the challenges associated with adapting to organizational change (Argyris, 2002; Magzan, 2012; Nieminen et al., 2013). Organizational leaders who accept the relevance of systems thinking should adjust their
89 mental models through the development of new knowledge, perhaps entertaining an autopoietic epistemology (Koskinen, 2010; Sice et al., 2013). Employing systems thinking requires viewing the interrelationships and interconnections of complex phenomena that are hard to predict and understand (Neumann, 2013). Effectively, utilizing systems thinking calls for organizations to accept and acknowledge reaction and feedback, understanding the organization’s functionality as an open system where feedback from the entirety of stakeholders might influence change (Caldwell, 2012; Hanson, 1979; Senge, 1990). Magzan (2012) described mental models as an individual’s perspective, or the beliefs defining his or her thoughts and subsequent actions. Compared with Hofstede et al.’s (2010) study, as a whole, an organization’s mental model (e.g., society) might be perceived as a general conglomeration of the mental models of the organization’s employees and other stakeholders (e.g., citizens), defining the organization’s culture. Autopoiesis Varela et al. (1974) designated the term autopoiesis to describe the classification and survival of a living organism. Thus, autopoietic theory illuminates how the external influences imposed on an organism might interrelate with an organism’s desire to maintain constancy in dynamic environments (Liang, 2013; Maturana, 2014; Nakajima, 2015; Zeleny, 1977). Autopoiesis, from the Greek root words meaning self-(re)produce (Calleros, Chanlat, Bédard, & Ramírez, 2014), brought forth relevant opportunities to apply autopoietic theory to social systems when considering social systems as living entities (K. H. Becker & Haunschild, 2003; Luhmann & Barrett, 2012; Valentinov, 2012). Commonly, themes of self-reproduction abound regarding nature and human-
90 developed systems, justifying systems thinking archetypes to use autopoietic theory when conducting research regarding organizational growth and competitiveness (Boso et al., 2013; Gronhaug & Stone, 2012; Urrestarazu, 2011a, 2011b). Autopoietic theory acknowledges the need for perception, reflection, and action (Sice et al., 2013), as the primary tenets of an autopoietic organization include acting recursively with the environment and consideration of component unification within a defined network (Calleros et al., 2014; Varela et al., 1974). Maturana (1975) explained that a system’s organization is distinct from its structure, hence exposing how a system is observed and where a system is located, respectively. Therefore, the organization of a system might remain the same to the observer even if the system relocates; however, a system’s reorganization might change the observer’s analysis of that system (Maturana, 1975). Consequently, this might call for internal organizational restructuring to mitigate cultural masculinization. Sice et al. (2013) acknowledged, “Very often social groups work with categories of distinction upon which they implicitly agree” (p. 101), which might support social groups’ collective beliefs of those categories as being truths. Consequently, autopoietic theory supports defragmentation through becoming aware of the perturbations to an environment, which should create open dialogs intended to create feedback loops that might allow for new discoveries, contexts, and patterns of order within a system (Sice et al., 2013). Organizational Learning Some of the tenets of organizational learning include knowledge management (ElDen & Bean, 2014; Evans et al., 2014; Nonaka et al., 2014), conflict management (Benuyenah, 2013; B. J. Olson, Parayitam, & Bao, 2007), communication (Hassan,
91 Aneela, & Muhammad, 2011; Kudonoo, Schroeder, & Boysen-Rotelli, 2012; ShockleyZalabak, 2012), motivation (Chadwick & Raver, 2015; Muo, 2013), and team collaboration (Hillier & Dunn-Jensen, 2013; Salminen-Karlsson, 2014). Organizations currently face unprecedented dynamic challenges due to increasing economic globalization (Chiva et al., 2014; Gehlert, Ressler, & Baylon, 2013; Morgan, PaucarCaceres, & Wright, 2014) and technological innovations (Kotter, 2013; SalminenKarlsson, 2014; Strom & Strom, 2015). In 1943, Lewin acknowledged, “We are slowly coming to realize that all education is group work” (p. 115), citing the perceived needs of teachers to enable not only measured performance evaluations, but also an environment conducive to learning. Therefore, developing a holistic process (Kotter, 2013; Senge, 1990) that attempts to engender an atmosphere open to perceptual changes in an effort to nurture behavioral changes (Burnes & Cooke, 2013) might enrich organizational learning initiatives. Chiva et al. (2014) considered globalization and technological innovations together with organizational learning as complex systems. Complex systems comprise the interactions and interrelationships of heterogeneous components (Chiva et al., 2014; Liu, Slotine, & Barabási, 2013) that might induce new organizational paradigms regarding team formation and structure (Aime et al., 2014; Gilstrap, 2013), perhaps leading to non-linear organizational developments (Markovic & Gros, 2014), which are similar to emerging theories presented in the physical sciences (Gilstrap, 2013). Dust et al. (2014) found the psychological empowerment of employees to be a vital component in motivation, and subsequently found a positive relationship regarding the fluidity and openness of organically structured organizations in promoting psychological
92 empowerment. Conti (2011) opined that mechanistically structured organizations are “clearly incompatible with today’s social systems, and fires back if used” (p. 253), but admitted the continued embeddedness of mechanistic models in many organizational leadership cultures. Knowledge, as discussed in the following sections, is arguably becoming increasingly important for organizational innovativeness and competitive advantage. Maximizing organizational knowledge, including the knowledge of women, might call for organically structured organizations where knowledge flows more freely and interdependently among stakeholders. Knowledge Management Polanyi (1968) ascertained that scientific discoveries are spurred “at every stage by indefinable powers of thought” (p. 27). Nonaka and Konno (1998) delineated information as a tangible or limited resource that needs effective management and distribution, whereas knowledge is an intangible resource that defies boundaries and needs to be utilized when appropriate to remain valuable. Therefore, knowledge management might correspond with how people connect and interact to share ideas in an effort to share knowledge and perhaps develop opportunities for knowledge creation (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001; Nonaka et al., 2014). Lin, Wu, and Yen (2012) examined the robustness of organizational knowledge flow based on a number of factors, including: (a) a knowledge source’s attributed value, (b) the motivations of the source and the target, and (c) the ability for the target to absorb and utilize the shared knowledge. Subsequently, the creation of knowledge might come from physical or virtual communication and new knowledge might enhance workforce innovation (Nonaka et al., 2014; von Krogh & Geilinger, 2014).
93 The evolution from an industrialized economy to a knowledge-based economy introduced a relatively new concept for organizational leadership: knowledge management (Barzinpour et al., 2014). Evans et al. (2014) indicated “executives have acknowledged this by recognizing that the most important strategic asset in their organizations is the knowledge possessed by their employees” (p. 85). Jasimuddin and Zhang (2014) opined that “knowledge is regarded as the critical source of competitive advantage for organizations” (p. 1490). Consequently, the interaction of a knowledgeable workforce can enhance innovation through knowledge creation, which can come from physical or virtual communication (Nonaka et al., 2014; von Krogh & Geilinger, 2014). Organizations should initiate procedures that facilitate knowledge creation such as interviewing processes, informational enquiry, competency exploitation, and process evaluations (Evans et al., 2014). These procedures should emphasize the organization’s current needs, guarding against maintaining current practices, which is in line with the theory of double-loop learning (Coulson-Thomas, 2013). Organizations that identify techniques enticing knowledge creation and retention among their stakeholders might maximize their competitive advantage through the discovery of creative and innovative solutions for organizational threats and opportunities (Daghfous et al., 2013). Knowledge might be codified, which makes transferability rather easy, but some knowledge might not be easily transferable or easily explained. However, tapping into personalized knowledge, both easily and not easily explainable, might provide opportunities for organizations to maximize their existing organizational human capital.
94 Tacit Versus Explicit Knowledge Two types of knowledge have emerged as having prevailing epistemological importance: (a) tacit knowledge, which is personalized, difficult to communicate, and might exist within a system or be transferred outside the boundaries of a system; and (b) explicit knowledge, which is coded for easy communication and designated for use within a specific system (El-Den & Bean, 2014; Jasimuddin & Zhang, 2014). Therefore, an organization entrenched in a paradigm primarily comprising explicit knowledge—that, interestingly, might align with Nonaka and Konno’s (1998) definition of information— could tend toward mechanistic, linear management models that are immersed in Newtonian scientific ideals (Dust et al., 2014; Waltuck, 2011). Boso et al. (2013) opined that organizations experiencing dynamic competitive forces (e.g., globalization, increased diversity, technological advancements) often thrive when adopting organic, non-linear management models, finding that employee autonomy and creativity instigated innovative ideas and processes that benefitted organizations in such competitive environments. Therefore, women looking to advance in masculinized organizations might be better equipped in organically structured organizations. Conflict Management Demographic fault lines occur with the creation of subgroups based on the diversity of a group’s characteristics; examples include age, gender, educational background, and company tenure (Bezrukova, Jehn, & Spell, 2012). One definition of diversity is the differences between a group’s members despite sharing a common goal (Goncalo, Polman, & Maslach, 2010). Goncalo et al. (2010) described surface level diversity as based on demographic differences, while deep level diversity can include
95 differences in values or epistemologies. Diversity can lead to group conflicts, which can be beneficial for a group’s analysis and debate of concepts that may procure change (Goncalo et al., 2010). Gauging conflict asymmetry, or members’ individual perceptions of the group’s potential for conflict (Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher, 2010), is paramount for leadership to determine to facilitate openness, psychological safety, and emotional stability during the discussion and decision-making processes (Bradley, Klotz, Postlethwaite, & Brown, 2013; Raes et al., 2013). A shift in organizational paradigms away from masculinized expectations might require leaders to evaluate the depth of the organization’s diversity, especially when considering the characteristics of the organization’s conflict asymmetry. Homogeneous groups may perceive members as more trustworthy and cooperative, while heterogeneous group members may underestimate their peers (Goncalo et al., 2010). Tasks involving rigid structure or routine might be most appropriate for homogeneous groups, whereas tasks involving more complexity such as strategic initiatives might be most appropriate for heterogeneous groups (Erhardt, 2011). “Heterogeneity . . . emphasizes the degree of attribute distribution among group members” (Bezrukova et al., 2012, p. 78); therefore, collective efficacy may initially be compromised, although this compromise often leads to increased group performance (Goncalo et al., 2010). Goncalo et al. (2010) described collective efficacy “as a group’s shared belief that it can execute a task successfully” (p. 13). Collective efficacy may seem enticing to leaders and members; however, when working on complex tasks, allowing collective efficacy to mature as groups develop may be best.
96 Tuckman’s (1965) original work described group orientation as developed in four stages: (a) forming, members testing each other interpersonally; (b) storming, resolving conflict interpersonally among members; (c) norming, development of group cohesiveness; and (d) performing, rendering interpersonal structure to complete tasks. Consequently, the importance of heterogeneous groups developing through these stages creates a maturity where, according to Tuckman’s analysis, interpersonal issues will “lie in the group’s ‘past,’ and its present can be devoted to realistic appraisal of and attempt at solutions to the task at hand” (p. 397). Thus, just as organizational learning is inherent to increased efficacy for external organizational performance (Parboteeah & Jackson, 2007), building collective efficacy should include elements of learning and developing new paradigms from such opportunities. Erhardt (2011) asserted that heterogeneity might create synergistic effects; however, conflict is likely to evolve accordingly. Tuckman’s (1965) orientation phases, presumably enabling a group maturation process, along with leadership’s awareness of creating an open, emotionally stable, and secure environment, should engender group cohesiveness. When people identify with a group, they often have an inclination to adopt the values defined within that group (Cicero, Pierro, & van Knippenberg, 2007). As communication is a key component in organizational behavior and effectiveness, synergizing interpersonal relationships might satisfy needs through a process of integrating trust, candidness, and fairness (Hassan et al., 2011), helping create strong fault lines within the organization.
97 Communication In mechanistic organizations, decision-making is often vertical, with decisions contrived by the few formal organizational leaders, often executives (Clemson & Evans, 2012; Dust et al., 2014). Organically inclined organizations, on the other hand, promote horizontal communication in decision-making through collaboration among various stakeholders who might have different perspectives (Dust et al., 2014; Guldberg et al., 2013). Approaches to communication can be: (a) functional, a directive approach with a stakeholder; (b) meaning centered, allowing the stakeholder to opine; or (c) postmodern, allowing for flexibility and interpretation of the communication by all parties (ShockleyZalabak, 2012). Regarding organizational learning, Duden (2014) stated, “The value and the view of humans are essential and not the perspective that humans are a resource, like a machine” (p. 56), consequently calling for organizations to integrate systems thinking paradigms to enhance feedback loops and foster innovation (Argyris, 1997; Senge, 1990). Yukl (2009) asserted that restricting information from stakeholders might create an obstacle to organizational learning. In the same vein, women’s stereotypical communication styles (e.g., overly emotional) might hinder some women from communicating openly within organizational settings (Williams, 2014). Communicatory practices frequently project the organizational culture, as the communication of goals, expectations, and norms might affect the socialization of an organization’s membership (Chadwick & Raver, 2015; Futris, Schramm, Richardson, & Lee, 2015). Thus, enabling psychologically safe communication channels (Raes et al., 2013) that provide opportunities for openness to change and tolerance for failure (Gaiter, 2013; Groggins & Ryan, 2013) might augment innovation and organizational learning.
98 Psychological Safety and Identity: Forming Teams from Groups The transformation of a group of individuals into a unified team might require, according to Tuckman’s (1965) model, formularized processes that include establishing trust and reciprocated respect among members (Edmondson, 1999; Turaga, 2013). Psychological safety among members of a group necessitates emotional intelligence (Ghosh, Shuck, & Petrosko, 2012), allowing member interactions to flourish and subsequently leading to innovation and improved decision-making (Bradley, Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, & Brown, 2012). Edmondson (1999) defined team psychological safety as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” (p. 350). Bradley et al. (2013) found that providing a psychologically safe environment positively influences conflict management, while Raes et al. (2013) revealed, “Psychological safety is of much greater importance and should be the major concern for team leaders that wish to encourage learning behavior in their teams” (p. 299). However, Edmondson opined that psychological safety transcends relational trust between members—relating the concept of psychological safety to an environment where members feel at ease with being themselves. Groups and teams might both develop psychologically safe environments, inferring autonomy to a team (Aime et al., 2014) where members feel a collective sense of being and thus collective accountability for task achievement without the external imposition of leadership—as might be found in a group (McIntyre & Foti, 2013). Concerning tokenism, participation in teams might be beneficial for women in formal leadership and women considering advancement into formal leadership in masculinized environments when knowledge sharing is encouraged—perhaps especially when social
99 roles or stereotypes are salient (Ojedokun & Idemudia, 2014; von Hippel et al., 2015). Turco (2010) explored tokenism in the leveraged buyout industry, concluding, “Not all low-status numerical minorities face the blocked opportunities and social isolation associated with tokenism” (p. 907) and explaining that organizational culture—especially localized culture—might be a primary factor when considering real and perceived opportunities for successful advancement. Consequently, identification with the organization’s culture, perhaps even through legitimizing the organization’s diversity structure (Brady et al., 2015), might verify a woman’s role within a team and ultimately within an organization. The exposure to gender stereotypes—perhaps being stronger in group rather than team settings—might demoralize women aspiring to leadership roles, in effect threatening these women’s identities (Davies et al., 2005). Women often face challenges in navigating between identification with societal gender role expectations and the demands of leadership in masculinized environments (Karelaia & Guillén, 2014; McGinn & Newman, 2012; Pfafman & Bochantin, 2012; Pfafman & McEwan, 2014). Thus, identifying as a member of a group (women in general; Afolabi, 2013), as opposed to membership in a team (men and women working together), might help women distinguish acceptable roles. Interestingly, von Hippel et al. (2015) found that women who did not separate personal and work related identities in the banking and financial industry were “less willing to recommend banking and finance to women” (p. 411) due to their perceptions of a “reduced wellbeing at work” (von Hippel et al., 2015, p. 411). However, separating personal and work related identities, even though perhaps a challenging endeavor (Karelaia & Guillén, 2014; McGinn & Newman, 2012), did help to
100 moderate women’s unwillingness to recommend banking and finance as a career to other women (von Hippel et al., 2015). Motivation Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) pertains to an individual’s willingness to go beyond his or her job role in an effort to improve organizational functioning, individual performance, or a combination of the two (López-Domínguez et al., 2013; Schermerhorn et al., 2011). Understanding the resource-based view (RBV) of organizational scholarship allows for viewing an organization as comprising value from the knowledge of the organization’s actors (Boxall, 2013; Merat & Bo, 2013). Consequently, an important variable in motivating knowledge workers might be effectively allowing stakeholders to share knowledge (Carmeli, Gelbard, & ReiterPalmon, 2013), which can lead to opportunities for knowledge creation (Nonaka et al., 2014). In 1890, William James developed seminal opinions around ideas such as chunking and knowledge sharing (Nickerson, 1990), habituation and dishabituation (Dember, 1990), and “association by similarity” (Nickerson, 1990, p. 169). These ideas may align with motivational principles, as James wrote, “the mass of the [organization] grows incandescent, and may continue to glow by pure inertia long after the originators of its internal movement have passed away” (cited from Burns, 2003, p. 161). Thus, human capital might compare with stakeholders’ direct investment in (and motivation to achieve) education and employment, aligning with the explicit and tacit knowledge found among an organization’s stakeholders (Falk, 2000; Lips, 2013). Groysberg and Bell (2013) found that women perceived the need to put forth more effort than did men to attain formal leadership roles, leading to a possible factor for women’s amotivation—or
101 perhaps even motivation away from—concerning organizational initiatives (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Gervais & Hillard, 2011; Koenig et al., 2011). Motivation is the function of an individual and, as such, it might be instrumental for organizational leaders to develop environments in which employees will find value for their efforts (Schermerhorn et al., 2011). Efficacy describes the belief that implemented behaviors will result in positive outcomes. Accordingly, self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in his or her own capability to create a positive effect toward a desired task outcome (Bandura, 1977; Bolat et al., 2011; Fitzgerald & Schutte, 2010). Team efficacy characterizes a group’s belief in its capability to attain positive task results, emerging from knowledge sharing among members (Srivastava et al., 2006). LópezDomínguez et al. (2013) described role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) as “employees’ perceived capability of carrying out a broader and more proactive set of work tasks that extends beyond prescribed technical requirements” (p. 2148). The expectancy theory of motivation denotes that individuals will behave according to the desirability of a task outcome (Ramlall, 2012; Schermerhorn et al., 2011). Therefore, people or teams with low efficacy may avoid tasks that seem difficult or unreachable (Bandura, 1977; Bolat et al., 2011). In turn, the perception of lowered efficacy by individuals and teams to complete tasks might be, drawing from James, a mere association based on prior experiences that cause ambiguity and a focus on “‘the most probable object’ [or perhaps outcome]” (cited from Dember, 1990, p. 165). Consequently, learning about motivational theories can play an important part in providing stakeholders with job enrichment opportunities that can lead to increased efficacy and perhaps greater OCB (Levoy, 2014; Mousavi Davoudi, 2013).
102 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In his hierarchy of needs, Maslow categorized human needs from basic to more advanced, supposing an increase in needs as a person achieves the next level (Daft, 2007; Muo, 2013). As one of the earliest motivational theories, Schermerhorn et al. (2011) opined that Maslow’s theory might be flawed, indicating the needs might not always occur in the order prescribed by the hierarchy. Maslow (1943) seemed to foresee the possibility of such a dispute, stating that “motivations must be based upon goals rather than upon instigating drives or motivated behavior” (p. 371). However, Davies, a contemporary proponent of Maslow’s work, stated “anyone who doubt[s] their most basic quality should simply stop breathing for a minute or go without food for a few days” (Burns, 2003, p. 142). Maslow (1943) instead described the differences between physiological and psychological needs (see also Burns, 2003), such as with needs of esteem (related with efficacy). Maslow subdivided esteem needs into: (a) confidence, acceptability, and strength; and (b) respect received from others in an effort to achieve self-actualization and personal mastery, perhaps in an effort to become a meaningful contributor to society (Dhiman, 2011). Thus, becoming meaningful might be acquired through personal development, and consequently be physiological in the first sense, but becomes psychological in the latter sense considering a reliance on the positive judgment by others to be deemed as meaningful (Maslow, 1943). Dhiman (2011) acknowledged Maslow’s conception of self-actualization is “a matter of degree, or little victories accumulated one by one over time” (p. 73). Therefore, cognitive observance of women in formal leadership roles might accentuate the perceived efficacy (Bandura, 1977) of women in junior positions when pondering the possibilities
103 for growth into formal organizational leadership. Consequently, while Maslow’s ideas of self-actualization encouraged an internal locus of control (see Dhiman, 2011), there may be some way to go for women in masculinized environments—those holding external androcentric and patriarchal overtones—to attaining formal leadership positions (Bolat et al., 2011). Self-determination theory. The self-determination theory (SDT), initiated in the 1960s by Vroom (Haivas, Hofmans, & Pepermans, 2014), posits that alluring an employee to an organization—and retaining that employee—might reside in the organization’s ability and willingness to allow employees to attain goal fulfillment (Öztürk, 2012; Vroom, 1966). Chen and Bozeman (2013) opined that SDT’s motivational distinction rests with employee autonomy; thus, SDT lies on a continuum including amotivation, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation. The concept of SDT considers factors of an employee’s intrinsic psychological needs such as autonomy, positional fit, and connections, usually tied to external values (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Graves & Luciano, 2013; Haivas et al., 2014). Because Graves and Luciano (2013) found that high-quality exchanges between leaders and employees were positively associated with satisfying employees’ intrinsic psychological needs, there may be value in realizing some external forces that might lead to perceptions of employees’ intrinsic motivation (Chen & Bozeman, 2013; Gagné & Deci, 2005). A leader’s authenticity has been found to enhance employees’ organizational commitment, performance, and OCB (Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012; Rego, Vitória, Magalhães, Ribeiro, & Pina e Cunha, 2013; Yammarino, Dionne, Schriesheim, & Dansereau, 2008). Consequently, employees who perceive their leaders as authentic (i.e.,
104 leaders who consider the effects of decisions on an organization holistically; Kinsler, 2014) should perceive those leaders as having integrity, which might, in turn, positively affect employees’ self-determination (Kinsler, 2014; Leroy et al., 2012). In addition, Haivas et al. (2014) asserted that SDT leads people toward increased autonomy and increased connections; these natural inclinations might align with autopoietic tendencies, as Zeleny (1977) stated, “Autonomy, one of the most important properties in autopoietic organizations, has become a politically important value for the individual as well as for various levels of social organizations” (p. 3). Acquired needs theory. McClelland and Burnham (2003) opined that managers might generally find motivation through three primary methods:
Affiliative managers feel the need to be liked, giving special favors to employees and disregarding the expectations and needs of other employees and the organization.
Personal power managers build follower loyalty, as they set a great example, consequently increasing followers’ loyalty toward the manager. Followers work hard for the manager in an effort to help achieve the manager’s goals.
Institutional managers are similar to personal power managers in that they inspire followers; however, institutional managers build institutional infrastructures. They inspire followers through giving credit to the followers for their contributions to the organization.
These three types of motivation might have benefits to managers and the organizations they serve. However, as knowledge workers increase in value within organizational ecology (Barnett & Hansen, 1996; Shewchuk, n.d.), organizational
105 learning requires that leadership build infrastructures that empower employees cognitively (Duden, 2014; Senge, 1990). Hence, institutional managers, those who demonstrate a need for power and are oriented toward loyalty to the organization while allowing followers to have voice, might increase the organization’s overall long-term value (Duden, 2014; Dust et al., 2014). Herzberg’s motivation–hygiene model of motivation. Herzberg (1968, 2003) differentiated factors of motivational (i.e., toward attaining satisfaction) and hygienic stimuli (i.e., avoiding dissatisfaction) when considering opportunities for leaders to understand, and therefore create, occasions for increasing followers’ job participation and job satisfaction. Understanding that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposite forces for more depth in creating strategies that can challenge employees’ sense of accomplishment, while allowing autonomy and responsibility, possibly nurturing career development (Herzberg, 1968, 2003). Consequently, Herzberg (1968, 2003) helped forge the concept of job enrichment (Hackman, 1975), designed to help employees grow psychologically, as opposed to simply adding job responsibilities (Herzberg, 2003; Muo, 2013). While job enrichment might show many benefits, some weaknesses to the theory have been suggested (see Hackman, 1975) that aroused further discussions about proper employee motivation techniques. Interestingly, Hackman (1975), while agreeing with the premise of job enrichment, argued that organizations might not handle job enrichment protocol effectively. Hackman argued that the structure of tasks and cognitive understanding of job enrichment procedures can span many organizational levels, diluting the effects of job enrichment attempts. Herzberg (1968, 2003) noted a natural drop in production at the
106 beginning of their studies with teams experiencing new enrichment programs, primarily because of the employees’ needs to adapt to the structure of tasks. Organizational leadership might not exhibit patience through these periods, which can create trickle down effects throughout the hierarchy. In addition, the complexity of many organizational systems can create tension in the processes of job redesign, while ambiguous roles can lead to lower morale and increased tensions among different levels of organizational employees (Hackman, 1975). Therefore, systems thinking—encouraging and utilizing feedback—should direct organizations to reframe mental models to enable functioning job enrichment (Duden, 2014; Gregory, 2012; Nonaka et al., 2014). Muo (2013) noted that feedback about performance quality and task significance motivates knowledge workers. Furthermore, job enrichment has been found to increase OCB (Mousavi Davoudi, 2013), while the autonomy allowed through enrichment programs can enhance employee job satisfaction (Pan & Werblow, 2012). Checkland (2012) opined that systems thinking demands accepting the emergence of a system’s properties and identifying the system holistically, which calls for patience and a willingness to redefine some aspects of an organization’s perspectives. Model of team effectiveness. According to Druskat and Wolff’s (2001) model of team effectiveness, teams high in participation and mutual support among members are productive and more innovative. Diversity in organizational structures leads to diversity among members of the organization, bringing forth a new focus on collaboration within organizations. For example, Hillier and Dunn-Jensen (2013) recognized that team performance improved with the implementation of team-oriented feedback as opposed to
107 individual feedback mechanisms. Aime et al. (2014) found that distributing or sharing power among team members brings relevance and alignment to team processes, as members share leadership based on their task-specific knowledge and skills. In addition, authentic leadership has been found to increase team potency and member commitment, corresponding with virtue and OCB (Rego et al., 2013). Considering an increasingly globalized economy, many organizations compete in dynamic markets where communication and other functional business processes are progressively distal practices, causing the need for clarity in messages and task objectives. Perhaps an interesting way of employing motivational techniques in such dynamic environments is the movement toward cross-functional teams (CFTs). Aime et al. (2014) noticed how power in CFTs often shifts among members depending upon tasks and team member expertise, indicated as power heterarchy. Aime et al. found that when these power shifts occurred, CFT members were motivated by the expression of power by their peers as long as they were in line with the task objectives. The implementation of CFTs often builds value for an organization, as teams consisting of members from different functional areas of the organization can create system wide solutions, positively affecting customers and ultimately profitability (Enz & Lambert, 2012). Another benefit of CFTs might be the motivation generated by the autonomy created by the dimensions of CFT heterarchy. Intrinsic motivation is often derived from feelings of competence and autonomy (Gagné & Deci, 2005), which is possible through CFTs, as structured leadership is often absent when CFTs operate effectively (Aime et al., 2014). Organizations looking to maximize employee commitment might consider the creation of CFTs because of the increased value due to
108 knowledge sharing and creation, as well as the systemic opportunities offered because of the knowledge building sessions inherent in CFT meetings. Emotional Intelligence Emotional intelligence (EI) is a critical component of motivational theory, as a leader’s self-awareness, mindfulness, regulation, and use of emotions is essential when deliberating decisions in today’s dynamic economy (Gilkey, Caceda, & Kilts, 2010; Goleman & Lueneburger, 2010; Washington, Okoro, & Okoro, 2013). Knowledge workers might benefit from job enrichment strategies to increase intrinsic motivation, building the perceived value of task completion (Herzberg, 2003; Muo, 2013). In minority groups, drivers of motivation might stem from insecurities based on perceived social roles (Lawson & Lips, 2014; Parks-Stamm et al., 2008), while consideration for autonomy and other innate needs helps drive intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). A primary contemplation for effective leadership is connection to self (Gaiter, 2013); thus, having the understanding that motivation differs among individuals can be essential for EI development (Kinsler, 2014). Adept organizational leaders might use EI to identify barriers to advancement perceived by potential women leaders within the organization. Emotional intelligence was a concept introduced in 1990 (see F. W. Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Lopez-Zafra, Garcia-Retamero, & Berrios Martos, 2012) and further popularized by Goleman’s (1995) book of the same name. The notion of EI is that selfawareness and regulation, compassion, and social skills are more important components in building relationships than are traditional measures of cognitive intelligence (Boyatzis, Smith, Van Oosten, & Woolford, 2013; Ghosh et al., 2012; Sarinnapakorn &
109 Sucaromana, 2013). Therefore, a leader higher in EI might facilitate dyadic relationships through employing strategies that recognize psychologically safe environments and promote interpersonal risks in addition to accurately perceiving the emotions of others (Boyatzis et al., 2013; Ghosh et al., 2012). Furthermore, diversity, from an ethical perspective, might entail the tenets of EI, where recognizing and regulating emotions, especially during socialization phases should mitigate conflict asymmetries (Jehn et al., 2010), perhaps creating increased value in the group output (Changhong Lu & Tjosvold, 2013; Turaga, 2013). EI might be attained through the awareness and management of the emotions of self and others (Cherniss, Extein, Goleman, & Weissberg, 2006). There may be a correlation of EI with the intelligence quotient (IQ) when considering leadership candidates (Fiori, 2015); however, Goleman (2013) pointed to statistics finding that selfcontrol was a better indicator of financial success than was IQ. A determining factor of continued progress for a leadership candidate might often be EI because, as Goleman (2013) explained, people who have obtained positions in the top ranks of organizations will already be proven as highly skilled and intellectual (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Cherniss et al., 2006). Furthermore, developing EI through evaluations of selfrecognition regarding interpersonal skills, intrinsic motivation, and empathy might help a leader improve relationship management (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006). Social Networks Social networks may ascribe the identification of informal organizational leaders, amplifying or curtailing the influence of these stakeholders within an organizational system (Terblanche, 2014). Especially in organically structured environments, these
110 emerging leaders may have tacit knowledge that is valuable for organizational stability or growth (Jasimuddin & Zhang, 2014; Nakano et al., 2013). Social network analysis (SNA) describes the connectivity of groups through formed or forming social relationships, creating a virtual web of nodes (agents) who are integral, often in distinct degrees, to a system’s effectiveness (Terblanche, 2014; Wu et al., 2013). Correspondingly, SNAs may identify with communities of practice (CoP), which involves groups with similar agendas constructing knowledge to solve problems or gain advantage within an industry (Bouchamma & Brie, 2014; Cowan & Menchaca, 2014). Robustness is paramount for these webs of connections in order to communicate, filter, and process knowledge throughout these dynamic systems, which may have to distinguish between the importance of long-term and short-term goals for innovation and advancement of their agendas (Carlisle & McMillan, 2006; Wu et al., 2013). The addition of resources that might add value to these webs of connections might similarly increase robustness. Therefore, women might offer additional resources that are deemed valuable in such transactions—leading to arguments that support women’s inclusion in traditionally masculinized roles. Often instrumental in processes of knowledge sharing and creation, SNAs and CoPs enable members to communicate perspectives virtually through a variety of information systems as well as focusing on the physical space of the organizational environment, including more focus on external resource utilization (Carlisle & McMillan, 2006; Marangoni, Colombo, & Fezzi, 2004; von Krogh & Geilinger, 2014). Carlisle and McMillan (2006) argued that organizations may best function at “the edge of chaos” (p. 4) when they are open to adaptability in dynamic and turbulent environments. Therefore,
111 as J. Collins and Hansen (2013) stated, “embrac[ing] a paradox of control and noncontrol” (p. 6)—or showing exacting discipline—might help empower organizations in the journey to adapt to constantly changing environments. Organizational Ecology Theory Organizational ecology theory postulates that organizations are subject to inertia, meaning that competitive advantage is maintained due to central processes and procedures installed after founding (Heine & Rindfleisch, 2013; Singh & Lumsden, 1990). However, an organization’s ability to adapt to environmental pressures, possibly restrained by this inertia, leads to the necessity to understand the theory of path dependence, described as when an organization’s chosen path becomes intrinsic and changes are difficult to negotiate (Heine & Rindfleisch, 2013). Therefore, the importance of understanding how the creation and management of knowledge transforms into organizational wealth may determine the organization’s innovative capacity (Aoun & Hasnan, 2013; Nonaka et al., 2014). Interestingly, according to Heine and Rindfleisch (2013), inert organizations might show stability during the short and mid-terms, while long-term capabilities can diminish based on the theory of path dependence, resulting in the possibility of organizational incapacitation. Therefore, traditionally masculinized organizations that are willing to lead the way, such as through adapting to some of the aforementioned cultural changes and including women in leadership more vigorously, might increase their potency. Structural Contingency Theory In volatile organizational environments, there is constant pressure for leadership to rely on innovation, creativity, knowledge management, diversification, and ethical
112 cohesiveness, resulting in the utilization of social capital to promote knowledge creation (Boso et al., 2013; Daft, 2009; De Clercq, Thongpapanl, & Dimov, 2011). Social capital can encapsulate the entirety of an organization’s human resource pool, as organizational learning requires knowledge sharing among an organization’s shareholders (Bartsch, Ebers, & Maurer, 2013). Examining structural contingencies that include organic and mechanistic elements of operations might outweigh a one-size-fits-all approach (DrachZahavy & Freund, 2007). Emerging relationships among various organizational stakeholders can bring forth knowledge creation, as social capital utilizes both vertical and horizontal dimensions (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). The exploitation and exploration of knowledge resources internally and externally generates environmental stability, especially for organizations involved with varying industries and projects (An & Jin, 2004; Daft, 2009). Daft (2009) included that external resources can reduce organizational uncertainty through the creation of relationships with entities that would presumably enhance their business structure. When organizational structures are too rigid, they risk losing competitive ground; therefore, coupling structural contingencies such as identifying social capital, exploiting available resources, and offering a balance of centralized control (mechanistic structure) along with opportunities for stakeholder participation and feedback (organic structure) can unleash innovation (Drach-Zahavy & Freund, 2007; Dust et al., 2014). Resource Dependence Theory Resource dependence theory (RDT) recognizes organizations as open systems that rely on environmental feedback to optimize competitive advantages (A. J. Hillman et al., 2009). Rivas (2012) distinguished between internal and external efficiencies
113 regarding RDT including reducing environmental uncertainties and control of resources—including emphasis on items such as board variety and psychological diversity—where decision-making might best include outside directors who are more likely to pursue risk and have diverse ideologies (Nienhüser, 2008; Rivas, 2012). Organizational culture is a primary component in negotiating innovation—promoting adaptive change—both internally and externally (Rijal, 2010). The practice of RDT assumes “that the environment provides ‘critical’ resources needed by the organization” (Nienhüser, 2008, p. 12); consequently, these adaptive cultures are transformational, presumably augmenting the motivation and commitment of stakeholders (Rijal, 2010). Mentorship Ghosh and Reio (2013) acknowledged the importance of mentorship for organizational growth from the aspects of career development, career socialization, employee retention, and job satisfaction. Research shows that mentors contribute to corporate value because they are generally more organizationally committed, create more career success, and show more job satisfaction, often producing a positive role model for protégés (Bozionelos et al., 2014; Ghosh & Reio, 2013; E. L. Hall & Maltby, 2013). Mentors have significant roles in the development of relationships with protégés that can include: (a) counselor, which offers an open forum for expression and reflection; (b) friend, allowing the protégés a social outlet for non-work related activities; and (c) role model, offering a model for emulation through professionalism and candor (Appelbaum et al., 2013a; Ghosh & Reio, 2013). Baird and Kram (1983) developed a model intended to explain best practices for managing relationships between organizational superiors and subordinates. Baird and
114 Kram’s work established relationship stages based on the professional maturity of the subordinate and the relational maturity between the actors. In 2011, Chandler, Kram, and Yip expanded the mentorship research to an organizational ecology realm—a systems viewpoint—to learn about how globalization and changes in technology affect mentorship. Chandler et al. discovered that characteristics such as human capital, demographics, and personality contribute significantly to effective mentoring; however, a call to study “the intersection of race and gender” (p. 530) provided opportunities for future research. Janssen, van Vuuren, and de Jong (2014) found that mentors—beyond having simply an expectation to mentor others—might be motivated to mentor others based on opportunities to build relationships and create networks that are more robust. Furthermore, M. E. Mitchell, Eby, and Ragins (2015) found that when protégés and mentors shared either high or low attachment security, protégés perceived themselves as similar to mentors. Interestingly, according to such a scenario, women who mentor other women in masculinized environments might be adroit in how to relate regarding questions or doubts regarding sex role expectations (M. E. Mitchell et al., 2015). Kurtulus and Tomaskovic-Devey (2012) found that women in formal, high corporate leadership roles could play a vital role in mentoring junior women within an organization. Concerning to Kurtulus and Tomaskovic-Devey was the seemingly shortterm effect these mentors might have, as women might move on to find positions at new firms or be recruited by organizations that have a larger population of women in management. Empowerment might be the key for retaining these protégés, as Spreitzer et al. (1999) found that empowered employees perceived their supervisors more favorably because of their provision of upward influence and inspiration. In addition,
115 common themes enhancing the mentor and protégé relationship in Western culture include open communication, accessibility, mutual respect, independence and interdependence, and knowledge sharing (Bozionelos et al., 2014; L. S. Eller, Lev, & Feurer, 2014). Therefore, considering the aforementioned themes can enhance the current research, as women can (and do) serve as appropriate role models and mentors; however, exploring the areas of discomfort with these realms appears vital. Grounded Theory Discussion In 1967, Glaser and Strauss discovered grounded theory to inspire researchers toward theory development based on originality and rational imagination rather than a specific reliance on empirically tested data (Locke, 1996). Grounded theory was originally bounded with sociology to develop theories applying the coordination of theory and data (R. B. Johnson et al., 2010) and is utilized principally within “the disciplines of nursing, business, and education” (Glaser, 2010, p. 2). Interestingly, Locke (1996) explained that a chasm developed between Glaser and Strauss since their original publication, mainly regarding how researchers understand the studied phenomena in grounded theory research. In 2010, for example, Glaser explained that grounded theory research should not be grounded in data, instead giving researchers an opportunity to “systematically [collect] data to [produce] a multivariate conceptual theory” (p. 1). Contrastingly, Corbin and Strauss (1990) noted that “the analysis begins as soon as the first bit of data is collected” (p. 6). This difference might account for the disagreements (see Chapter 1) regarding the timing of literature reviews for grounded theory research due to what, especially in Glaser’s view, might generate researcher bias (Elliott & Jordan, 2010). Consequently, Locke (1996) used the disparity between Glaser and Strauss to
116 warn future researchers of the perils of jumbling terminologies, as “when we write others’ work into our manuscripts via citations . . . we are rewriting and reproducing what we as a disciplinary community know about a method of phenomenon” (p. 244). Regarding gender in grounded theory, Glaser (2002) warned researchers to remain gender neutral when embarking on research, noting that “women are not special unless gender emerges when doing [grounded theory]” (p. 790). Further, Glaser asserted that imposing gendered bias on a study could confine and even weaken the researcher’s agenda, consequently jeopardizing the study’s rigor. Therefore, mitigating bias in the current study—which invoked gender—requires appropriately determining the point of theoretical saturation for qualitative research (Bowen, 2008; Guest et al., 2006; Locke, 1996; M. Mason, 2010), especially considering the modifications between the Straussian and Glaserian interpretations of grounded theory (Locke, 1996). The choice to use a qualitative grounded theory approach for the current study was based on a gap discovered in the literature regarding the study of the perceptions of women in formal leadership and women in junior positions. Consequently, this grounded research study involved looking at themes from the data through open methods in an effort to find emerging theories that will be useful in academia and practical circumstances (Elliott & Jordan, 2010; Glaser, 2002; Moustakas, 1994). In Moustakas’s (1994) Straussian interpretation of grounded theory, there is a call for the researcher’s interpretational involvement with the process “both personally and professionally” (p. 5), which is likely, at some points, to become a possibility throughout the research process. Therefore, the process of epoché (see Chapter 3), or the researcher’s ability to approach
117 the research with a certain naivety and openness (Moustakas, 1994), is essential in theory development. Conclusion Although women’s educational attainment is similar to that of men and women currently account for about half of the workforce in the United States (Fetterolf & Eagly, 2011; Hoobler et al., 2011; Khan & Vieito, 2013; Schuh et al., 2014), prescribed communal stereotypes of women permeate Western business and social cultures (Burns, 1978/2012; Heilman & Eagly, 2008). An evolution in the theoretical exploration of leadership helped develop discussions surrounding the importance of the relationships between leaders and followers, especially in the current dynamic business environment (Bass, 1990; Ihrig & Macmillan, 2015; Rennstam & Ashcraft, 2013; Yukl, 2012). The trait approach to leadership, widely accepted through the WWII era (Stogdill, 1975), began to concern scholars as inconsistencies were exposed (Colbert et al., 2012; Hollander, 1979; Stogdill, 1948). The Ohio State Leadership Studies program introduced ideas from formative scholars (see Shartle, 1979) regarding relational leadership paradigms that created a foundation for leadership researchers in many disciplines (for examples see Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978/2012; Dionne et al., 2014; Yukl, 2012). In the current study, exploring these leadership paradigms generated questions concerning their effectiveness for some women’s advancement into formal organizational leadership roles. The worldwide ubiquity of Christian and Islamic theologies might have some bearing on women’s subordination to men, as both theologies are historically androcentric and patriarchal (Bissessar, 2013; Quinn, 1977; Sekano & Masango, 2012; Sewpaul, 2013). Although there are the aforementioned examples concerning the
118 influence of women in the Bible through the 21st century, perceptions (by men and women) of challenges to women’s advancement to formal leadership positions continue, especially in masculinized environments (see Garcia-Retamero & López-Zafra, 2006; Oakley, 2000; Werhane, 2007). Consequently, there might be a benefit for organizational leadership teams to enhance organizational learning initiatives through holistic processes that enable organic, horizontally focused structuring (Dust et al., 2014; Guldberg et al., 2013; Schermerhorn et al., 2011) that should increase knowledge sharing and creation, which could be vital in today’s globalized and technologically dynamic environment (Nonaka, 2007; Nonaka et al., 2014). Using the perspective of organizational ecology, the current study was designed to provide the audience with the idea of the banking and finance industry as a living organism, having a lifespan and interacting actively and responsively with the organization’s internal and external environments (Luhmann & Barrett, 2012; Shewchuk, n.d.; Valentinov, 2012). Support for this study’s theoretical framework included historical and current findings regarding the main subjects of: (a) feminism, (b) the glass ceiling, (c) stereotypes, (d) systems thinking, (e) organizational learning, and (f) social networks. The feminist perspective’s historical underpinnings deliberated subjects like the Women’s Liberation Movement (see Rosenwasser, 1972), the effects of popular culture (see Barger, 2011), and women’s leadership characteristics (see Lemasters & Roach, 2012). In addition, perceptions of perceived negative influences regarding feminism were discussed (see Cotter et al., 2011; Moses, 2012; Stead, 2013). The glass ceiling discussion provided a background regarding women’s perceptions of barriers to advancement into formal leadership (see Akpinar-Sposito, 2013), as well as studies
119 indicating potential ways to mitigate these boundaries (see Collay & Cooper, 2008). The section on stereotypes defined the justification of beliefs about specific groups (see Koenig et al., 2011). Stereotype threats can influence the way members of groups initialize action (or remain inactive) based on a fear of stereotype confirmation (see Steele, 1997). Thus, an individual’s implicit beliefs (see Murphy & Dweck, 2010) might signify the amount of effort he or she will give to some tasks (see Berglas & Jones, 1978; C. M. Brown et al., 2012), dependent upon the individual’s perceived congruence with the tasks (see Eagly & Karau, 2002). A shift to systems thinking allows organizations to think of stakeholders holistically as parts that act interdependently to maximize output (see Caldwell, 2012; Senge, 1990; von Bertalanffy, 1988). An organization, and the organization’s stakeholders, should be open to learning (see Dawidowicz, 2012) and treating the system as open (Hanson, 1979) to withstand shocks that might occur through the learning process (see Checkland, 2012; Krech, 1950). In addition, systems thinking can capitalize on an organization’s human capital, thereby exploiting competitive advantages (see Crook et al., 2011; Duden, 2014; Guldberg et al., 2013). An autopoietic viewpoint might enable organizations to remain constant during challenging times, as mitigating imbalance—essentially for survival—requires actions conjoined with learning and cooperation (see Maturana, 1975; Sice et al., 2013; Zeleny, 1977). Organizational learning includes many of the aforementioned tenets, supporting the importance of organizational acknowledgement, especially in such unprecedented dynamic environments (see Chiva et al., 2014; Kotter, 2013). Knowledge management, motivation, and communication in the broadest spectrum (including women) should spur
120 discovery, and consequently organizational innovativeness (see Nonaka et al., 2014; von Krogh & Geilinger, 2014), which is possibly important in an increasingly knowledgebased economy (see Barzinpour et al., 2014; Gharajedaghi, 2007). Finally, social networks create a web of ideas across a system. Robust networks should create openness for knowledge management in complex ecological systems (see Heine & Rindfleisch, 2013; Terblanche, 2014; Wu et al., 2013). When a system’s components (i.e., stakeholders) become more intertwined, breeding familiarity (see Baird & Kram, 1983), connections form that might encourage mentorship and other forms of knowledge sharing. Summary This chapter included a review of peer-reviewed research articles, books, and other outlets to present an overview of the challenges and opportunities surrounding women’s progression to formal organizational leadership. Reviewing the historical perspective of the problem, historical perspective of women in positions of power, development of leadership theories, theoretical framework, feminism, stereotypes, systems thinking, organizational learning, and grounded theory provided focus regarding the issues consummate with the research questions stated in Chapter 1. The questions in Chapter 1 focused on the perspectives of women in junior positions as well as those of women in formal leadership regarding the aforementioned topic headings. The literature discussed in Chapter 2 provided arguments supporting why there are perceptions of barriers for women’s advancement into formal organizational leadership (see Akpinar-Sposito, 2013; Chiva et al., 2014) as well as reasons why women who have obtained formal leadership might be unwilling to help women in junior
121 positions (see Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Baumgartner & Schneider, 2010; Rudman et al. 2012). There is also evidence supporting that perceived barriers can become mitigated with cooperation, EI, and organizational and individual learning (Dawidowicz, 2012; Goleman, 2013; Naidoo et al., 2011). Subsequently, this qualitative study involved a focus on studying the perceptions of formal women organizational leaders, from the perspectives of women in junior positions and women who held formal leadership in banking and finance. Chapter 3 introduces the methodology and selection. In addition, a discussion of the various approaches considered for the research is presented. Finally, the study population, participant selection, interview questions, ethical considerations, methods of data collection, reliability, validity, and data analysis are presented.
122 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY The purpose of this qualitative, grounded theory study was to explore the perceptions of leadership held by two categories of women in the U.S. banking and finance industry: (a) women currently holding formal leadership positions, and (b) women in junior positions who aspired to attain formal leadership positions. The need for this study is supported by the gap in the existing literature regarding the selfperceptions of women in junior positions when directly exposed to women in formal leadership (see Karelaia & Guillén, 2014; Latu et al., 2013; Pfafman & McEwan, 2014; Schuh et al., 2014). Researchers have suggested that having multi-cultural models (see Hofstede et al., 2010; Lisak & Erez, 2015; Mendenhall et al., 2013) and gender quotas (see Groysberg & Bell, 2013; Matsa & Miller, 2013) might help with women’s confidence to advance, but that may not be the case. This exploration of the perceptions of women who were formal leaders and women aspiring to formal leadership was designed to provoke organizational leaders to explore their own paradigms, perhaps enriching human capital models through the enhancement of diversity. The disproportionate representation of women in formal leadership roles within banking and finance is prevalent (see Gregory et al., 2013; Griffin, 2013; von Hippel et al., 2015). Human capital maximization—particularly through the increased recognition and utilization of currently employed women—might be a vital element in increasing an organization’s performance (Boxall, 2013; Crook et al., 2011; Mahsud et al., 2011). Furthermore, exploring women’s perceptions regarding formal leadership from these distinct perspectives was designed to shed new light on the
123 identity needs of women, especially those who work in masculinized environments (Karelaia & Guillén, 2014; Moradi, Velez, & Parent, 2013; Pfafman & McEwan, 2014). Explained in Chapter 3 are the research method and design appropriateness for this study through comparisons and deconstructions of various methods and designs considered by the researcher, leading to a discussion of why a qualitative, grounded theory best fit the research objectives. Following the explanation of the chosen research method and design, discussions involving the population, sampling, and data collection and analysis further substantiate the argument for the research structure. Finally, aspects of dependability, credibility, and transferability are addressed. Research Methods Researchers have an opportunity to choose from several research methods when conducting studies. Methods for research include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, which is a combination of the quantitative and qualitative approaches. A researcher’s considerations for a study’s appropriate methodology might include: (a) the nature of the research question, (b) problem identification, (c) intended audience, and (d) whether the questions are best suited for inductive or deductive reasoning. There are benefits and challenges to every method; however, researchers should consider epistemological assumptions when considering methodology as well. For example, quantitative research views social phenomena as objective (Adkisson, 2014), while qualitative research assumes social phenomena to be subjective (Darawsheh, 2014), or constructed by the perceptions and lived experiences of individuals or groups (Moustakas, 1994; Stead, 2013).
124 Quantitative Method In quantitative studies, researchers identify a problem or opportunity and generally use numbers, controlled experiments, and closed-ended questions to deductively test hypotheses (Creswell, 2009). Quantitative analyses are designed to gain a maximum amount of feedback from participants in a minimal amount of time; often, quantitative researchers use data from surveys or laboratory experiments to achieve their goals (Creswell, 2009). Following the data collection and statistical analysis, the quantitative researcher provides detailed explanations of the study’s findings to determine the generalizability and validity of the hypotheses. Creswell (2009) explained that the quantitative method is attractive to researchers because of the breadth of information that can be collected regarding hypotheses in a relatively short period (Brandt & Laiho, 2013; Hofstede et al., 2010; Kontoghiorghes & Frangou, 2009). Thus, the quantitative method’s breadth of data collection and controllable variables aligns to and benefits researchers with positivistic hypotheses, where the topic’s complexity is minimal. Researchers often choose quantitative methods in an effort to minimize interactions with participants, essentially in an effort to self-mitigate concerns of biasing the study (Adkisson, 2014; Creswell, 2009). However, topic complexity can create challenges for the researcher, especially concerning generalizability, rigor, and external validity (Adkisson, 2014; Creswell, 2009). One challenge includes post-positivistic epistemologies that can inadvertently skew quantitative data in studies where participant perceptions are prevalent (Eagly & Riger, 2014; Lincoln, 2010). Overcoming this challenge can include extraordinarily large data sets and years of longitudinal research (see Dorfman et al., 2012; Hofstede et al., 2010; Shi & Wang, 2011). A second challenge
125 to consider in quantitative methods is mitigating researcher bias throughout the data collection and research processes. Thus, pilot studies or proven valid instruments are used to mitigate the potential for researcher bias (see Antonakis & House, 2014). A third challenge in quantitative research surrounds data collection and data analysis. Data collection should target appropriate groups concerning the study’s parameters to enhance rigor and validity for the audience (Creswell, 2009). Data analysis should enlighten the audience, consequently explaining the conformity (or disconformity) of the data analysis according to the researcher’s hypotheses, creating validity and enhancing arguments for rigor (Creswell, 2009). Qualitative Method In a qualitative study, researchers use a bottom-up method of inquiry to “produce in-depth information with context-dependent facts” (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014, p. 99) based on experiences as perceived by participants as well as acknowledging the researcher’s perception and transmittal of the information (Charmaz, 2006; C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014). Because of the subjective nature of qualitative research and the need for the researcher to explore individual participants’ perceptions of phenomena, the sample size of a qualitative study will usually be significantly smaller than quantitative samples (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002). Thus, the raw data received through interviews, field notes, and other documentation allow the researcher to explore the epistemological perspectives of participants, consequently looking for patterns that might be pertinent to develop hypotheses regarding the socially constructed participant realities (Andrews, 2012; Bosak, Sczesny, & Eagly, 2012; Thornberg, 2012). The nature of qualitative
126 studies as an inductive process allows the researcher to construct theories and hypotheses based on specific information (e.g., perceptions) shared by participants (Lincoln, 2010). Researchers might conduct qualitative studies because of a desire to study participant conceptualizations of phenomena and to interpret the data collected at a deeper, perhaps more personalized, level of analysis (Guba & Lincoln, 1982; Lincoln, 2010; Patton, 2002). However, challenges with qualitative research are also evident. For example, C. S. Collins and Cooper (2014) opined, “Social reality makes qualitative research one of the most interesting and contested forms of collecting data for empirical studies” (p. 89). Perhaps interesting because of thick descriptions and perceptual openness (Armstrong et al., 2011; C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014; Lincoln, 2010), and often contested because “researchers frequently do not enhance their interpersonal abilities in order to learn to connect with participants in ways that strengthen the findings of qualitative studies” (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014, p. 89). Consequently, the audience’s reliance on the researcher’s perspective might lead to questions regarding the study’s reliability, transferability, and trustworthiness due to questions of researcher bias (Armstrong et al., 2011). The findings from qualitative research differ from those from quantitative research. The inductive approach in qualitative research is signified not by the definitiveness sought by quantitative researchers, but in an effort to give a sufficient empirical basis for deductive hypotheses (Åsvoll, 2014). Qualitative research focuses on participants’ language (Charmaz, 2014; Neeley, 2013) to help assess shared assumptions regarding knowledge and perceptions within comparable environments (see Nakano et al., 2013). In addition, the depth of qualitative research might help to facilitate
127 environmental change through identifying themes and patterns commonly uncovered through the data collection and analysis (for examples see Ehrenfeucht & Nelson, 2013; Starks & Trinidad, 2007). Thus, while all three methods were considered for the current study, the most appropriate method was qualitative, as the perceptions of women regarding ascension to leadership might align with “leadership dynamics involv[ing] multiple levels . . . produc[ing] both top-down and bottom-up emergent outcomes at higher and lower levels of analysis” (Dinh et al., 2014, p. 37). Mixed Methods Research Researchers embarking on mixed methods research intend to balance the importance of quantitative and qualitative instruments, such as questionnaires and interview questions, in addition to preserving serious considerations for qualitative instruments like interview questions and observations to learn the perspectives of participants (R. B. Johnson et al., 2010). Therefore, mixed methods research combines objective and subjective measures perhaps “in order to create more sound, just, efficient, robust social and educational policy” (Lincoln, 2010, p. 6). Darawsheh (2014) asserted that pleas for mixed methods research have increased, as value assessments of qualitative research have improved and the inclusion of quantitative measures might support the study’s validity. Thus, mixed methods research creates additional opportunities for the researcher to utilize the strengths and opportunities of both the qualitative and quantitative methods (Creswell, 2009). For example, Momsen and Carlson (2013) used mixed methods research “to explore changes that occurred in women’s self-efficacy and the leadership values/attributes and obstacles they perceived” (p. 123), adapting a validated
128 questionnaire and self-efficacy scale from Bandura (quantitative) while using open-ended questions to evaluate perceptions (qualitative). Therefore, the ability for the researchers to explore the problem pragmatically and find a number of different approaches to evaluate the problem likely strengthened the study (Creswell, 2009). However, a primary challenge to conducting valid mixed methods research—especially in a doctoral dissertation—lies within two fundamental premises. The first premise is the general inexperience of the researcher. Researchers in the doctoral dissertation phase are often rookies, and the challenge of gathering research and consolidating and categorizing the data in a valid manner might be overwhelming. The second premise is the commitment of time. For example, the aforementioned study by Momsen and Carlson (2013) took 3 years to assemble. Thus, a doctoral candidate given 60 weeks to complete a dissertation may not have enough time to satisfactorily complete a mixed methods study. Appropriateness of the Qualitative Research Method for the Study Initially, the researcher deliberated the use of all three methodologies to conduct this study and considered various research designs. The quantitative method received some consideration, but was discarded. This study’s strong inclination toward organizational culture and the multivariate dynamics involved with the study of culture pointed in a different direction to explore versus examine some set of known variables. Using an abductive approach, as described by Åsvoll (2014), was intended help reveal multivariate cultural dynamics important to this study, and therefore reveal some measurable variables deemed valuable in future studies. Learning about the cultural perceptions of women in masculinized environments through abductive reasoning was intended to lead to idea and theory generation that aligned to the intent of this study
129 (Åsvoll, 2014; Reichertz, 2010), and reveal potential variables for future quantitative analysis. Mixed methods research was an attractive option, essentially because of the added validity of findings. However, after committee discussion, the decision was made against mixed methods research primarily because variables pertaining to quantitative analysis were not clearly defined or known for this study. Decidedly, based on the nature of exploring the perceptions of formal organizational leadership and culture from the viewpoints of women in junior positions and women who held formal leadership designations, a qualitative method allowed the researcher to appraise the various perspectives offered by the participants, laying the foundation for emergent theoretical paradigms regarding the why of the phenomenon. Undertaking the qualitative method requires the researcher to display emotional intelligence (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014) through maintaining reflexivity and creativity (Elliott & Jordan, 2010; Lincoln, 1995; Thornberg, 2012), ideas that are of lesser importance for quantitative studies. First, effectively listening and connecting with participants to gain a deeper appreciation for their viewpoints calls for the researcher to display emotional intelligence (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014). One consideration related to emotional intelligence is reflexivity (see Darawsheh, 2014; Lincoln, 1995; Malterud, 2001), in which the researcher maintains awareness of his or her preconceptions regarding the research. Regarding a researcher’s reflexivity, Lincoln (1995) maintained, “The words transformative and critical not only embody the action aspects of research . . . [but should] . . . heighten self-awareness in the research process and create personal and social transformation” (p. 283). Thornberg (2012) reiterated the importance of reflexivity because “the researcher uses him- or herself as a main instrument in data collection and
130 analysis” (p. 254); therefore, emotional intelligence establishes a prerequisite for the researcher to realize and maintain cognitive separateness between the researcher and the research. A second consideration aligns with the organic structure of qualitative research. For example, qualitative research draws on the researcher’s creativity and ability to construct participant realities based on observations and interview analysis (Thornberg, 2012). An interesting opinion offered by Srivastra and Cooperrider (1986)—perhaps fitting with this study—is that a qualitative researcher contemplates the notion that “‘nonparticipation’ itself must be recognized as a form of participation” (p. 685). Therefore, quantitative researchers often rely solely on completed surveys and questionnaires, rendering limited or non-responsive participants as obsolete to the study’s validity. This mechanistic view might omit data that could be valuable when considering that study or future opportunities. Comparatively, the organic nature of qualitative studies might allow researchers to determine omissions from data, which might further induce the discovery of new research opportunities. Waltuck (2011) and Liang (2013) documented the importance of changing from mechanistic to organic mindsets when studying the dynamics of human systems—which are, by nature, more fluid than mechanical systems. Consequently, based on the aforementioned aspects regarding qualitative methods, a qualitative study appeared to align with the purpose and intent of the current study. Types of Qualitative Research Designs Several research designs were considered for this study. Each design has distinctive features, which helped to develop the reasoning for deciding upon grounded
131 theory. As detailed above, a qualitative method was determined as best suited because participant perceptions of organizational culture and leadership were paramount to the study’s parameters. Therefore, using a qualitative methodology gave the researcher latitude to obtain organic constructions of patterns associated with masculinized organizational environments in relation to the perceptions of women at different organizational levels. Ethnography Ethnographic research calls for a researcher’s focus on a very specific culture to give details specific to that culture (Moustakas, 1994). Moustakas (1994) and Creswell (2009) explained that a primary component of ethnography is a researcher’s embeddedness within the studied culture, requiring a lengthy process that might require the researcher’s participation within that culture. Luthans et al. (2013) opined that practicing ethnography “may facilitate getting back to our roots of an inquisitive, cooperative pursuit of understanding and truth” (p. 95), communicating that the origins of ethnography might backtrack to ancient Greek philosophy. Although ethnography was an intriguing option for this dissertation, the discussion with the committee revealed two primary challenges for the researcher. The research scope was on a cultural phenomenon that is broader than might fit into one specific category. A second challenge was that if ethnography was selected as a result of a change to the aforementioned criteria, the length of time to conduct a rigorous study might have been impractical within the allowable timeline for the completion of the dissertation.
132 Case Study Creswell (2009) explained a case study as a researcher’s in-depth analysis of phenomena specific to one situation. For example, if the researcher intended to focus on the culture of one specific and relatively small organization, case study research might be appropriate. In a case study, the contextual elements of the studied phenomena can be crucial to the researcher to provide analyses regarding how those elements influence the perceptions of the participants (Thomas, 2010). Thomas (2010) asserted that clarifying discrepancies between abduction and induction as well as phronesis and theory “offers a pathway for the better conduct of case studies” (p. 575), determining that attempts to generalize theories, based on such participant specificity, seem to be a mitigating factor for researchers who utilize case study as a research design. In addition, theory development is not pursued in case studies, as information relating to a specific case is not conducive to elaboration for a broader spectrum of issues intended for credibility and transferability when invoking future studies (Thomas, 2010). A brief discussion with the dissertation committee determined that a case study was not an appropriate design based on the intended parameters of the current study’s exploration. Phenomenology Described as studying the lived experiences of a population’s subsection, a phenomenological study is designed to find a common meaning for a phenomenon that affects that population (Creswell, 2013). Moustakas (1994) acknowledged that participants’ perceptions contribute to the creation of new knowledge regarding the studied phenomenon; thus, the phenomenological researcher’s objective is to discover common meanings among a population’s lived experiences of the studied phenomenon
133 (Baker, Wuest, & Stern, 1992). The essence of phenomenology’s foundation—of learning about participants’ lived experiences—did not seem to coincide with the researcher’s intention and desire to create a theory regarding the defined literary gap noted in Chapter 1. Suddaby (2006) indicated that phenomenology is often a presentation of data in raw form, more or less a retelling of participant stories. In addition, although participant interviews took place in this study and diagnosing the participants’ perspectives was a vital consideration, phenomenology’s method of data analysis and transmittal, without a focus on saturation, was a concern for reliability and transferability in creating theory (see Guest et al., 2006; M. Mason, 2010; Montas-Hunter, 2012). Grounded Theory In 1967, Glaser and Strauss introduced the concept of grounded theory. The original concept of grounded theory design proposed that researchers form theories based on information gathered directly from participants without any contamination from outside sources (e.g., literature reviews, researcher preconceptions) that might encumber theory creation—theory creation being the primary goal of grounded theory research (Birks, Chapman, & Francis, 2006; Locke, 1996). Glaser and Strauss’s initial concept called for a constant comparing and contrasting of data from the first instance of data collection—a concern that birthed a subsequent procedural divide between the two authors (Locke, 1996). Consequently, below are brief overviews of three grounded theory ideologies that have evolved since Glaser and Strauss’s original publication: (a) Glaserian, (b) Straussian, and (c) constructivist. The overviews are germane because of grounded theory’s appropriateness to the current study.
134 Considering grounded theory, Glaser’s Glaserian method might be regarded as purist (Locke, 1996; Suddaby, 2006). Glaser’s background in quantitative analysis (see Birks et al., 2006; Locke, 1996) may have led to the view of the natural emergence of theory as important in grounded theory design. Thus, in Glaser’s purist view, theory should emerge completely as a result of the study’s settings (Birks et al., 2006); the researcher approaches the study with a clean slate, having no preconceptions (i.e., research questions, literature review) regarding the phenomenon (Dunne, 2011). Researchers who approach grounded theory without this clean slate, according to Glaser, risk forcing data categorization and consequently theoretical development instead of letting the theory emerge directly from the constant comparison and theoretical sampling exhibited in Glaser and Strauss’s originally published views of grounded theory (Birks et al., 2006; Locke, 1996; Suddaby, 2006). The Straussian method of grounded theory, advocated by Strauss and Corbin and influenced by Strauss’s background in qualitative methods (Birks et al., 2006; Locke, 1996), explains that “grounded theory seeks not only to uncover relevant conditions, but also to determine how the actors respond to changing conditions and to the consequences of their actions” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 5). This tethering of grounded theory with the concepts of pragmatism and social interactionism (Birks et al., 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 1990) recognizes epistemological and axiological inevitabilities (i.e., a clean slate is not possible) when conducting grounded theory research (Birks et al., 2006). Therefore, the Straussian method leans toward the researcher having “a certain understanding of human action” (Kelle, 2005, p. 7), further deviating from Glaser’s perspective of grounded theory.
135 Constructivist grounded theory—evolved from the Straussian method (Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006b)—acknowledges the researcher as the study’s author (Mills et al., 2006b) and as relevant in co-constructing the experiences of the studied phenomenon (Charmaz, 2006; Mills et al., 2006b). Constructivist grounded theory distinguishes the tacit meaning of participant experiences, recognizing what Mills, Bonner, and Francis (2006a) expressed as “the worded world” (p. 11), where experiences are continuously altered, thus necessitating constant reflection by the author and the participants. Consequently, requirements of constructivist grounded theory include reciprocity and relationship equality between the researcher and participants; in addition, the author’s statement of position is significant and must remain clear regarding the studied phenomena (Mills et al., 2006a). Research Design The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of leadership held by two categories of women in masculinized organizational environments in the United States: (a) women holding formal organizational leadership roles, and (b) women in junior organizational positions. The purpose of this study—focusing on women in the traditionally masculinized culture of the banking and finance industry (see von Hippel et al., 2015)—was to explore women’s perspectives regarding leadership approaches and theories, culturally prescribed and proscribed traits generally associated with women, perceived barriers, and feminist positions through the lenses of systems thinking and autopoiesis. A qualitative, constructivist grounded theory (see Birks et al., 2006; Charmaz, 2014; Kelle, 2005; Mills et al., 2006a, 2006b) was deemed best suited to achieve this goal. The results of this study were expected to lead to emerging theoretical
136 paradigms, further enabling learning organizations to better exploit their available human capital (Argyris, 1997; Berson et al., 2015; Crook et al., 2011; H. Kim, 2015; Kwon & Rupp, 2013; J. E. Olson, 2013; Yeo, 2005). Thus, based on the aforementioned reasoning, using a constructivist grounded theory approach was appropriate, aligning well with the purpose of the current study. Theoretical Saturation The concept of theoretical saturation in conjunction with grounded theory’s calling for constant comparison of data is a paramount concern for producing rigor (Baturina, 2015; Bowen, 2008, 2009). Theoretical saturation is apparent when new category development from the data ceases (Baturina, 2015; Lincoln & Lynham, 2011; Locke, 2001). M. Mason (2010) provided comprehensive ideas around population sizes regarding theoretical saturation. In addition, Bowen (2008) explained theoretical saturation as “a defining characteristic of grounded theory” (p. 139), especially as grounded theory’s inductive nature “requires that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on the data before analysis” (Bowen, 2009, p. 309). Population To help develop a reliable and transferable study, the study’s target population consisted of women who currently held formal organizational leadership positions as well as women currently in junior positions who aspired to advance into formal organizational leadership positions in the banking and finance industry. In an effort to maintain cultural consistency, the population comprised women who worked within the United States, were U.S. citizens, spoke English as a primary language, and associated (as leader or
137 subordinate) with women working within the United States. The principal researcher recognized there would likely be variances among the population (see Charmaz, 2014; Lincoln, 1995; Moustakas, 1994; Suddaby, 2006) regarding participants’ educational attainment, expectations of functions concerning positional roles and responsibilities, and descriptions of what constitutes a leader’s effectiveness. These variances arguably emerged as the data were analyzed and may serve for some manner of future study or perhaps be contributing components to any emergent theory for this study. For inclusion in the study’s target population, the following participant criteria were required:
Participant must be a woman who was at least 18 years of age
Participant must complete the informed consent form
Participant must work within the United States in a banking or financial organization
Junior position participants must desire to attain senior or formal leadership positions
Participant must be currently employed
Participant must have a defined organizational role: o A senior/formal leader must hold a position that oversees three or more people within the organization and working within the United States o A woman in a junior position must have direct connection with a woman who is a formal leader within the organization, and preferably, indicates an aspiration to advance into formal positional leadership (not necessarily within the same organization)
138 Sample Sampling for qualitative methods “typically focuses in depth on relatively small samples, even single cases (n=1), selected purposefully” (Patton, 2002, pp. 272-273). Patton (2002) opined that using purposeful, qualitative sampling provides depth and richness to a study, intending to bring forth pertinent information regarding the study’s purpose (see also Creswell, 2013). Leedy and Ormrod (2001) noted that qualitative studies might involve five to 25 purposely selected participants. Furthermore, Patton (1999) distinguished the natures of qualitative and quantitative design, opining that the former often revolves around seizing ideas of change and dynamism while the latter focuses on generalizing standardized ideas (Patton, 1999). M. Mason (2010) acknowledged various authors’ opinions regarding appropriate sample sizes for grounded theory research. M. Mason suggested a sample of 20 to 50 participants is necessary to achieve theoretical saturation in grounded theory studies. Saturation is a guiding standard in data collection and is difficult to prove in qualitative studies, especially considering the dynamics involved with human perceptions of experiences (M. Mason, 2010; Powell, 2012). In M. Mason’s analysis of grounded theory studies, 20 to 30 indepth interviews was most common, as it has been estimated that 90% to 95% of the data relevant to a study came from interviewing the first 20 to 30 participants. This study involved purposeful and snowball sampling (Acharya, Prakash, Saxena, & Nigam, 2013; Breckenridge & Jones, 2009), concluding with 11 women who met the stated participant criteria. Theoretical saturation is an attempt to uncover emerging foundational concepts regarding the study’s purpose. In this study, theoretical saturation was realized after the ninth interview.
139 Data Collection Qualitative research is designed to create meaning from the perspectives of participants’ experiences of phenomena (Lincoln, 1995, 2010; M. Mason, 2010; Moustakas, 1994). In constructivist grounded theory, the researcher’s responsibility to tether ontological, epistemological, and axiological methods is central for creating a study that conveys significance to the audience (Birks et al., 2006; Suddaby, 2006). According to Birks et al. (2006), the primary components of an author’s responsibility when conducting constructivist grounded theory are:
Ontologically – the researcher must give a true assessment of how the phenomenon affects the participants who are actively producing the phenomenon’s meaning
Epistemologically – explicitly conceding that there is a co-creation of the phenomenon’s meaning between the researcher and the participant
Axiologically – the responsibility of the researcher to accept and reflect on his or her own assumptions when reporting the perceptions of the phenomenon
Suddaby (2006) elaborated that grounded theory should not be subject to routine, or formalized data collection and input; rather, grounded theory should have a measure of creativity, as the role of the researcher, or the researcher’s voice, is a dynamic component in the design and contribution of constructivist grounded theory (Mills et al., 2006b). This point was solidified in Charmaz’s own writing (see Charmaz, 2006, 2008, 2014) and by the assertion that writing constructivist grounded theory should accentuate literary (vs. scientific) style (Mills et al., 2006b).
140 Regarding data collection, Charmaz (2014) expounded upon some complexities of interviewing participants from varying cultures. A personal communication with a constituent, Cisneros-Puebla, from Mexico revealed, “Interview is not a basic component of [Mexico’s] culture . . . not a regular relationship . . . In some ways interview and some of its components (as consent signed by the interviewee) is shaped by multiple distrusts” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 1077). In addition, Cisneros-Puebla discussed the Mexican cultural assumptions about the dichotomous relationship between the researcher and the participant stating, “Interviewer-interviewee is regularly a very vertical and unequal situation” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 1077). Thus, constructivist grounded theory’s calling for reciprocity and relationship equality between the researcher and participants was an important consideration for the current study (Mills et al., 2006a); furthermore, the current study’s aforementioned population parameters (research kept within the United States) adhered to these standards, acknowledging Charmaz’s and Cisneros-Puebla’s concerns (Charmaz, 2014). For this study, data were collected from participants in the banking and financial industry with whom the principal researcher had a professional acquaintance (e.g., from career fairs, conferences, and meetings) that resulted in the exchange of personal e-mail addresses. In addition, the researcher solicited participants within appropriate professional banking and finance groups on websites such as LinkedIn. After requesting permission (see Appendix A) and receiving documented permission from a group’s owner or manager, the researcher posted a description of the study on the group’s site inviting qualified and interested group members to participate (see Appendix B). Again, all participant contact with the researcher occurred via personal e-mail addresses and
141 telephone numbers, as no particular workplace or organization was targeted for this study and remained anonymous and uninvolved with the research. The researcher screened this purposeful sample (Acharya et al., 2013) for predetermined demographic criteria through personal e-mail or personal phone communication. To enhance the size of the research sample, people who agreed to participate in the initial data collection were asked to consider their own professional networks and identify other qualified individuals who met the study participant criteria and who might be willing to participate; this process is known as snowball sampling (Breckenridge & Jones, 2009). The researcher endeavored to collect a broad sample; in other words, no particular organization were targeted though participants needed to reside in and work in the United States. Data collection involved three primary methods: (a) semi-structured interviews (audio recorded face-to-face or via telephone), (b) short-term participant observations, and (c) reflexive journaling (Creswell, 2013; Elliott & Jordan, 2010; Lincoln, 1995; Thornberg, 2012). A fourth method was used when warranted and appropriate, as based on participant responses, additional probing questions were asked. Semi-structured interviews set the stage for opportunities, if needed, for follow-up interviews intended to develop deeper insight into participants’ perceptions. Short-term participant observations during interviews, captured in the researcher’s field notes, may or may not prove beneficial to the study but supported triangulation and strengthen internal validity (Creswell, 2013). The researcher provided details of these observations in field notes generated immediately after the interviews so as not to distract the participants. The researcher’s judgement played a role in determining the significance of observations. A
142 reflexive journal was maintained by the researcher (Lincoln, 1995), retaining a heuristic component to the study (Douglass & Moustakas, 1985; Moustakas, 1994) and allowing for increased depth in data collection and mitigation of researcher bias, further substantiating this study (Darawsheh, 2014; Lincoln, 1995). Informed Consent After the researcher successfully defended the dissertation proposal and obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the study, data collection began. Prior to data collection, written informed consent (see Appendix C) was obtained from the participants. The informed consent form was presented and completed face-to-face with the participant when possible. However, if needed, the researcher gained written consent through e-mail or fax. All documents, written and electronic, regarding these consents are required for inclusion with the IRB proposals for approval, and will be subsequently secured in the researcher’s locked home office cabinet for a period of 3 years after the conclusion of the study. Some participants may not have been familiar with some of the terms used in the questions. To aid participant understanding, participants were provided a list of definitions (see Chapter 1). Participant Confidentiality Participants’ confidentiality was maintained externally through customary procedures such as using secure measures of interviewing (i.e., off-site at a time and place deemed safe and convenient by the participant or via telephone), remaining unnamed in the study (e.g., Jane Doe = P1), and the researcher’s safekeeping of research records. Tolich (2004) discoursed regarding “the invent[ion] of a new ethical principle”
143 (p. 105), namely internal confidentiality, which serves to secure information among participants who might, upon reading the results of a report, be able to identify other participants based on the author’s descriptors. The researcher’s use of reflexivity, combined with measures of external confidentiality, guarded against such breaches that might hinder future research opportunities. Written and electronic data obtained from and produced by this study were stored in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s home office during the study and will be maintained for a period of 3 years after the dissertation is completed. Any electronic records (e.g., data coding, transcripts) will be removed from the researcher’s computer and kept on an external hard drive or a flash drive in the locked cabinet. Temporary files and cache were deleted from the computer after each work session. Only the principal researcher had access to the materials and data; the materials and data will be destroyed by way of shredding paper documents and permanently deleting any electronic data and materials obtained from the interviews, data analysis, and material write up from the computer, external hard drive, and any flash drives. Instrument The primary instrument for this study was interview questions designed to elicit participants’ responses to address the research questions presented in Chapter 1. General demographic questions (see Appendix D) were used to begin the meeting to gather information regarding the participant’s age, employment position, and race/ethnicity (only if the participant was willing to share any of this information, as it was not a requirement for participation), which might (or might not) prove valuable when conceptualizing the data. During the semi-structured interviews, open-ended questions
144 allowed the participant to respond openly, while follow-up questions might arise based on the participant’s answer. The semi-structured interviews all contained the same preliminary questions for each participant (depending on whether leader or junior). The researcher, when warranted, followed up the preliminary questions with additional probing questions to enhance the depth of answers and find additional nuances in the information provided by the participant (Glass & Cook, 2016; Peus, Braun, & Knipfer, 2015). The follow-up semi-structured interviews also contained open-ended questions based on the researcher’s review of the original answers and emerging patterns the researcher found throughout the initial data analysis, observations, and reflexivity. The questions for the semi-structured interviews were tailored to fit the individual participant depending on the researcher’s perception of the need to clarify or enrich the data collected from the semi-structured interviews and subsequent data analysis. Women in Junior Positions Questions The following open-ended questions, along with the corresponding research questions being addressed, were used in the semi-structured interviews with women in junior positions: 1. Please share regarding the opportunities for you to advance into a formal leadership position. [RQ1, RQ4] 2. Discuss the individual qualities your manager looks for when considering promotions. [RQ4, RQ5, RQ6] 3. In what ways do you feel supported in your role? [RQ1, RQ2, RQ5] 4. Elaborate on what you perceive as a path for advancement. [RQ3, RQ5]
145 5. Describe this organization’s interpersonal culture between managers and subordinates. [RQ1, RQ3, RQ4, RQ5] 6. Tell me about two leaders, positives/negatives, to whom you report. [RQ6 – if at least one woman is described] 7. Please discuss the company’s willingness/support systems to help you develop management or leadership skills. [RQ1, RQ4, RQ5] 8. Describe, in your terms, effective leadership. [RQ3, RQ4, RQ6] 9. Please think about and share what you consider are barriers to advancement. [RQ2, RQ4, RQ6] Women in Formal Position Questions The following open-ended questions were used in the semi-structured interviews with women in formal leadership positions: 1. Please share regarding the opportunities your organization offers for advancement into management or leadership positions. [RQ1, RQ4, RQ5] 2. Discuss the qualities you look for when contemplating the promotion of an individual to management or leadership positions. [RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, RQ6] 3. How do you support subordinates who express a desire to advance? [RQ1, RQ4, RQ5] 4. Elaborate on what you perceive to be the path for advancement in the organization. [RQ1, RQ4] 5. Describe the interpersonal culture between managers and subordinates within your organization. [RQ2, RQ3, RQ5, RQ6]
146 6. Tell me about two leaders, positives/negatives, to whom you report. [RQ1, RQ6] 7. Please discuss the kind of support the company offers in developing subordinates’ management or leadership skills. [RQ1, RQ4, RQ5] 8. Describe, in your terms, effective leadership. [RQ1, RQ6] 9. Please think about and share what you consider are barriers encountered by subordinates trying to advance. [RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, RQ4, RQ5] Reliability and Validity Reliability and validity refer to terms traditionally used in positivistic paradigms and quantitative studies to justify a judgment of rigor regarding the data collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2014; Patton, 2002; Schwandt, Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). Patton (2002) argued that, conventionally, the availability of information on reliability and validity led researchers to place a higher value on quantitative studies, although “qualitative methods have ascended to a level of parallel respectability” (p. 265). The research community’s focus on positivistic paradigms in the 1950s and 1960s obstructed the introduction and legitimatization of qualitative research (Denzin, 2010; Patton, 1999). Charmaz (2014) specified, “Qualitative research did not fit [the] methodological frame with its logic of quantified measures of reliability and validity” (p. 1076). Interestingly, Denzin (2010) indicted both the U.S. Government’s “neoconservative discourses” (p. 15) and the National Research Council (NRC) as primary instruments used in disqualifying qualitative research as a reliable and valid research method. Furthermore, Lincoln (2012) opined that the NRC’s emphasis on research verification—not disconfirmation—might
147 facilitate the view that qualitative research is “less scholarly” (p. 1454) compared to quantitative research. However, Lincoln (2010) explained that qualitative researchers have “produced a virtual tsunami of important critical work . . . [and we have] every reason to hold our heads up and square off with the National Research Council’s dismissal of our work as ‘not scientific’” (p. 4). Glaser and Strauss’s creation of grounded theory research began as a challenge to positivistic science (Birks et al., 2006; Suddaby, 2006). Glaser and Strauss (1967) asserted that finding the truth from the perceptions of participants is complex and virtually impossible to categorize in absolute terms. In the early 1980s, Guba and Lincoln (1982, 1985) brought this challenge to the forefront, exposing the differences between rationalistic (i.e., quantitative) and naturalistic (i.e., qualitative) paradigms. Mills et al. (2006a) explained that a researcher’s voice develops within scholarship because of his or her passion regarding the study’s subject, and the researcher’s ability to stay passionate while remaining (un)involved with a study should help to develop relative truth (see also Guba & Lincoln, 1985; Patton, 2002). Tompkins and Rhodes (2012) explained that “individuals make sense of the world by constantly abstracting ideas, and that the process of leaving out details and characteristics is an ‘indispensable convenience’” (p. 84). This researcher used Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) established seminal analogs to quantitative research’s terminology of reliability and validity (i.e., dependability, credibility, transferability), primarily as a result of the qualitative researcher’s contribution of voice and passion (H. Hall, Griffiths, & McKenna, 2013; Locke, 2001; Mills et al., 2006a). The researcher’s effort was intended to elevate the overall
148 trustworthiness (Guba & Lincoln, 1985; Lincoln & Guba, 1987; Morse, 2015; Patton, 1999, 2002; Schwandt et al., 2007) of this qualitative, constructivist grounded theory method. In addition, this researcher, taking the advice of Patton (1999), was “methodical in reporting sufficient details of data collection and the processes of analysis to permit others to judge the quality of the resulting product” (p. 1191). Reliability In 1967, Glaser and Strauss introduced the ideas of credibility and pragmatic usefulness (see Locke, 1991) to align qualitative research with quantitative research’s notion of reliability. More recently, Guba and Lincoln (1982, 1985, 1989) offered dependability as qualitative research’s analog to reliability, not “as the last word but rather as an invitation to further debate and consideration” (Schwandt et al., 2007, p. 12) regarding interpretational justifications of researcher findings. According to Malterud (2001), the researcher’s reflexivity—in an effort to minimize researcher bias—regarding his or her transparency concerning preconceptions and theoretical positioning aligns with creating a dependable study. In addition, upholding the standards of honesty and forthrightness not only helps to mitigate researcher bias, it allows the audience an opportunity to develop opinions and find gaps that might enhance future research (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014). For qualitative studies such as the current study, Agostinho (2005), Schwandt et al. (2007), and Starks and Trinidad (2007) suggested the use of thick, rich description and an audit trail in addition to candidness with the participants to allow for richer dialogue, further enhancing a study’s dependability and trustworthiness. A second measure of this study’s dependability was the process of semi-structured interviewing (Patton, 1999;
149 Schwandt et al., 2007); participants were asked the same initial questions in the same order and the researcher wrote field notes immediately following each interview to account for interview-specific observations. Finally, committee reviews of interview transcripts, coding, and analysis served to enhance this study’s dependability. Internal Validity Guba and Lincoln (1989) offered credibility as qualitative research’s analog to the quantitative term of internal validity (see Patton, 2002; Schwandt et al., 2007). Guba and Lincoln’s (1985) call for fourth generation evaluation (i.e., naturalistic paradigms) resided in the confrontation between ontology and epistemology. Guba and Lincoln (1985) argued that the first “three generations have been served reasonably well by the scientific paradigm . . . of objective realism” (p. 139); however, in the fourth generation, “the evaluator moves from the role of judge to the orchestrator of the judgmental process” (p. 141)—in other words, there is a clear association between the two parties. Consequently, Patton (1999) called for specific elements that helped this researcher develop a credible study: (a) rigorous data collection and analysis, (b) researcher discipline, and (c) appreciation of standards and expectations regarding qualitative methodology. This researcher used data triangulation, which consists of “refin[ing] and substantiat[ing] emergent themes” (Agostinho, 2005, p. 9) elicited from different sources of data collection. Creswell (2013) reinforced that triangulation “meets multiple interests and needs” (p. 159) to help validate research findings (see also Patton, 1999, 2002). Armstrong et al. (2011) asserted that the context of qualitative research findings might often be as important as the data offered, further supporting the importance of
150 triangulation. Thus, because of the subjectivity of qualitative research methods, the triangulation of information gained from thick/rich description, interviews, audit trails, field notes, member checking, and committee review can reinforce the study’s credibility and potentially enhance transferability. In addition, to further minimize the potential for bias, this researcher utilized the process of epoché (Moustakas, 1994) or bracketing (Locke, 2001; Tufford & Newman, 2012). Moustakas (1994) defined the process of epoché as “entering a pure internal place, as an open self, ready to embrace life in what it truly offers” (p. 86). This challenges the researcher to set aside, or “bracket . . . out” (Locke, 2001, p. 46) preconceived ideas or even “unacknowledged preconceptions related to the research and thereby to increase the rigor of the project” (Tufford & Newman, 2012, p. 81). Regarding this constructivist grounded theory study of women in preconceived masculinized environments, the researcher’s awareness of maleness was a significant factor to be bracketed out. In addition, during the interview process, the information retrieved from the extensive literature review needed to be bracketed out in an effort to allow the participant data to dictate any emerging theories (Baturina, 2015; Bowen, 2009; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Glaser, 2002). Another consideration for the researcher to bracket involved an awareness of perceptual attributions typically made by situational perceivers (C. M. Brown et al., 2012). Regarding professional women, Heilman and Haynes (2005) called this “attributional rationalization, [which] is consistent with the tendency to avoid attributing positive outcomes to a woman’s ability” (p. 906).
151 External Validity In quantitative research, generalizability refers to the ability of a study’s findings to relate to a wider population (Creswell, 2009; Lincoln, 1995). Qualitative research’s answer to generalizability is transferability (Lincoln & Lynham, 2011; Patton, 2002; Schwandt et al., 2007), “mean[ing] that other researchers can apply the findings of this study to their own” (Bowen, 2009, p. 306). A qualitative study displaying a structure of dependability and credibility has a foundation that allows researchers to have confidence in using the data for reference or transferring the information as a means to strengthen future research efforts (Bowen, 2009; Locke, 2001). However, only after the future research is completed will there be knowledge of conceptual transferability (Schwandt et al., 2007). For grounded theory, transferability (i.e., external validity) was defined in Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original work as “the theory must fit, have grab, and work” (Baker et al., 1992, p. 1359). Baker et al. (1992) explained the ideas of (a) fit, or proper data categorization and the ability to apply the theory; (b) grab, or the theory’s applicability to participants and practitioners; and (c) work, or the theory’s explanation of phenomena, predictive ability, and interpretative notions. Thus, Corbin and Strauss (1990) ascertained that the importance of grounded theory revolves around how concepts arise based on interpretations and interactions of the participants to specific phenomena, “not to generalize findings to a broader population per se” (p. 9). Furthermore, Charmaz’s (2014) distinction that theoretical sampling is intended for categorical emergence—as opposed to representing a general population—reinforces Corbin and Strauss’s (1990) notion of conditional predictability, aligning with the study’s transferability.
152 Another consideration of transferability existed in the researcher’s measures to provide dependability and credibility. Threats to this study’s transferability that were considered included: (a) unmitigated researcher bias, (b) an inability to reach theoretical saturation, (c) poor data transcription or analysis, (d) small sample size or unusual sample homogeneity, and (e) unreliable or inaccurate participant self-reporting (Guba & Lincoln, 1985; “The Hawthorne effect,” 2012; Moustakas, 1994). Of the potential threats considered, only the limited sample size seemed to be a probable threat to the study’s transferability. Data Analysis Because the premise of grounded theory is the discovery of a conceptual framework, simultaneous data collection and analysis are required for constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Baker et al., 1992; Mills et al., 2006b; Suddaby, 2006). Corbin and Strauss (1990) explained, “In grounded theory, representativeness of concepts, not of persons, is crucial” (p. 9). Thus, theoretical sampling—the process of coding data, finding connections, and constant comparison (Mills et al., 2006b)—should help the researcher maintain a consistent and representative data set that brings reliability and transferability to the study when theoretical saturation occurs (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). In 1967, Glaser and Strauss’s seminal publication used the term theoretical sensitivity, essentially empowering the researcher to scrutinize data and estimate the significance of the data to the studied phenomena and perhaps conceding that researchers have some preconceptions regarding the phenomena (Kelle, 2005). Theoretical sensitivity allows the researcher to determine separation between the data’s deemed
153 importance and unimportance to the study (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Mills et al., 2006b); thereby, “thoughtful constructivist grounded theorists can choose techniques to use in their reconstruction of participants’ stories into theory” (Mills et al., 2006b, p. 6). The term thoughtful might be the cornerstone for constructivist grounded theorists, as the fundamentals of coding help safeguard reliability and transferability. Open coding allows the researcher an opportunity to gain new insight into the phenomenon and find emerging themes (Birks et al., 2006; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 1990), perhaps aligning with the double-loop learning methods presented in the preceding chapters of this dissertation (Argyris, 1976; Duden, 2014). Axial coding identifies the relationships (i.e., connections) between the open coded data (Corbin & Strauss, 1990), relating to the importance of the researcher’s emotional intelligence when conducting qualitative studies (see C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014). The thoughtful constructive grounded theorist then selectively codes data, finding a core theme from the open and axial coding dimensions (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Again, selective coding requires the researcher’s emotional intelligence as well as intense reflexivity (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014; Mills et al., 2006a). For this study, the researcher coded the data manually without the use of qualitative data analysis (QDA) coding software (e.g., NVivo, ATLAS.ti, HyperRESEARCH). Charmaz (2014) relayed opinions regarding the use of QDA software in grounded theory, noting that a reliance on QDA software might become too unyielding for the researcher to find nuances within the coding for some conceptual development. Thus, this research effort involved open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, beginning with line-by-line coding (i.e., open coding) of the interview transcripts
154 (see Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 1990) to enable initial codes to emerge from the data. Constant comparison and memos enhanced the open coding process. Next, Kelle (2005) asserted that rookie data analysts consider a coding paradigm for data structure and clarity to enhance axial coding, where analysis of protruding categories can be separated and then converged to find emerging patterns within the data. Corbin and Strauss (1990) opined that, in grounded theory, the researcher should scrutinize new data immediately to realize the conditions and the context of the data. Finally, finding connections within the axially coded data leads to selective coding—the heart of the phenomenon (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Ultimately, this process, also known as theoretical coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Higginbottom & Lauridsen, 2014; Kelle, 2005; Thornberg, 2012), is used to unite the data in an effort to find emerging theories. Methodological Assumptions and Limitations The research was designed under the assumption that theoretical sampling of participants, which was aligned with purposeful sampling (Acharya et al., 2013; Breckenridge & Jones, 2009), would enable theory to emerge from the collected data. In general, the choice to use qualitative methods may cause controversy, as subjective evaluation may not be accompanied by guided metrics for evaluation (Oliver, 2011). Constructivist grounded theory accepts the researcher’s participation in the study and the study’s conceptual development (Charmaz, 2014; Mills et al., 2006b) as an integral part of the process. The researcher’s use of several determined measures to mitigate bias was intended to allow concepts to emerge from the data to gain insight regarding opportunities for organizations to maximize human capital, specifically regarding women
155 retained in the traditionally masculinized environment of the banking and finance industry in the United States. Researchers have a responsibility to society to report findings discriminately, presenting findings and interpretations while accounting for biases (Frances Luce, McGill, & Peracchio, 2012). However, some limitations to this study related to the researcher’s maleness in that the participants might have perceived such as a personal threat or somehow bias. In addition, although there were several measures to help alleviate researcher bias, the participants might have, consciously or unconsciously, remained reticent about some aspects of their experiences that would have added to the study’s credibility and transferability. Another limitation was the relatively limited participant set primarily due to time considerations for the research. Finally, the participant set was from a relatively narrow population in a particular industry—thus, the potential for transferability was reduced. Summary The chapter contained a justification of the chosen research method and design for this study. In order to understand the appropriateness of using qualitative research for this dissertation, three methods of research were deconstructed for the audience. In addition, different types of research designs were deconstructed to help the audience understand the appropriateness of the researcher choosing a constructivist grounded theory design. Furthermore, the chapter contained information regarding population, sampling, informed consent, data collection, participant confidentiality, instrumentation, reliability and validity, data analysis, and methodological assumptions and limitations. Finally, open-ended semi-structured interview questions were proposed to provide
156 beginning points for the researcher to delve into more depth with follow-up probing questions to help enrich the data and conceptual emergence.
157 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The data analysis and results of this qualitative, constructivist grounded theory study are presented in this chapter. Chapter 4 begins with a review of the study’s purpose and problem statement, research questions, and methodology. The purpose of the study was to explore leadership from the viewpoints of women who held junior positions and who desired to attain formal leadership positions within their organizations as well as women in formal leadership roles. The goal was to gain a better understanding of the barriers, if any, to the opportunities for women in junior positions to grow into formal leadership positions within their organizations from the perspectives of both women in junior positions and women in formal leadership positions. The study sample consisted of 11 participants located in the Southeastern United States: (a) six women holding formal leadership roles within their organizations, defined as managing three or more people; and (b) five women holding junior positions but intending to advance within the masculinized industry of banking and finance. Problem Statement There is a gap in the literature on women and leadership specifically regarding the self-perceptions of women in junior positions compared to the perceptions held by women in leadership positions of women in junior positions (Latu et al., 2013). The masculinized industry of U.S. banking and finance was the basis for this exploration. The question was whether direct exposure to women in formal leadership influenced the desire of women aspiring to leadership roles within the U.S. banking and finance industry. This grounded theory study was designed to begin a process that can help organizations and organizational leaders learn to maximize an organization’s existing
158 human capital (Boxall, 2013; Lecuona & Reitzig, 2014). The research was guided by research questions for each participant group to address the concepts pertinent to the addressed problem (see Table 1). Table 1 Research Questions Perspectives of Women in Junior Positions
Perspectives of Women in Formal Leadership
Research Question 1: Are the perceptions held by women in junior positions of women in formal leadership roles within their organization systems thinking driven?
Research Question 1: Are the perceptions held by women in formal leadership positions of how women in junior positions perceive the advancement of women to formal leadership positions within their organization systems thinking driven?
Research Question 2: How, if at all, do stereotype threat and role incongruence affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions to achieve formal leadership positions?
Research Question 2: How, if at all, do stereotype threat and role incongruence affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions to achieve formal leadership positions?
Research Question 3: What influence, if any, does the perception of women in formal leadership roles breaking the glass ceiling have on the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions who are trying to advance into formal leadership?
Research Question 3: What influence, if any, does the perception of women in formal leadership roles breaking the glass ceiling have on the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions who are trying to advance into formal leadership?
Research Question 4: What, if any, perceptions of organizational culture might affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles within their organization?
Research Question 4: What, if any, perceptions of organizational culture might affect the autopoietic motivations of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles within their organization?
Research Question 5: How, if at all, does an organization’s implicit belief system (entity or incremental) determine the decision of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles?
Research Question 5: How, if at all, does an organization’s implicit belief system (entity or incremental) determine the decision of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles?
Research Question 6: What role, if any, do the leadership styles of women in formal leadership positions play in the perceptions held by women in junior positions of effective leadership?
Research Question 6: What role, if any, do the leadership styles of women in formal leadership positions play in the perceptions held by women in junior positions of effective leadership?
159 Participant Recruitment The participants for this study were selected purposefully to enable depth and richness of the data (Patton, 2002), in accordance with Leedy and Ormrod’s (2001) suggestion of five to 25 purposefully selected participants for qualitative studies. The depth of information obtained in qualitative studies creates multivariate dynamics, and subsequently fewer participants are required than for quantitative studies (Patton, 1999). In addition to purposeful sampling, snowball sampling was utilized to enhance the size of the research sample and the connected nature of the participants (Acharya et al., 2013; Breckenridge & Jones, 2009). Several methods were used to recruit participants. The researcher requested and was granted permission to post to three LinkedIn groups (see Appendix A). The researcher made three reposts to each group within 1 month, garnering zero responses. Consequently, the aforementioned connections to the industry yielded all of the study’s participants and none of the participants were close personal friends or anyone who worked with, for, or reported to the principal researcher. The researcher contacted participants through their private e-mail addresses and private phone numbers. All participants completed an informed consent form that they returned prior to the interview. No particular workplace or organization was targeted, and identifying information within the data were changed to pseudonyms to ensure anonymity. The researcher originally proposed interviewing approximately 20 participants. For the study, the researcher contacted 26 potential participants either through e-mail or telephone calls. Eighteen responses resulted from the effort, and of these women, 11 participated. Two of the participants were secured through snowball sampling. Three interviews were conducted
160 face-to-face and eight interviews were conducted over the telephone. All demographics can be found in the next section. Participant Profiles The study involved conducting interviews of women in junior positions and women holding formal leadership positions within the U.S. banking and finance industry. All 11 participants were employed in the Southeastern United States; all but one participant were located in the same region of the same state (one participant had moved from this same region about 5 years ago). Of the 11 participants, five met the criteria of holding junior positions and six met the criteria of holding positions of formal leadership. Participants were assigned pseudonyms (e.g., P1, P2, etc.). Participants 1 and 8 were both self-employed in the industry and each had one employee, self-reporting a combined 44 years of experience in the industry. The average age of the women in junior positions was 34.6 years, with the youngest being 26 and the oldest being 40. The average age of the women in formal leadership positions was 41.8 years, with the youngest being 37 and the oldest being 45. The following sections contain additional self-reported demographics for each group. Women in Junior Positions There were a total of five participants holding junior roles within this study. Of the five, two had an associate’s degree, with one anticipating completing a bachelor’s degree by the end of 2016. One reported having a bachelor’s degree and another reported having two bachelor’s degrees. Another participant reported “some college.” The average experience in the industry was reported as 10.5 years, with the shortest tenure being 3.5 years and the longest being 18 years. Average time with the current
161 organization was 5.8 years, with the longest time being 10 years and the shortest being 3.5 years. Four of the participants had changed companies at least once, while P7 had been employed by only one organization in the industry for 3.5 years. Four of the five participants self-identified their race or ethnicity as White or Caucasian and one identified as Pacific Indian. The positional titles of the junior women ranged from compliance analyst, associate, underwriter 2, and senior operations analyst. All of the women were seeking advancement opportunities, with one participant currently seeking opportunities outside of her current organization. Another participant anticipated a promotion to a formal leadership role in her current organization within the next 6 months. There were three different organizations affiliated with the women in junior positions. Women in Formal Leadership Six participants were identified as holding formal leadership positions. Of the six participants, four held a bachelor’s degree, with one participant having two bachelor’s degrees and another currently pursuing a master’s degree. One participant had a master’s degree, while the other, a 43-year-old with 17 years of industry experience, reported “some college.” Average industry tenure was 17.8 years, with the longest being 24 years and the shortest being 10 years. Two of the formal leaders reported being with the same organization for their entire careers, one for 10 years and the other for 20 years. The women in formal leadership reported an average tenure with their current organizations of 10.2 years, with the longest being 20 years and the shortest being 3 years. Four of the women in formal leadership self-reported their race or ethnicity as White or Caucasian while the other two women self-reported as Hispanic. The formal leaders’ titles ranged
162 from owner, self-employed, vice president, and project manager. All of the women in formal positions reported seeking advancement opportunities or increasing the size of their businesses. Five different organizations were represented by the women in formal leadership roles. Data Collection and Storage Participants were obtained through social media attempts, industry connections, and snowball sampling opportunities. The data collection process took about 14 weeks, with the 11 women participating in audio taped interviews ranging from 21 minutes to 65 minutes (average about 47 minutes). The participants completed and returned informed consent forms prior to the interviews. Five interviews went as scheduled and the other six were rescheduled at least once in response to the participant’s professional duties (three were rescheduled specifically because of the Brexit). Three interviews were held face-to-face and two more had to be rescheduled from face-to-face to telephone interviews. Face-to-face interviews were held in a private office, which was preferred by the participants. All interviews were audio recorded. Participants were made aware of the recording—and agreed to being recorded—when the interviews were scheduled. Prior to starting the audio recording, participants were assured that their personal and work organization identities would remain anonymous and were asked to be as open as possible when answering questions. During the second interview, P2 seemed bothered after mentioning the organization’s name. Consequently, in an effort to keep interview continuity, the researcher added a reassurance that if the participant accidentally stated a specific name of a person or a company, this would remain anonymous as well and in such instances pseudonyms would be used (e.g., “husband” or “company”). Interviews
163 commenced with nine demographic questions (see Appendix D) intended primarily to qualify participants as being employed in the U.S. banking and finance industry, and further, to accurately categorize the participants based on holding junior positions or formal leadership positions within their organization. Written and electronic data retrieved from and produced by the interviews have remained in the custody of the researcher since the beginning of the data collection process. Informed consent forms and electronic recordings are being kept on a password secured device in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s home, electronically on the researcher’s secured computer, and on a secured cloud system. The written material has remained in the possession of the researcher (and backed up on a secured cloud system) and will be locked in a cabinet at the researcher’s home office after the dissertation is completed for a period of 3 years. Only the researcher has access to these materials and data. Three years after the completion of the study, all materials and data will be destroyed through permanently deleting any electronic data and materials obtained from the interviews, data analysis, and material write up from any computer, flash drives, hard drives, and the cloud. Any paper documents will be shredded. Credibility and Transferability As explained in Chapter 3, credibility in a qualitative design aligns with the quantitative notion of reliability (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Locke, 1996). Accurately portraying participant perceptions is critical for delivering a credible constructivist grounded theory study. Also explained in Chapter 3, credibility is satisfied through bracketing out information from the literature review (Baturina, 2015; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 1990) and the process of epoché (Moustakas, 1994). Triangulation
164 was used to bolster internal validity through direct transcription and analysis of the interviews, field notes and memos, and member checking (Agostinho, 2005; Creswell, 2013). All of the participants were asked to review their interview transcripts. One participant elected to review her interview transcript, which resulted in no changes. The other participants declined for reasons unknown to the principal researcher. Semistructured interviews were conducted with the participants, with follow-up questions being asked when necessary to clarify or further excavate their answers. The 11 participants seemed to be thoughtful and forthright when answering, remaining open to the follow-up questions asked. In addition to credibility, external transferability was considered throughout the process to encourage confidence in the results and strengthen future research (Bowen, 2009; Locke, 2001). The researcher made a mindful attempt to keep the topic of gender impartial when conducting the interviews, heeding Glaser’s (2002) warning regarding the need for gender to emerge naturally in grounded theory (see Chapter 3). The interview questions did not directly inquire about gender, although some participants directly approached the subject and follow-up questions were asked regarding gender if deemed appropriate. Consequently, when gender appeared in the interviews, there was a plausible reason. Theoretical Saturation Theoretical saturation is “a defining characteristic of grounded theory” (Bowen, 2008, p. 139), which ensues at the conclusion of new category development from the data (see Chapter 3). Theoretical saturation reinforces a study’s rigor and enhances credibility and transferability, and occurs in grounded theory through the constant comparison of
165 data (Baturina, 2015; Bowen, 2009). As a result of the need to allow themes and patterns to emerge naturally versus imposing constructs on the data (Bowen, 2009), M. Mason (2010) and Powell (2012) indicated that theoretical saturation is a difficult presumption because of human perceptions of experiences. However, in this study, constant comparison of the data from the moment of first collecting data seemed to preclude that difficulty, as the data obtained relayed similar themes and patterns throughout, and comparisons among all of the participants yielded information that contributed to developing a grounded theory. Theoretical saturation was determined after the open coding of the ninth interview. At that point, five women in leadership and four women in junior positions had completed their interviews and the themes were merging. Theoretical saturation happened both within the individual groups as well as between the groups. The most identified themes for women in junior positions included: (a) expectations of contributing to the organization, (b) work–life balance, and (c) dedication of managers to the organization. Common themes for women in formal leadership were: (a) supporting subordinates, (b) commitment to organizational standards, and (c) professional autonomy. Themes frequently shared between the two groups included: (a) performing beyond job scope, (b) willingness and expectation to pursue formal or informal education, (c) developing and maintaining networks and connections, and (d) commitment to organizational culture. The final two interviews exposed the same themes. The only difference was P11, who opted out of formal leadership.
166 Overview of Grounded Theory Analysis Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all 11 participants and involved asking a set of nine open-ended interview questions designed to evoke thoughtful, forthright answers. A set of nine questions was formulated for the women in junior positions and a separate set was formulated for the women in formal leadership. The questions were similar in nature, but the wording varied in some of the questions in an effort to address the separate dynamics involved with the differing role responsibilities. Once an interview was completed, the researcher recorded field notes to describe the participant’s participatory style with the interviewer as well her interaction with the questions and answers. These field notes revealed some data that were not apparent through the interview transcripts, such as appearance and body language, voice fluctuations, and interruptions that may have happened. In addition, two participants revealed some information before or after the interview, agreeing to allow for its use as it provided value for the study. Nine of the 11 interviews were fully transcribed within 72 hours of their completion. Two transcriptions took longer because the researcher experienced some personal time constraints, but were completed as soon as possible. Line-by-line coding, or open coding, was conducted immediately after interview transcription. Open coding helped with the emergence of initial codes within the data (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Axial coding followed to identify protruding categories that enabled the emergence of patterns within the data. Connecting the axially coded data led to the process of selective coding—or theoretical coding—which represents the heart of the
167 phenomenon and enables conceptual theories to emerge (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Higginbottom & Lauridsen, 2014; Kelle, 2005; Thornberg, 2012). Presentation of Results The data from all 11 interviews were analyzed, and results revealed information leading to the development of the study’s emergent theories. Participants were classified as holding formal leadership or junior positions in their respective organizations based on introductory demographic questions (see Appendix D) designed to encapsulate the participants’ responsibilities within their organizational roles. The data obtained from each participant’s answers created information pertinent to classifying the participant, thus guiding the interview according to the study’s parameters. Once classified, the interviews resumed with the appropriate semi-structured interview questions. The coding paradigms explained below represent the codes that emerged directly from the participants’ responses to the interview questions. The coding process began with substantive coding, including open and axial coding (Holton, 2010). Open coding is rudimentary, as data are analyzed line-by-line throughout the interview transcripts. Open coding began immediately after each interview’s transcription and was completed within 48 hours to maximize the researcher’s engagement with the data. Open coding allows for the emergence of initial themes (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 1990), which creates opportunities to begin identifying common themes, words, and phrases among participants’ data (see Table 2). Axial coding designates common categories that protrude from the data (Kelle, 2005), germinating theoretical conceptualizations based on patterns identified directly from the participants’ words and experiences (see Table 3). Finally, selective codes reveal the
168 heart of the phenomenon (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Holton, 2010) as experienced by the participants (see Table 4). Coding the interview questions enabled the researcher to structure themes from the interview questions in relation to the research questions, where the primary themes indicated the relationships to the emergent theories (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Open Coding Coding began with a meticulous process of organizing data from each interview line-by-line. The data were coded manually, without the use of QDA software (see Chapter 3), in an effort to become acutely familiarized with the data. The line-by-line coding process yielded 2,006 open codes for women in formal leadership and 1,495 open codes for women in junior positions. These numbers excluded line codes that may not contribute to conceptual design (i.e., general demographics; a story might have occupied numerous lines and was condensed into one line-by-line code). As argued in Chapter 3, the line-by-line coding allowed insights and began the process of identifying emerging themes in the data (Birks et al., 2006; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Open themes were found directly within the transcribed verbosity for all of the interview questions (IQ6 was omitted; see Table 2).
169 Table 2 Number of Open Themes for Interview Questions (Excluding IQ6) IQ
# of Junior Themes
# Formal Leader Themes
1
10
29
2
23
39
3
20
31
4
16
32
5
29
19
7
18
27
8
23
50
9
22
37
Axial Coding Axial coding is used to identify relationships and connections between the open coded data, where protruding categories are separated and then converged to find emerging patterns in the data (Kelle, 2005). Using the process of epoché enabled the researcher to set aside any preconceived notions throughout the study (see Moustakas, 1994). In addition, the researcher used emotional intelligence and reflexivity (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014; Mills et al., 2006b) when evaluating the open themes to develop axial themes (see Table 3) within the data for the aforementioned interview questions. Glaser and Strauss (1967) called for grounded theorists to approach grounded theory studies with a clear mind to avoid forcing data categorization, consequently allowing for the organic emergence of conceptual development. Accordingly, the data were analyzed without consideration of the literature review to minimize the forcing of theory that might have been based on preconceived notions. Constructivist grounded theory, emerging from Corbin and Strauss’s later methodology (Kelle, 2005; Mills et al., 2006b), acknowledges the author’s role as a co-constructor of
170 experiences of the studied phenomenon (Charmaz, 2006; Mills et al., 2006b), helping to develop the implied meanings of the participants’ experiences. Therefore, the author’s positions of relational equality and reciprocity are essential for conceptual development (Mills et al., 2006a). The resulting axial themes that emerged from the interview questions can be reviewed in Table 3.
171 Table 3 Axial Themes for Interview Questions (Excluding IQ6) IQ 1
2
3
4
Junior Positions
Formal Leaders
1. Perform at “Next Level”
1. Work above level
2. Formal Mgt. Ed. Courses Available
2. Add value to org.
3. Flexibility to change departments internally
3. Being proactive
1. Work above current job scope
1. Willing to learn/adapt
2. Willing to make lateral moves
2. Autonomy
3. Work cross-functionally
3. Perform at next level
1. Manager Support
1. Career education
2. Team Support
2. Candid feedback
3. Organizational Support
3. Network/provide connections
1. Commitment to company values/culture
1. Own career plan
2. Furthering education-formal and informal
2. Connect/network 3. Understand process/expectations
3. Personal commitment to advancement 5
7
8
9
1. Manager feedback
1. Manager helps growth
2. Communication with managers
2. Professional relationship
3. Junior women’s reputation
3. Personal relationship
1. Mentorship/guidance
1. Formal/informal ed.
2. Training/education
2. Org. encourages for growth
3. Manager’s dedication to process
3. Mentorship
1. Time management
1. Trustworthiness
2. Effective communication
2. Trusting others
3. Recognition of employee individuality
3. Setting example
1. Challenges with WLB
1. Lack of performance
2. Networks/connections challenge
2. Personal barriers
3. Lack of mgt./organization support
3. Organizational barriers
172 Selective Coding Selective coding reveals the heart of the participants’ perceptions of the studied phenomenon (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Selective coding is also known as theoretical coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Higginbottom & Lauridsen, 2014; Kelle, 2005) and unites the data to find emerging theories. Finally, selective themes were established from the interview questions based on extensive scrutiny of the data provided from transcripts, memos, and field notes established throughout the research process. In addition, Glaser and Corbin’s (1967) concept of theoretical sensitivity empowered the determination of the importance or unimportance of specific data to the study (see Chapter 3). Table 4 contains the selective themes for the interview questions.
173 Table 4 Selective Themes for Interview Questions (Excluding IQ6) IQ
Junior
Formal
1
Aptitude to accept and embrace professional challenges
Opportunities exist for subordinates that actively demonstrate personal growth and professionally driven behaviors
2
An ability to work well with varying circumstances within the organization
Subordinates exhibiting dedication and desire to contribute personally and professionally to the organization
3
A multilayered support system throughout the organization
Offering subordinates regular performance feedback and providing opportunities for their professional growth
4
Taking proactive measures that reinforce an organization’s decision to commit resources to the junior woman
Having the ability, flexibility, willingness, and fortitude to accept responsibility for the advancement of self and others
5
Open communications between managers and subordinates based on subordinate’s perception of bringing value to the organization
Personal and professional balance is attempted attributing to needs of production and environment
7
Organizations are committed to providing ample resources to encourage subordinate’s leadership and management development
Educational opportunities are offered by the organization as well as encouraging managers to support subordinates
8
Recognizing organization’s goals and employee’s uniqueness concurrently to enhance competitively enticing balances
Exhibiting support through a reciprocating trust in words and actions
9
Undercurrents relating to a lack of organizational commitment to employees ability to utilize company’s support structures
Barriers created through lacking drive for personal development/performance or organizational constraints
Primary Themes The next step in the research involved a comparison of raw interview data in combination with using field notes and memos to create data set triangulation (Agostinho, 2005; Creswell, 2013), identifying patterns and relationships in the data and applying those patterns and relationships to the research questions. First, selective codes were compared by isolating each group’s interview answers to find the primary themes
174 for women in junior positions and the primary themes for women holding formal leadership positions. Interestingly, the only recurrent theme across the two groups was confidence (see Table 5) Table 5 Primary Themes for Interview Questions Junior
Formal
Commitment to the organization
Professional development
Support from the organization
Expectation of contributions to organization
Mutual openness
Trust/trustworthiness
Confidence
Building confidence
Women in Junior Positions Commitment to the organization. Interestingly, P3 and P5 worked for the same organization and had the same position. When asked, both participants identified themselves in the category of formal leadership. However, after clarifying the organization’s role definition, neither participant fit the study’s paradigm for formal leadership, so each was interviewed as a junior participant. P5 said she was responsible for helping managers with “day-to-day operations” and “advis[ing] for [coworkers] reviews,” adding, “but no one directly rolls up to me.” P10 described herself as an “unofficial team lead, which isn’t taken quite as seriously” by the organization or coworkers. P10 had changed departments four times in her tenure with the organization “by my own choice. That was me moving for information . . . to gain knowledge and experience.” P6 regularly exceeded the boundaries of her position to provide training classes to new employees. All of the junior participants remarked about the need for and importance of working beyond their current level to uncover advancement opportunities. Regarding
175 proving she had the ability to work above her current level, P5 stated, “You get a lot of exposure globally. I currently do a lot of testing . . . I get an opportunity to have firsthand [knowledge] with systems when they’re rolled out . . . it’ll help [with my] transition into my promotion . . . I’ll be known.” In an effort to raise her professional profile, P10 said: I’m focusing on the delegation of tasks . . . taking on extra pieces to our processes that our manager would generally do . . . so that’s made me more of a see and got to, it helps my team members to look up to me . . . and feel comfortable going to me whenever the manager’s not in. Support from the organization. This theme reflects the expectations the women in junior positions had of receiving support from the organization. With the exception of P6 (who said the organization had been upfront about an inability to support her goals), all of the junior participants reported receiving decent support for advancement from the organization. All of the participants reported on the training and educational opportunities offered by the organization, citing tuition reimbursement, support for licenses and certifications, training classes for soft and hard skills, technical training, and regular one-on-one sessions with managers. In addition, the junior participants alluded to opportunities for expanding their careers through networking events and community initiatives hosted by each participant’s respective organization. Furthermore, the organizations were open to allowing the junior participants to experience different internal groups (or departments) for knowledge expansion, as most of the junior participants had worked in different functional roles organizationally. P10 stated that her organization offered “mentorship programs, and [the company] really do[es] put that idea of [going into] one,” while also explaining that the organization gave “that place to connect with somebody higher and get that experience to
176 move forward or advance.” P7 had a similar sentiment, stating, “[The company] promotes a mentor program, where if you don’t have one, they’re willing to set you up with one . . . so I feel like they give you the opportunity, it’s just taking advantage of them.” However, regarding organizational support, there seemed to be some undercurrents regarding real or perceived boundaries to growth. For example, P3 explained, “The higher up you go, the smaller the number of positions there are to move into.” P7 enhanced that sentiment, saying that her group “only allow[s] one person . . . to be in a specific role,” going on about her manager, “so I feel like, even though the two of us . . . have the same product knowledge, we have the same experience . . . I can’t move up until she leaves.” Regarding barriers, P10 opined, “experience, gaining the experience,” acknowledging that her unofficial role did not allow: Me in a one-on-one . . . with [my manager’s] direct reports, because that would be a confidentiality thing for the other associates since I’m not an actual lead . . . so I can’t really learn the direct managing skills. In addition, P10 noted that her organization “value[s] titles a little more than they should . . . we don’t always have the title, we have the knowledge and experience.” Organizational barriers might be exacerbated by stereotypes as well. P3 stated, “I do feel like women have less of a chance than a male,” illuminating that “I don’t know how to explain it, I just feel like men stick together . . . they’re pals, they’re easier to promote than women are.” P6 stated: We do have several mid-level managers that are women . . . [and] . . . a couple of senior managers that are women too, but I just feel like, for the most part, it is probably easier to advance as a man . . . [Men] still get paid more, everybody knows that [chuckle] for the same job, you know, there’s still some old mantalities [sic], or feelings that uh, impact decisions.
177 P6 opined, “A lot of people like working under a man, they just feel like men could be stronger leaders . . . you know, men have been allowed to lead a lot longer.” Interestingly, concerning the potential for disagreements with leaders, P6 emboldened the stereotype and said that in those cases, “I might prefer [working for] a man because I think it could potentially make it easier for them to not get their emotions in it if you’re not friends with them.” Later in the interview, P6 remarked: I think that women have had to fight a lot harder to get where they are and they should understand what it takes to get there . . . and [want] to support someone else to do that . . . having other people succeed makes [women] feel good. P7 described that “My team is mostly male, there’s only two females on the team out of, I would say, 15,” but as the only millennial participant, she did not see that as being a barrier. Conditions regarding perceptions of work–life balance (WLB) were prevalent. Interestingly, P5 suggested, “I can easily put in a 60-hour week and can do that again because of my situation.” She clarified situation as meaning personal life, continuing by stating, “I also see where [my situation] has allowed me the opportunity for advancement.” In addition, P5 talked about management consideration for other employees in the same vein: “Unfortunately I see that . . . because depending on the person’s situation, depending on the position, that definitely plays a part in the decisionmaking.” P3 stated: If a woman is married with children I think it’s definitely harder for her to be in . . . a top type management role . . . I think the feeling is that women would . . . not be as dedicated maybe. P10 said, “I know my direct manager, her husband yells at her all the time . . . she’s on at 6:00 a.m. . . . and stays on until well past 7:00 p.m.” Speaking about her other direct manager, P10 stated, “later . . . he’ll log in from home and check up on things . . . which
178 can also be detrimental because then that’s all they’re thinking about, you know, all the time,” opining that long hours were necessary for managers because her group was “very budget conscious, so I don’t think they assign enough managers to cover the tasks for the teams they have.” In addition to WLB, the junior participants described limitations during work hours. Many of the organizations’ training and learning opportunities were offered during working hours. P7 was asked, “Do you think your workload and the thinness of your team hurts your ability to network?” and what she would do differently if she had more time. P7 responded: I’d definitely make sure . . . [to] . . . attend more of the manager’s meetings . . . classes that they have [for development] . . . it just really helps for insight . . . would help me move forward. P6 talked about similar challenges, stating, “You’re busy and it’s during work hours and it’s hard to get your boss to be like, ‘yeah, go to that,’ when we’ve got work to do.” Mutual openness. This theme exemplifies the connections developed by reciprocal trust and loyalty between the women in junior positions and organizational leaders. Manager feedback was indicated in every interview and created a basis for this theme. P10 perceived a “push and encouragement to be open with your manager and your manager should be able to give you feedback is definitely valued.” P5 indicated that her manager “listens, she’s a great listener. She’s fair . . . if she sees your qualities and . . . capabilities she will definitely push for you.” P6, whose goals did not line up with those of her organization, shared that “my boss already told me, he’s like ‘there’s no way you’re going to get your [license] right now’ . . . I appreciate that he told me because I don’t want to sit here and waste my time.” P3 explained, “there’s no feeling of not being
179 able to go to any of . . . the people I report to with . . . concerns or problems, or even issues with management in general.” Leadership style was another important factor for mutual openness, tending toward leader-member exchange theory (LMX), primarily related to the reliance of the women in junior positions on leaders to take control of relationship-building functions (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). P10 opined: I really think that everybody wants something different in a leader . . . you need to determine . . . what it is that your team needs as a whole, as well as each individual on your team so that you have the right connection. P6 remarked, “[leadership] really depends on the individual,” continuing to discuss a woman leader P6 was connected to at another organization to which she was hoping to move, stating “she’s very strong, she’s not a gossip . . . she’s very intelligent, she knows her stuff and I know that if I needed her to back me up on something she would.” P5 commented, “[my managers] don’t play a lot of politics . . . which is appreciated . . . they ensure you’re protected . . . they’ll hear every side of the story, and most times support you.” Regarding the culture between managers and subordinates, P7 opined, “I’d say it’s very open. We sit on the same floor together, it’s not like anything’s hidden or discussed behind closed doors . . . it’s really open and understanding.” Confidence. Confidence accounted for two perspectives: (a) how the participants’ leaders helped build the participants’ confidence to take steps to advance, and (b) the confidence organizational leaders had toward investing resources for the study’s participants to advance. P3 portrayed a former manager who helped her get into her position now: “he . . . really mentored me and took me under his wing and groomed me . . . I worked with him a couple of years.” Speaking of the same manager, P3 said, “He knew I was ready to move up, he felt like I was ready to take the next step . . . he . . .
180 nurtured and showed me exactly how I needed to progress to get there.” P10 described her current leader as, “giving the freedom for us to make our own decisions . . . and she trusts us with most of them.” P5 explained that her current leaders “[expose] you to opportunities by putting you in positions where you can be exposed,” “[push] for you,” and “he knows what he’s doing and he teaches well.” Regarding a woman who was now managing another organization—P6 was hopeful to move there because she helped P6 with onboarding in her current organization—P6 said: She’s worked with me before . . . strong leader . . . doesn’t put up with a lot of BS . . . because I networked with her and I know what that environment would be like . . . I have a good opportunity to grow there. P7 indicated a dichotomy between her two immediate managers, stating that one “has very good . . . management of team . . . [his] personality can manage everybody’s personalities . . . address[ing] issues appropriately for each individual.” The other manager P7 described as “very good at product knowledge and . . . understanding the process and asking questions to make sure we all do it right.” Women in Formal Leadership Professional development. This theme encompasses the participants’ functional and psychological support for subordinates’ advancement into roles of increased professional responsibility. All of the women in formal positions demonstrated a commitment to professional development personally, as well as to that of their subordinates. P2 responded, “certainly helping coach them and understand what they need to do above and beyond their day-to-day [responsibilities].” Referring to a subordinate who might have goals to work in a different group, P9 explained: I will seek peers of mine that may be willing to mentor them if specific project opportunities come up . . . I’ll basically open up those opportunities for them to be
181 able to prove themselves . . . if they’re successful that could potentially open up a door. P11 stated, “Managers are encouraged to create development plans with their [direct reports]” and “work with them in identifying strengths and weaknesses . . . coach them . . . in terms of what they needed to do to get to that next level.” P4 indicated that managers “[give] them real-time constructive feedback . . . we have that dialog continuously . . . we want to see people progress.” Expectation of contributions to organization. There was an expectation for subordinates to contribute to organizational goals before realizing career advancement. P4 stated, “the business wants their return on investment.” In addition, P4 said, “folks that are more humble, in terms of . . . take a lateral move to build [their] resume” should “expand . . . bandwidth . . . knowing the long-term ROI” will help career growth. P9 stated, “there’s definitely the component of performing . . . above expectations . . . it’s about what are you doing to go above and beyond . . . there’s that component as in all major firms.” P9 continued, “there’s a little bit of that . . . dog and pony show that you have to do, to make sure that people know how you’re contributing.” P2 explained, “our company is very much focused on the culture . . . stem[ming] from a global level . . . but promotion [is] from the local level.” Therefore, P2 suggested that employees looking for promotions get involved with local “employee engagement groups where they can serve on a committee . . . [leveraging] even something that they like to do personally . . . serving the community [so] they can engage through the company.” P8 indicated that in her realm, “The most successful people I have seen in this business have an attitude of abundance.” Regarding being asked to run a training session for some partners in her industry, P8 responded:
182 It was an honor to be asked by the managing partner . . . it also helps me to sharpen my saw . . . because if I am to mentor these young advisors, I’d better be doing it right myself. P1 explained that to help morale and teamwork: You have to support your team and your team has to know that . . . you support them and you’re going to fight for them, you’re not going to win every battle . . . in the end stand up for them . . . help them get the job done. Trust/trustworthiness. Trust is the ability and willingness to put confidence in subordinates, while trustworthiness explains why subordinates should believe that the leaders are acting in the subordinates’ best interests. P1 said, “My two rules are treat people the way you want to be treated and trust everyone unless they prove they can’t be trusted.” Talking about gaining respect as a leader, P1 stated, “I think that people want to believe they can trust you and part of that is the . . . aura you project.” P4 explained trustworthiness as the influence of people: “I look to as my mentors . . . people that I bounce my ideas off of . . . people that I, in confidence” could ask for professional advice. Regarding trust, P4 opined, “I think trust is one of those things, trust but verify . . . individually you have to learn, you have to get burnt a couple of times before you evolve” explaining that sometimes that takes “experience and maturity.” P9 described a current leader, expressing “there’s this trustworthiness about him . . . his level of integrity . . . a level of commitment that he exhibits every single day that [makes] us [want] to work for him.” P11 acknowledged leadership style as an aspect of developing trustworthiness as a leader, stating: So to me . . . having an open door policy is huge . . . flexibility, huge in my world . . . working a ton of hours and [having] a huge load, if they got to work from home . . . I gave them a ton of flexibility.
183 P11 continued, “because I couldn’t give them more help or potentially more money . . . I could give them all the work and home life balance that they needed.” P8 explained, “when I make a sale . . . I don’t say I made the sale—we made the sale. We brought on a new client, we made new client bonus, so it’s very collaborative.” P2 opined that “managers have different styles of managing.” Regarding P2’s style, she said: For me personally, we are all humans at the end of the day, and I spend a lot more time with these people than I do my own family so from a personal perspective, I like to know something about everyone that works for me. Thus, the expressed styles of the women in formal leadership aligned with transformational leadership through stimulating subordinates emotionally or intellectually to bolster subordinate commitment (Bass, 1990; Eisenbeiss & Boerner, 2013; Yucel et al., 2014). Many of the participants explained how a lack of trustworthiness can or has inhibited performance. For example, P11 stated, “when I had a jerk as a manager . . . I still have the work ethic . . . it’s who I am. . . but I think you do [the job] . . . reluctantly and not with the same sort of satisfaction or eagerness.” In addition, P2 explained “consistency with communication and decisions” as one of her current manager’s “communication doesn’t seem very clear, or I might leave thinking one thing and then the next week . . . it’s something slightly different.” Furthermore, P4 described: Leaders that are wishy-washy, or that I know are going to take credit for the work but do not do the work . . . are not the folks that I am going to align myself with . . . proceed with caution. Building confidence. This theme encompasses a twofold mission: a leader’s ability to demonstrate self-confidence as well as leaders increasing the confidence of subordinates. In addition to the aforementioned organizational offerings of classes and training opportunities, this includes organic methods of confidence building. For
184 example, explaining a challenging situation in a former organization, P1 said her manager said, “’we’ll get you any help that you need . . . keep making progress,’ and at the end of the day I think I came out a much stronger person and was promoted.” P1 explained, “I also think it’s important to publicly praise people . . . let everybody know that they did a great job . . . celebrate accomplishments.” Explaining the importance of professionally evolving, P4 stressed “continuing to learn . . . educate and expand your network and expand your footprint . . . your personal brand.” P11 explained leading as “a partnership, it’s not telling your directs . . . ‘go do it,’ it’s really, ‘this is what we need to do . . . how can I help you accomplish it.’” Describing the importance of mentorship, P2 opined, “I think one needs to own their own individual career plan and they need to . . . engage their manager.” Stereotypes of women also emerged from the data regarding building confidence. P9 opined that “as a female we have a tendency to either put ourselves in a more support function . . . I guess . . . we’re afraid to say what it is that we want out of our career.” Interestingly, when discussing promotional interviewing, P11 stated, “it just happens to be that the better candidate––and I wasn’t the only one interviewing on the panel . . . always seems to be a guy.” Discussing leadership style, P2 explained, “My approach might be a little bit different, just because being a female I can empathize better with a female.” Conferring an “implied quota” for diversity, P4 explained, “we are going to select the most qualified candidate regardless of race, gender, ethnicity . . . we want to show the paper trail, per say, that our due diligence has been satisfied.” Regarding women above 30 years old, P9 opined, “I think we’re still kind of fighting that stereotype, that women can’t be as much as their male counterparts.”
185 Research Findings This section provides answers to the research questions (see Table 1) assembled from the primary themes (see Table 5). In Chapter 3, the researcher aligned the interview questions with the appropriate research questions. The primary themes were found through the aforementioned exhaustive coding processes, reducing the data through the use of transcripts, field notes, and data. Participant responses are included in this section to add validity regarding their perspectives and the themes that emerged. Research Question 1 For women in junior positions: Are the perceptions held by women in junior positions of women in formal leadership roles within their organization systems thinking driven? For women in formal leadership: Are the perceptions held by women in formal leadership positions of how women in junior positions perceive the advancement of women in formal leadership positions within their organization systems thinking driven? Palaima and Skarzauskiene (2010) stated that achieving a systems thinking mentality requires that an organization realize the system’s parts as “open socio-cultural systems that are capable of self-organization” (p. 332). Thus, an openness to learning facilitates human resource utilization to augment competitiveness (Dawidowicz, 2012). Dawidowicz (2012) opined that various members of a system should contribute to decision-making, further creating connections among organizational stakeholders and increasing organizational flexibility (Laszlo, 2012). A systems thinking approach might align stakeholders’ expectations with an organization’s values in an attempt at unification
186 (Gharajedaghi, 2007). Consequently, RQ1 was designed to uncover the consistency in views between the two groups regarding perceptions of advancing. The primary themes of commitment to the organization and expectations of contributions to the organization emerged from the participant responses such as expectations of working beyond one’s role, stepping out of comfort zones, and having a willingness to embrace feedback. For example, when the junior women were asked what qualities managers considered for promotions, P3 stated, “willing to do not just the norm but go above and beyond . . . to think outside the box.” When asked about working above her current level, P7 replied, “almost every day,” and noted observing that responsibility for others as well. P9, a woman in formal leadership, when asked about the path for advancement for subordinates in the organization, replied: There’s definitely the component of performing and performing above expectations. It’s not just about “here are the goals and you meet them,” to me that’s just meeting expectations. I think it’s about “what are you doing to go above and beyond that?” There’s that component, as in all major firms––and I’ve worked at 2 different massive financial institutions. Participant 11 explained, “yes, so . . . absolutely, you’re expected to basically do the job that you want before you get it,” while P4 remarked: When we are grooming talent and having conversations with individuals that are up and coming, what we consider rising stars or high-potentials, those conversations with them are very creative in terms of expanding your network, going above and beyond to maybe, being on a side committee or doing some charitable event or getting involved with a group, to where they’re able to present themselves, when a slate of talent is needed that they would fit in that skill set. Women in junior positions often seemed to embrace feedback from managers, although most of the women in junior positions expected that feedback to be negative. For example, P3 remarked that one-on-ones with managers and VPs were used to ask for “direct feedback . . . that I need to improve or . . . need to learn to help me . . . start
187 looking towards the next level.” In addition, P10 opined that reviews were not helpful for feedback, as the organization changed from a 1 to 5 scale to a 1 to 3 scale. P10 explained that with the 1 to 5 scale: When you get a 4 you know you’re still in the middle but you’re doing a little bit better. Now it’s really you’re—does not meet, meet, or exceeds, and it’s just flat. You get a little bit of feedback, but it’s kind of the same feedback every year it seems. Women in formal leadership also assumed that feedback referred to improvements needed. For example, P9 stated: I was never afraid of feedback––I think a lot of individuals are afraid of . . . hearing what are the things that I’m doing wrong. My biggest thing has been tell me what I’m doing wrong so I can get better. P4 explained challenges with having feedback conversations: We’ve got training modules around, you know, how do you have a difficult conversation because in reality, that’s where our managers really struggle is they would rather lay somebody off rather than have a difficult conversation telling them that they’re underperforming. Also related to RQ1, the primary themes of support from the organization and professional development emerged. Formal and informal education opportunities offered through direct organizational support as well as personal support by the leaders is one aspect of systems thinking. All of the participants described internal opportunities offered by the organization, with courses available for developing explicit knowledge (i.e., technology, systems) and expanding tacit knowledge (i.e., time/people management). Women in junior positions, such as P10, said, “[The organization has] a lot of opportunities to advance knowledge,” while P5 explained, “They make it very easy for you to take any type of courses that you’d like.” The women in formal leadership had similar perceptions, as P9 explained:
188 So there’s definitely like management fundamentals types of courses. We have both online resources that you can kind of just download to your phone. Such as like––what is it like Harvard Business Journal . . . they provide us with like a 24x7 library of books that we can just download onto our phone or to our iPads and read, aside from the actual virtual classrooms that they also have online. You know, if you wanted to develop a specific skill set because you know it’s going to help you in your current function, you know there isn’t a hesitation for you to ask for, “hey, I found this class, it’s $1000 would the bank fund it” as long as it’s something that’s going to help you in the current function, I just don’t see them saying no. So the opportunity’s there plus there’s also tuition reimbursement that the bank provides, so there’s definitely, I mean they’ll also sponsor you for your specific licenses for what you want to do within the industry, so that there’s definitely-and it’s not just––like it’s hard skills but they also have like soft skills workshops, so you know how to improve your communication skills and how to lead through influence and those types of roles provided. Regarding managers’ provisions of functional and psychological support, P7 explained, “Not my direct management but the management above my direct management is very supportive in what we do, and show appreciation, but I feel it is, uh, lacking in our immediate.” When prompted regarding direct management, P7 replied: My direct manager does not really understand what we do [laugh], so understanding and appreciating the time that we put in to actually making things right . . . is a bit glossed over. Whereas his manager and the managers above definitely see [the effort], and recognize it, and appreciate it. Describing a direct manager, P10 said, “I really think that she has . . . the whole office interest in mind and she sees my potential. She also works to allow me extra opportunities because she knows I want to grow.” Discussing the support given by formal leaders, P11 explained, “management is encouraged . . . to be sort of supporting, supporting the employees along.” P4 stated: I will hold mock interviews sessions to prepare them, because a lot of people you have to think they haven’t interviewed within the last 12 months, and the land changes. Uh, we have to be very mindful of who the candidate is. Participant 2 explained: So we have a couple of different . . . depending on the level it does differ . . . but certainly helping coach them and understand what they need to do above and
189 beyond their day-to-day particularly at the higher corporate title levels, the expectation is that you contribute to the company and in particular to the location that you work in. So what I try to help them understand is that their personal brand is important in the promotional process and that they need to realize that it’s bigger than what they do day-to-day. The themes of mutual openness and trust/trustworthiness were also significant when considering a systems thinking perspective. These themes describe a reciprocation of belief, openness, and trust between leaders and subordinates and the ability of each group to establish, develop, and maintain confidence in joint relationships. P7 indicated opportunities “that allow us to grow ourselves” regarding “open forum[s]” with managers where subordinates could go and hear stories and ask questions “so you can go and discuss open-ended, see where you can grow as a person and then from there you can take it into your team.” P5 worked closely with other domestic and international organizational locations. Her office was “becoming the main hub, so I get a lot of exposure with that” and “it will help me you know with my transition into my promotion because I’ll already know main contacts, I’ll be known.” The role for P5 right now “allow[s] me to opportunity to reach for that level-or at least have what it takes to perform at that level.” Connections and networking are key components of mutual openness and trust/trustworthiness. For example, women in junior positions like P10 “believe that there’s a push and encouragement to be open with your manager and your manager should be able to give you feedback is definitely valued.” She went on to explain, “You kind of guide your own relationship with your manager––based on your goals as well as the needs of the business.” P6 kept in contact with many people who used to work with her, and told some stories about her contacts’ experiences at other organizations, iterating the importance of being:
190 Careful about burning bridges or getting a bad reputation, or uh, not doing a good job because you never know who’s going to be at the next bank . . . so it’s kind of important to keep those contacts open and do a good job so you can climb. P6 expressed the importance of being “a positive influence on the team––not come in there and be negative and complain and uh, you know, bellyache––because then that just spoils everything . . . it kind of spreads on the team.” The importance of mutual openness and trust/trustworthiness was also perceived by the women in formal positions. Interestingly, the formal leaders signified the importance of subordinates proving their trustworthiness through mutual openness before conveying advancement opportunities. For example, P9 stated: So, I think first thing is I need them to tell me who are they coaching up to be their replacement. Because obviously I will support you, but I also I’m going to hurt when you leave, so therefore the first thing I look for is who are you raising up to take your place? And that just helps me from a management perspective for succession planning. But, absolutely, and I think let’s say I have someone who’s in project management that works with me in operations but their goal is really to move into technology, then I will seek peers of mine that may be willing to mentor them. Or if specific project opportunities come up that have a technology component, then I’ll basically open up those opportunities for them to be able to prove themselves and then if they’re successful that could potentially open up a door for them. Participant 11 similarly said: So, we would put . . . [together] . . . an action plan for development . . . so you would, I would work with them in identifying strengths and weaknesses. And we’d talk about––you coach them to what they––in terms of what they needed to do to get to that next level. And I’ll tell you things like, visibility was very big in our area, and so you’d make sure that they would be handed a project or make them lead on a project that would get visibility. Participant 4, in discussing the organization’s stance on internal promotions, said: We’re huge champions of that, uh, and partially because we have so much attrition, and a lot of that is very good attrition. So we’re having the . . . what we call the domino effect that goes into play, so some very senior person gets promoted that, uh, in terms creates vacancy and hence the domino effect . . . so we don’t have any struggles in getting internal associates to have an interest . . . it’s really different creating who are those that we call rising stars and who are
191 those content players. That, at the end of the day, could very well be beats, meets and performing their role well, but who are those folks that are stepping out of the box becoming those exceeds players. Those are the folks that typically have a more, uh, strategic advantage on being elevated quickly. Participant 2 described the organization’s preferred path to grow into executive level roles: So, our company is very much focused on the culture . . . right . . . and that really stems from I think probably a global level but more important when it comes to promotion it’s from the local level. So as an example we have a number of employee engagement groups where they can serve on a committee . . . and that obviously provides opportunities for networking across business groups and things like that because the company that I work for is very diverse, and the businesses it supports . . . so using those opportunities to network is really, really key. The interviews with the women in junior positions provided data regarding the participants’ perceptions of a need to commit and contribute value to an organization to prepare for, earn, and withstand advancement through the organization’s hierarchy. The interviews with the women in formal leadership provided data regarding their perceptions of the various support mechanisms offered by their organizations to prepare subordinates for the personal and professional challenges accompanying formal leadership roles. A systems thinking view necessitates the alignment of organizational and stakeholder values (Gharajedaghi, 2007). Though the data show that both groups’ perceptions were aligned, the organizations’ masculinized constructs created a systemic fault line separating the perceptions of ability between women in junior positons and women in formal leadership roles. Consequently, women in formal leadership espoused roles of support, while ultimately expecting results demanded by the organization’s masculinized constructs. Meanwhile, women in junior positions understood the need for results oriented
192 (masculinized) behavior, but seemed misdirected as a result of their substantial reliance on leadership. Research Question 2 The second research question was the same for both participant groups: How, if at all, do stereotype threat and role incongruence affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions to achieve formal leadership positions? For this study, stereotype threat referred to the pressure women might feel to represent communal traits in a masculinized environment, leading to poor performance or underperformance. Role incongruity represents the prejudice women perceive based on a lack of fitting in with gendered expectations in a professional environment. Autopoiesis, as defined in this research, is the study of the interrelationships and interdependencies of organizational stakeholders to perpetuate self-reproduction within the organization (Nakajima, 2015; Urrestarazu, 2011a, 2011b). Motivation is an endeavor of individuality, as value in a function or role must be realized for enthusiastic actions to occur willingly from an individual (Schermerhorn et al., 2011). Therefore, the participants’ pairing self-descriptions with the identification of what their organizations were seeking for leadership traits—either communal or agentic—might affect the participants’ motivation to pursue formal leadership or develop new leaders. The primary themes of commitment to the organization and confidence correlated with this question for the women in junior positions. P3 had a very short answer when asked about opportunities to advance with the organization, stating simply, “I get feedback from my tech manager, there are management courses that I can take . . . that’s pretty much, pretty much it,” perhaps indicating a lack of motivation to ask questions or
193 seek deeper guidance. When asked what qualities managers were looking for from promotional candidates, P5 described an agentic trait, “strength,” which she defined as “grab the bull by the horns . . . not afraid to take initiative in reaching out” to higher level employees. P10 explained that she stayed in contact with a prior director: “We became pretty close in my old department, and I’ll run things by her and try to get some insight from the outside.” Her explanation indicated some discomfort with assertiveness: Things you can’t always discuss with your direct manager because you don’t always want to go to your direct manager with a complaint or a “I wish I could”. . . so it’s nice to have the ear of somebody who has been through it and has been through the steps, sort of made it up the chain. However, the women in junior positions also noted the need to portray agentic traits for advancement. P5 proclaimed, “If I do go to my manager, ensure that I have at least a couple resolutions to the problem . . . not being afraid to, you know, jump in there and make sure things get resolved.” P10 chose to change departments “to gain knowledge and experience” and thought finishing a bachelor’s degree might help her with advancement. In addition, P10 proclaimed that she had to be quite proactive, going to her manager and saying, “I’m very interested in project management, please put me on a project . . . I kind of have to push and say I want to do that particular thing.” The women in junior positions used both agentic and communal traits when describing effective leadership. In discussing agentic and communal traits, P3 explained “being able to get the job done, and making sure that those working under you are getting the job done correct, on time . . . but also working with them as far as their home life as well.” P7 said, “You want to get your people out, you don’t want them to sit there,” so managing “the quality of work–life balance and time.” P6 explained the importance of recognizing weaknesses and strengthening them, as well as managers “put[ting] you in a
194 place where you can succeed.” P6 also expressed the importance of communication, stating, “your delivery means a lot . . . you’ve got to communicate in a way that the other person can understand it, and you know, take it to heart.” Making the case for agentic traits when describing effective leadership, P3 added “making sure everyone is pulling their own weight . . . so that one individual isn’t getting burned out” while other people are “slacking off.” P7 stated, “I think effective management revolves around managing the workload to the time, people, quality, and I guess monetary,” and “making sure your team’s knowledgeable about the product and not just going blindly in there.” Two of the women in junior positions espoused barriers specifically for women’s advancement within the industry. Regarding women’s barriers for advancement, P3 stated, “I just feel like men just kind of stick together . . . they’re friends, they’re pals, they’re easier to promote than women are.” When asked if having more women in leadership might help that, P3 opined, “It probably depends on, you know, the other management surrounding the women.” In addition, P6 proclaimed: Other barriers besides being a woman . . . I don’t know if it’s necessarily a barrier, but the “mentality” of businesses nowadays, that [men are] probably shortsighted in the way they run things . . . focused on reaching certain financial goals or reaching this bottom line to make their shareholders happy. For the women in formal leadership, the primary themes of building confidence and professional development aligned with the tenets of RQ2. There was dedication from the formal leaders toward developing subordinates for advancement, so long as the subordinates showed initiative and drive, typically agentic traits—echoing the leaders’ expectations of subordinates outlined in RQ1. However, a combination of communal and agentic traits was most often found in the formal leaders’ responses. P9 explained that in
195 her organization the promotions were based on merit “and based on your performance through those years and both how you perform during the panel interviews.” When asked to define the expectations associated with “merit base,” P9 stated, “so the good thing about our organization is that we’re very much results driven” requiring “kind of an entrepreneurial spirit where you, you’re kind of in control of your own destiny.” Emphasizing a “gender component,” P9 opined that regarding her perception of women in the workplace: As a female we have a tendency to either put ourselves in a more support function, or we I guess maybe, I . . . I mean I don’t get it . . . I’m trying to, I guess we-we-we’re afraid. We’re afraid to say what it is that we want out of our career, and I don’t know if that comes from, you know, just from how social we were brought up . . . but for a male counterpart of mine, he didn’t hesitate to say “yeah, put me in for that!” And then, I think also that as a married female, and with having children, there are a lot more things that I have to factor in. The fact that I want to be an involved mom in my children’s life, and both me and my husband work, so it’s just . . . I had to be very careful as to what opportunities I put my name out there for, because what if I can’t fulfill it because I have responsibilities at home that I need to meet. So, I think that’s . . . that’s really, I think from a gender perspective, I think that’s the thing. I think the other thing, when it doesn’t have to do with gender––I think that some individuals just weren’t as outgoing, or weren’t as daring about saying the things they want out of life. P11 opted out of management recently because “I just felt the support wasn’t there, and you were expected to do a lot more with a lot less.” Interestingly, indicating communal traits, P11 stated that she had not gone above her manager’s level regarding the lack of support. She stated: I saw resources going into the areas, uh, quite frankly didn’t need it. [The organization] saw they needed it, but because they have the potential to make more money . . . which makes sense, right, I mean it is a corporation at the end of the day . . . but in the meantime [my team’s] drowning. However, regarding her perceptions of men and women in the industry, P11 opined: I mean like I said, those that reported to me were––got along pretty well. Uh, I’m trying to think of . . . uh, no, they got along pretty well, I was very fortunate. I know that’s not necessarily always the case . . . there were more men, the men
196 like do things together, uh, go out for drinks, you know go pick up lunch together and uh, there as really only one other female, and so she was very much sort of on her own. She couldn’t hang out with me being that it’s you know, I’m the boss, so we––there’s always that line you don’t cross, uh even though I never sort of, even though I never sort of gave that off because we were all outside of the office friends––uh, there’s always that line, I guess that you know, you can go get lunch and things like that, but you better not be doing anything outside of work or anything like that. So she was very much sometimes, uh, isolated versus the guys, because, yeah, they were all men. [My husband] always makes that point, uh––I think I’ve always gotten along better with men, not that I didn’t get along better with her, but you know, also, whenever we interviewed them, I’m going to hire a man and I never really thought that . . . it just happens to be that the better candidate––and I wasn’t the only one interviewing on the panel––but the better candidate always seems to be a guy. Uh, so the interview’s different . . . it’s just, they were a better fit in my mind. I couldn’t, it’s not like I had a whole lot of women to, to pick from either . . . I don’t know if you’ve picked up on this, but you know, women aren’t very, you know, abundant in the industry. So, there isn’t the same pool of uh of people to pick from. And it was very specialized, we’re fixed income managers, and a lot of times, you have to be very specialized in another entire asset class. You have to be very specialized . . . you know, you’re reducing your potential pool even further. P2 noted both communal and agentic traits as being necessary for potential leaders: So what I’m looking for, especially for someone who is going to become a people manager . . . they need to be well-rounded in their ability to apply strategic leadership understanding, how to communicate and how to motivate people from different backgrounds. I think someone who’s fair in their judgement as well, and then they need to have some level of autonomy. But also need to understand when to seek guidance and approval . . . so someone doesn’t necessarily have to be a subject matter expert in the particular function or task. P4 leaned toward agentic traits regarding building confidence and professional development: You know, you have to continue to learn and you have to continually tell people to evolve, you know. You essentially are firming up your competition on a daily basis when you look at your peers around you. How are you developing your own brand? What are you known for? How do you stand out strategically or against your peers, that essentially at the end of the day you could be competing for that promotional opportunity. Describing effective leaders, P4 specified agentic and communal traits: I like mavericks . . . they in my view who are effective are the ones who will make a decision––if it’s the right decision, fantastic, if it’s the wrong decision
197 they own it. You learn from it and we move forward. Effective leaders are leaders that can communicate on all levels, so how I articulate the message to one group of individuals I may have to craft that a little differently to get the same results with another group of individuals. Knowing that audience and being able to relate to them and still getting the same result at the end of the day, is important in a leader. P8 acknowledged the importance of agentic traits in the industry, stating, “It’s really, uh, if you can handle the demands and have a thick skin, I think our industry tends to attract very driven professionals.” The interviews with the women in junior positions revealed each participant’s level of motivation for professional growth and confidence that she could add value to the organization and the organization’s stakeholders. The interviews with the women in formal leadership revealed perceptions of the importance of developing subordinates for a leadership role. Expectations of a balance of agentic and communal traits were found within both groups. However, the leaders expected agentic traits (e.g., proactive, drive) from subordinates to initiate negotiations of professional development and organizational promotion. The differences in average industry tenure between women in junior positions and women in formal leadership exhibited evidence for the expectation of agentic traits through habituation (Dember, 1990; Nickerson, 1990). The women in junior positions accepted and acknowledged the agentic expectations, but also exhibited the inclination to cling to traditional role prescriptions of communality. Consequently, the autopoietic motivation of the women in junior positions to advance was affected by stereotype threat and role incongruity. Research Question 3 Research Question 3 was the same for both participant groups: What influence, if any, does the perception of women in formal leadership roles breaking the glass ceiling
198 have on the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions who are trying to advance into formal leadership? In this study, the glass ceiling described an artificial barrier that impedes women’s vertical advancement in the masculinized environment of the U.S. banking and finance industry. The U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) proposed that a glass ceiling might constrain human capital pipelines because of unequal compensation, lack of line positions that lead to executive positions, unequal access to talent development, and lack of referrals for qualified candidates (see Dominguez, 1991, p. 716). These elements appeared in some form in every participant’s response. For the junior women, the primary themes that aligned with RQ3 were confidence and commitment to the organization. P3 stated, “The higher up you go the smaller number of positions there are to move into,” while P10 explained: Within my company, it’s a teeny bit difficult unless you get into the right department . . . because a lot of positions now have gotten rid of that middle position of being like the team lead, or assistant supervisor kind of deal. P6, who was looking to advance in her previous organization, declared “when I worked at [the other bank] . . . they’re like ‘no, you don’t have any . . . experience,’ and I’m like, ‘how am I supposed to get experience if you don’t let me?’” P5 said, “This is my second company working in the financial industry, and [the receptiveness and mentoring] is definitely appreciated.” She went on to explain that there was a lot of competition within her workplace, “and I do believe most of the individuals that are at my level have had to had . . . drive to get there.”
199 Another element of the glass ceiling that was mentioned was the discrepancy in pay between men and women. P6 exclaimed, “I want equal pay for women and men for the same job!” In addition, P6 stated: I think in upper management, I think it’s easier to advance as a man, but we do have several mid-level managers that are women. And we do have a couple of senior managers that are women too, but I just feel like, for the most part, it probably is easier to advance as a man. They still get paid more [chuckle] for the same job and everybody knows that so it’s, you know, there’s still some old uh mantalities [sic], or feelings, that uh, impact decisions, and a lot of people like working under a man, they just feel like men could be stronger leaders, because women haven’t had that leadership role for as long as men have. You know, men have been allowed to lead a lot longer so people are like wow, a female manager, so it’s not uncommon, but it’s not as common [as having] male managers, so yeah, I do think that it’s easier to for men to advance, uh, to the management position. P3 also expressed deflated feelings regarding the glass ceiling phenomenon, opining, “I feel more is expected out of females than it is out of males.” All of the junior participants expressed the perceived need to make lateral moves to broaden their product and brand knowledge before advancing to formal leadership. P10 had been with her organization for 10 years and had changed departments four times for the purpose of learning for advancement. P10 thought she could move to a certain department for a promotion, but the department had very unstable hours, and she admitted, “I would have to be willing to work the odd hours and all that jazz,” though she was not in a personal situation to do so. However, regarding promotional opportunities, P10 said, “They’re usually looking outside of the group that you’re in, so somebody that’s already doing a management type of role.” The themes for the women in formal leadership that also contained elements of the glass ceiling phenomenon were expectation of contributions to the organization and
200 building confidence. Like the women in junior positions, the leaders expressed limited numbers of available positions. P9 stated: You have to go through panel interviews and be recommended for promotion . . . and then from a global perspective, they would go through the process of eliminating as many candidates, because there’s only so many promotions that go through each year. P2 relayed: So I think certainly the opportunities are there [however] in the current environment that my company is in there is a little bit of a challenge where you need to be affecting or performing at the next level and there needs to be an available role in order for you to be promoted, which means that you know should if there was not . . . let’s use the next level for me as an example . . . if there was not a [specific] role available or open, even if I was performing at that level I would not be promoted. Compensation was another consistency between the participant groups. Interestingly, there was some disagreement regarding money and motivation. P4 pronounced “money” to be the primary motivator for people wanting to advance, opining that “compensation drives 99% of folks.” On the other hand, regarding her decision to opt out of management, P11 stated: It was not about the money because even though I don’t feel that I got, that I got paid the same was as my counterparts got paid. Uh, the money was never important to me, uh, so you know. You know, if my boss would have come back to me and said I was giving you, you know, I’ll give you whatever, you know some figure to stay––I would not have stayed. I would like to move on. Preferring leadership using praise versus compensation, P1 opined: I also think it’s important to publicly praise people. You know send them an email but copy the in the CEO, copy in the president, let everybody know that they did a great job. Celebrate anniversaries, celebrate accomplishments let everybody know about it. They may delete the e-mail but I think it means a lot to the employee that not only does it mean a lot to you but it means a lot to somebody else and that’s one of the things I used to tell the CEO and president when they would respond to somebody or when I send the e-mail you know it really means a lot to them when the two of you say “hey good job,” “that a boy, nice going,” “nice work,” people want praise . . . I think when I was getting my master’s degree there was some statistics like the good benefits of a raise last something
201 like 4 or 6 days but I think the benefit of knowing that the higher ups in the company think well of you I think that carries over and I think that makes for a better company culture, better department culture. The interviews revealed that although the women in junior positions perceived elements of a glass ceiling, there was still a commitment to provide valuable contributions to the organization and stakeholders. However, two participants explicitly expressed perceived advantages for men in the industry. Women in formal leadership articulated elements of the glass ceiling as well. Both groups expressed the glass ceiling phenomenon through a lens of expectancy, leading to the conclusion that the glass ceiling does not affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions. Research Question 4 Research Question 4 was the same for both participant groups: What, if any, perceptions of organizational culture might affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles within their organization? Organizational culture enables an organization’s members to feel alive within the organization’s mission and vision (Ahmad & Veerapandian, 2012). Employees often dictate an organization’s culture, which might at times be influenced by other internal and external stakeholders (Bellou, 2010). Again, the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions was considered. This study involved a sample of 11 participants from six different organizations. The five women in junior positions represented three separate organizations, while the six women in leadership positions represented five separate organizations. Five participants (3 junior, 2 leader) represented one organization and two participants (1 junior, 1 leader) represented one other organization. These demographics were considered when patterning and analyzing the data (however, to preserve participant anonymity, the data were scattered throughout the study).
202 All four of the primary themes emerged from the data regarding the women in junior positions. Commitment to the organization emerged from all five junior participants. P7 said she liked the culture, as “it definitely makes our team, each person on our team responsible.” P10 explained, “I can do project management, delegating tasks, and all of that––but not behind the scenes, really what you get as an [official] assistant supervisor or entry-level supervisor.” Currently, P10 was being proactive by furthering her formal education and “taking on extra pieces to our processes that our manager would generally do.” When asked if her manager gave her the opportunity to be an informal leader, she replied, “Yeah, informally it’s definitely available, so you can speak to it, but without that title and official role, it makes it difficult in a team setting.” Although P6 admitted that her goals were different than her organization’s current strategies and capabilities, P6 had received compliments from upper management regarding her ability to train people, and perceived her industry as: “I mean people bank hop and banks get bought out, there’s layoffs and risks . . . one minute we’re super busy and then one minute we’re slow.” The primary theme of support from the organization emerged mostly through the aforementioned opportunities for education and training provided by the organizations. In addition, P3 stated: I feel supported because they do have, you know, good work-life balance-[the management] always make sure that if you have something going on outside of work, as long as business needs are met . . . they work with anything that might come up. P3 opined, “I think the company wants [WLB] as a whole, but not necessarily in the different pockets that are within the organization.” P7 acknowledged that work hours often fluctuated, but the organization allowed employees in her group flex hours with
203 each other to accommodate personal schedules. Support from the organization also emerged as P10 talked about a previous bank where she worked that was a small, local bank that hired from outside for management, “which was one of the reasons I left . . . but the bank I’m at currently . . . does value the experience internally and how you can work with other departments.” The primary themes of mutual openness and confidence emerged simultaneously. Participant 5 stated that if there was a need, managers would “mentor you in a direction that you need to be mentored” to learn or improve. Although not taking advantage of the organization’s mentoring program, P7 talked about available mentoring programs, stating “[The organization] definitely give[s] you the opportunity, it’s just taking advantage of them.” P10 took advantage of her organization’s tuition reimbursement program, adding that “mentorship programs, they really do put out that idea in one-on-ones or performance reviews . . . that place for you to connect with somebody higher and get that experience to move forward and advance.” In addition, mutual openness and confidence emerged when discussing networking opportunities. Describing the advancement challenges on her current team, P7 stated, “Within other roles within [the company] and exploring my options and networking––I feel like there’s multiple opportunities, and knowing my coworkers across the bank, not only in my team, [might] help me to maybe advance in another role.” P3 added there are “networking sessions where you can meet different managers in other areas.” P6 stated the importance of leaders “put[ting] you in a place where you can succeed.”
204 Challenges were apparent within the organizational cultures as well. P10 stated the barrier of “experience, gaining the experience . . . being willing to work the crazy hours that will make you gain, like specific leadership direct report experience,” and P5 also stated “experience levels can be a barrier.” P5 stated “work–life can be a barrier” for some people, as some weeks she put in over 60 hours. P7 explained that her team specifically experienced a lot of turnover, perceiving the reason being related to the nature of the position’s “manual and labor intens[ity]” and the fluctuating hours. P10 also thought “upper management . . . value[s] titles a little more than they should.” Regarding organizational culture, all four primary themes emerged for the women in formal leadership. Expectation of contribution to the organization and professional development emerged simultaneously from the aforementioned expectations of subordinates working beyond role responsibilities as well as taking advantage of education opportunities. In addition, P4 explained the general timeline for progression “is around 12 months in each role.” She continued to state: That’s not to say that some people can’t move faster than others, but in terms of what the norm is, and our parameters in place in terms of our coaching process, you have to be, you know the question you answer, have you been in your role nearly for the last 12 months, uh and that serves for two, twofold: the business wants their return on investment that’s getting people up and trained and in time they want to get something out of it, but at the same time, we want to make sure people aren’t really jumping around to be jumping around. We want to make sure that they grasp the content, so 12 months is typically the norm. P9 explained the progression in her organization as follows: “I would say if you’re a gogetter, you get your name out there, people know you . . . a year and a half.” When asked whether promotions in higher levels took longer, she responded, “I’d think it takes more time. From that perspective, because I think the higher up you’re going there’s a different skill set that you’re learning.” When asked about expectations to earn a
205 promotion, P9 said, “I was just recently promoted . . . you have to demonstrate that you were successful in the completion of a specific project or a specific deliverable.” P9 had expected a promotion the prior year, but did not receive one, explaining that each year the organization had specific initiatives: So how you align on what you’re currently [doing] to those initiatives and assist the bank in meeting those initiatives . . . another thing is, as a leader in the organization, like how have you led other individuals within the organization to achieve. Participant 2 opined: I think one needs to own their own individual career plan and they need to not only engage their manager but others as well through informal and formal mentoring. I think the individual needs to understand their career progression is . . . they own that . . . it’s not up to the manager to do it for them. There’s not a prescriptive list of things that one needs to accomplish in order to be promoted. I think sometimes individuals don’t really appreciate that they think that you can do . . . if you accomplish these ten things then that shows that you’re promotion ready. So I think that understanding what that process is and what the expectations are around promotions is really going to be key. The primary themes of trust/trustworthiness and building confidence emerged regarding organizational culture. P4 explained: Being aware of your audience at all times. Being aware of your environment at all times are very, very key. You know, it takes minutes to ruin a relationship or reputation or a career that it could’ve taken years literally to build. So credibility, integrity all of those things are very, very vital I think. P1 explained her leadership philosophy as: “I said my two rules are treat people the way you want to be treated and trust everyone unless they prove they can’t be trusted.” P8 described a mentor’s philosophy to establish trustworthiness: He’s fulfilling the why for each of these people. [She described a couple of specialized schedules for people]. So I think that we’re in an environment that is evolving, more the better to fulfill the needs of different people . . . Our managing partner gave him a flexible schedule and, you know, knew that that’s what needed to happen––you know, to take care of the guy. Similarly, P1 shared a lesson she learned about leadership early in her career:
206 My belief is that you’re with your work family more than you are with your blood family and you need to––I’m not saying that you have to necessarily socialize outside of work––but you have to know some of the things that are important to them and be able to talk to them about it . . . it can’t be nose to the grindstone staring at a computer screen 10 hours a day, I mean everybody needs a little break . . . so if that means you know they want to come and talk to me for 5 or 10 minutes about their son graduating from high school and where he’s going to college that’s great, that’s fine. Organizational culture did affect the autopoietic motivation of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles. All four primary themes emerged for each group. Cultures were commonly defined as interpersonally open and supportive, leading to a positive motivation to perform and add value to the organization and the stakeholders. Mostly, the participants believed that their organizations provided ample resources to stimulate personal and professional growth. However, for the women in junior positions, the motivation was mixed with some uncertainty regarding the organization’s ability to provide upward mobility because of economic and time constraints. Women as leaders in masculinized environments cause a perturbation to the masculinized system (Sice et al., 2013), which is rebalanced by the women leaders’ escalation of agentic traits (Urrestarazu, 2011a). Although women leaders espouse situational leadership styles that might benefit women’s growth into leadership (Eagly & Carli, 2003), the nature of the results driven, time constrained, budget driven organizational structures revealed a pattern of hierarchy where organizational leaders maintain the responsibility for production, leading to traditional command and control management structures and incongruent expectations between the two groups (Rijal, 2010).
207 Research Question 5 Research Question 5 was the same for both participant groups: How, if at all, does an organization’s implicit belief system (entity or incremental) determine the decision of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles? Implicit theory explains an individual’s philosophical flexibility about intelligence (Murphy & Dweck, 2010). People who are entity theorists believe that human abilities are fixed and will not change as a result of circumstances or experiences (Dweck, 1986; Emerson & Murphy, 2015; Sevincer et al., 2014), while incremental theorists believe abilities adapt as a result of circumstances and experiences (Dweck, 1986; Sevincer et al., 2014). Correspondingly, an organization’s implicit theory should dictate organizational dynamics regarding human capital investment. Consequently, the junior participants’ perceptions of an organization’s commitment to develop leaders organically were explored. Regarding RQ5, the primary theme of support from the organization emerged for women in junior positions, while the primary themes of professional development and building confidence emerged for women in formal leadership. As discussed in this section, some interesting dynamics emerged regarding perceptions of the organizations’ implicit theories. On the surface, most of the participants explained that the leaders of their organizations believed in developing people and promoting from within. For example, women in junior positions opined ideas like P7, who said her organization “prefers to develop” people, or P5’s claim that “[the company] believe[s] in developing people,” and P10’s statement that “overall, the company’s values are to promote [from within].”
208 Women in formal leadership expressed how subordinates’ advancement was supported; for example, P4 explained: We have individual development plans . . . to where folks can go out and take additional learning courses to educate themselves. So, for example, if you’re dealing with mutual funds all day long, but you want to start learning about IRAs or 401Ks, we have those resources available for folks to self-educate to where, when an opportunity comes around, and they throw their name in the hat, they’re better suited from a strategic standpoint to enter the well and potentially get the role. P8 explained her support through: Provid[ing] training and development, communicate. Right now it’s just one on my staff, we’ve been together since 2012. We complete each other’s sentences, so we have a really, really good––she works for me, but it’s more of a team environment. Regarding the company’s support for subordinates’ advancement, P2 shared: Wow, so there’s some variety of any kind of tool you can imagine, whether it’s online through a virtual classroom or with actual in classroom hosted development opportunities I think through the employee engagement . . . there is also, I think networking is part of that and career development as well . . . you know you have workshops for people managers so that they can understand and appreciate how to apply situational leadership and what to do in difficult situations etc. etc. there’s tons of formal training opportunities I have been part of, and specific to women in my company, part of a selected group of women that were chosen to be provided a director level . . . and this is . . . last year or the year before, but provided a director level sponsor . . . so a sponsor being different than a mentor . . . a sponsor definitely providing opportunities and direct feedback on how to navigate the larger organization and to promote myself and my personal brand. There’s certainly, I think there’s some sort of management development program . . . might not be what it’s called anymore . . . but I know that globally the company has supported career development. They’ve created what I was mentioning before, a role framework so that people know that at their particular corporate high level, what the expectation is of them, and then what the expectation and competencies at the next level . . . I like to think it’s very transparent. The statements, in addition to the variety of support already reported, represent the organizations’ and actors’ commitment to subordinates through an incremental belief lens.
209 However, caveats were developed throughout as well, lending to viewing the organizations through a lens of entity theory. For example, junior women, such as P10 shared, “It’s just such a big company that [promoting from within] doesn’t always translate.” The focus of organizations as attentive to business needs before employee needs was often portrayed throughout the interviews, although often veiled in some degree. For example, P10 revealed her manager’s strengths as “keeping everybody informed. Focusing on the needs of the business, and giving the freedom for us to make our own decisions and sort of go on our own . . . and she trusts us with most of them,” while describing the same manager’s weaknesses: I think she’s over extended right now, so she can’t give our team as much attention as she once did . . . she kind of lets us go a little bit right now, because she has so many fires to put out with the new side that––that’s just too much. Because she’s so focused on the business she really doesn’t make a point to think of ways to help you further your career. Work–life balance was discussed in many of the interviews, and often the same mentality was perceived by the women in junior positions. For example, P3 said: I feel supported because they do have, you know, good work–life balance––[the management] always make sure that if you have something going on outside of work, as long as business needs are met . . . they work with anything that might come up. In another example of WLB, P7 explained: I think effective management revolves around managing the workload to the time, people, quality, and I guess monetary . . . you want to get your people out, you don’t want them to sit there . . . [so managing the] quality of work–life balance and time. Some of the women in junior positions elaborated on their perceptions of the budget conscientiousness of the organization as inhibiting resources for development. Regarding long hours, P10 explained:
210 The way that the departments are stretched . . . again, in my prior department, that wasn’t the case. They didn’t remote access, they really only worked, well maybe max, 45 to 50 hours, but it would average probably about 45. Probably. Uh, nobody really stayed super late, they had kind of a set schedule and it was good. They were there to support the team and build their teams so they were really there only during the hours that their team was there. And then they did some project work, but it was in the confines of their set schedule. Within this group, we’re in a smaller operations focused group. And very budget conscious, so I don’t think they assign enough managers to cover the tasks for the teams they have. So, for this group right now, the way that it’s laid out, I feel like management really has to put in that many hours, but I feel like there should be more managers within the group. When P7 was asked about reaching out and networking or looking for open roles, she responded, “I really haven’t pursued anything as far as looking, because right now we’re, uh, our team’s so thin that they’re not allowing anybody to . . . they’re just kind of prolonging anybody leaving.” P7 mentioned that the lack of manpower had delayed another person on her team a promotion for over 6 months. P7 was also considering pursuing a couple of financial licenses (e.g., Series 7, Series 99), which she perceived would open doors for advancement. P6 explained that the organization hired a lot of temp workers, opining: I just like, they don’t––they’re so focused on reaching certain financial goals or reaching this bottom line to make their shareholders happy, or whatever it is that they don’t see how the lack of training actually costs them more money in the long run. Like, having me as [a position], pulling me off of production, go down there and train these people for you know, 3 or 4 hours, and then not giving them any test cases for like 2 weeks and then expecting them to remember what I told them in 2 or 3 hours 2 weeks ago is not very productive, it doesn’t make sense. You think they’re going to retain that but they’re not, so then I have to go end up sitting next to them at their desks when they actually do get their test cases or do get a file . . . and then have to go over the same information again because it has been so long. So, in doing that maybe the people that were trying to advance say from a process . . . if they weren’t trained properly upfront, that would be a barrier for them, and that’s just bad business, or bad . . . I don’t know, just not good planning on the company’s part. But I just think there’s a lot of times you’re short sighted and we got to get these positions filled, who can we put in there, they’re a warm body, they’ll figure it out when they get in there, but when you do it that way––instead of training them the way they should and giving them the time they need and a couple weeks of training and then, uh, giving them test cases
211 shortly after that and then continuing to support them with, you know, updates and follow up things, uh, they waste a lot of money and a lot of people get frustrated because they’re not able to advance. Women in formal leadership explained similar caveats for seeing entity theory embedded in organizations. P4 explained that the organization was very focused on formal education for career advancement, stating that from a “regulatory standpoint . . . the data” showed more success with higher education. Citing other barriers, P4 said: There are still roadblocks for some people, but if it’s, I mean it’s real world––it may be a degree in some lines of my business, it may be steady availability in other lines of business that would prohibit somebody from not being able to get the role because they couldn’t meet the scheduling flexibility that the role demands. There’s a lot of external components that are certainly variables when it comes to progression or roadblocks or why people get passed up. P2 said the following regarding limited role availability: I think it very much has to do with economics regardless of gender or any other, you know, protected group you know from a company perspective they’re also looking at it organizationally to make sure that you know we don’t become too top heavy in our management structure and layers . . . so I see the business need for it as well as obviously the economics around it . . . when it comes to salaries etc. P9 explained the organization’s position regarding subordinates being proactive and taking responsibility for their advancement: There’s a little bit of that, you know, dog and pony show that you have to do, to make sure that people know how you’re contributing. So, the best example I can give you is, you can be a total work horse and come in, do your job, do it really, really well and go home. But if no one knows about it, and no one knows the impact that it’s having on the company, then chances are you’re just going to continue to be a work horse. So, it’s about how are you looking for the opportunities to be able to exhibit to management and to their managers, you know what you’re doing, what you’re working on why it’s important and where is it making a difference. And granted, I think it’s also part of a manager’s responsibility to provide those opportunities for that person to kind of demonstrate what they’re doing . . . but once again, if I don’t tap my manager on the should and say “this is what I’m doing and this is what I want to do,” uh, so it’s, you know, it’s a lot of communication, it’s a lot of making sure people know what you’re doing and then also making sure that you’re executing against everything.
212 P9 also spoke about the importance of subordinates broadening their knowledge base: From [this] perspective, because I think the higher up you’re going there’s a different skill set that you’re learning. I think sometimes with the organization, the biggest mistake that we make is moving individuals in a vertical path of promotion, where they may not necessarily see the bigger picture––of what the organization is and where their impacts are with other parts of the business. So, one of the things that I’ve always recommended individuals is, you come in at the entry level, if you get promoted within the first 2 years, that’s great, so your next move should not be another upward motion in the same group that you’re in, it should be a lateral. And the more, you know, I would say from there, if you can get a promotion from that second lateral, then great. But then, once you have that additional promotion, then I would say then you do two laterals . . . from there, but it’s just because the organization we work in is so large, and there’s so many different products, the higher up you go into the organization, you’ll have a much more breadth of knowledge to help you execute even better at the higher levels of the bank. P4 explained: I personally can identify people very early on that are going to be quick-hit wins, as we call them, in terms of the folks that are proactively setting up time with me and talking about careers and talking about additional licenses, and how can I do some rotational time to, you know, expand my bandwidth. Uh, folks that are more humble in terms of, “hey, I can take a lateral move to build my resume . . . because my toolbox, long term will be well sharpened if I take a lateral move now and learn X, Y, and Z I’m good with that, knowing the long term ROI that I’m going to get on my career.” So, the folks that have that mindset have a tendency to progress faster than others. So yes, I do think that part of that is just naturally born with it, but I do think that we create a culture for those that just don’t innately have it can still be successful . . . on the flip side of that is you’re going to have to have some people that are just content doing what they do day in and day out. You know, and that makes up a healthy workplace because everybody can’t be a rock star. The participants’ perceptions of the organizations espousing a theory of incremental beliefs was justified through offering an abundancy of resources for the training and development of employees. Although the participants recognized the opportunities for knowledge sharing and professional growth, the data revealed barriers for advancement that were beyond the control of the participants. These barriers seemed to be accepted by both groups as organizational norms, representing the organizations’
213 adherence to entity theory. Thus, an organization’s implicit theory does not determine the decision of women in junior positions to pursue formal leadership roles. Research Question 6 Research Question 6 was the same for both participant groups: What role, if any, do the leadership styles of women in formal leadership positions play in the perceptions held by women in junior positions of effective leadership? As discussed in Chapter 2, leadership theories have evolved, yet leadership effectiveness is hard to define, and is an often individualized perception (Gould et al., 2013). Considering those two factors, the primary themes that emerged from RQ6 for women in junior positions were confidence and mutual openness. The women in junior positions who reported interactions with women in leadership often received messages regarding the two themes, either directly or indirectly. Interview Question 6 was, “Tell me about two leaders, positives/negatives, to whom you report.” This question was designed to allow the women in junior positions to pick two leaders with no stipulation for gender in order to receive open-ended feedback. Below is a synopsis of the results. P7 described a man and a woman as examples; the woman, P7 opined, was “very, very good at product knowledge and very good at understanding the process and asking questions and making sure we do it right.” However, “She manages multiple teams as well, so the time to get and spend with and figure it out and actually discuss with her is lacking [chuckle] because she’s spread so thin.” When prompted, P7 defended the woman leader, saying if she had more time she might be better with managing team culture:
214 I mean she-she asks for the information and she has the intent to do it, but it just never gets done, because there’s just no time in the day . . . she follows up with you, she-she, it’s still in the back of her brain, she just can’t get the time to do it. The man P7 described as having opposite traits, stating he “has very good, I guess you could say, management of team,” meaning his: Personality can manage everybody’s personalities and not make someone upset because of a certain issue and address the situation appropriately for each individual . . . so he manages the team, I guess, culture, but I’m not sure he’s very good at managing the team work. P5 described one man and one woman. She started with the man’s positives, saying “he’s extremely receptive, very supportive of his employees . . . he . . . always considers you as a person first, before an employee.” She continued, “he’s very assertive, very much knowledgeable at what he does . . . he knows what he’s doing––he teaches well.” For his negatives, P5 explained, “he is passive, he doesn’t like confrontation so a lot of things go unaddressed” within his groups, not necessarily procedurally, she clarified, but “he could be a little bit more disciplinarian.” When asked to clarify her statements of “assertive” and “passive,” P5 said “he’s passive–aggressive,” so “not pleasing makes him uncomfortable.” P5 continued, “positives for the woman, the same, very assertive, very knowledgeable, she’s been doing what she’s been doing for a long time.” P5 explained that “she will push for you” when she saw a person’s capabilities, by “exposing you to opportunities by putting you in positions where you can be exposed.” In addition, P5 said “she’s a great listener” and she was “fair.” P5 said her “negatives, I think she could be a little more involved in some of the issues I think she should be involved in,” but “she has so much on her plate, but that’s her position, that’s her job . . . there’s a lot that goes on that she’s kind of unaware of.” P5 defended that, stating, “I
215 blame that maybe on her managers that’s rolling up to her, by not advising her about some of the things she should be aware of.” P6 described her two immediate bosses who were both men. The first positive was that “he doesn’t micromanage, like I said, that’s a big––I don’t like people looking over my shoulder and bugging me, you know.” Regarding negatives, P6 perceived him as spreading gossip—not only regarding her—as she heard through the grapevine that “he said something about my production to [coworker]—I think he probably just gossips, I think he needs not to do that [laugh] . . . I wonder what he says about me.” In addition, “he’s new to management,” and P6 perceived that he did not recognize many of the extra tasks she took on to help other people in her department. The other leader she described, the first leader’s boss, as “a nice person, you know, he’s never been nasty and I have not heard him being in gossip,” but she also described him as pushing ethical boundaries and undermining the authority of the lower-end decision makers on some occasions. Primarily, from P6’s point of view, “his income is greatly affected by bonus . . . so [he] makes exceptions to a file that I probably wouldn’t make.” P10, who described herself as an unofficial leader, also designated a woman and a man to whom she directly reported. The woman was her direct manager and worked remotely and recently “acquired a [second] team of I think 10 or 11 in addition to us, so it’s kind of made it different because that team was kind of in a shambles before she took it on.” Describing this woman leader’s positives, P10 explained her as “keeping everybody informed. Focusing on the needs of the business, and giving the freedom for us to make our own decisions and sort of go on our own . . . and she trusts us with most
216 of them.” P10 described her negatives by stating, “I think she’s over extended right now, so she can’t give our team as much attention as she once did.” Furthermore: She kind of lets us go a little bit right now, because she has so many fires to put out with the new side that-that’s just too much. Because she’s so focused on the business she really doesn’t make a point to think of ways to help you further your career. P10 proclaimed that she had to be quite proactive, going to that leader and saying: I’m very interested in project management, please put me on a project. It wouldn’t be, I see you’re interested in the next level, let’s get you into this. I kind of have to push and say I want to do that particular thing. The man P10 reported on started in a different group within the organization. Interestingly, P10 started with: So his cons are he’s new and he wasn’t ready for management, I don’t think [chuckle]. He’s good with upper management, but not so much his direct reports. He, like his focus is to get in the good graces of upper management more than making sure his team is getting in the good graces of upper management for exposure. P10 explained his positives as “he has seen how it is to be an associate, so he can relate” but went on to state, “he just doesn’t really do much with it.” P10 explained that in his last group he “got stuck and couldn’t move up because it was a very competitive group,” but moved quickly (about 6 months) to a manager in her group “because he had the team lead [title] prior, with the other group.” P10 added, “he’s learning as he goes . . . so he’s kind of under the wing of our manager [the woman] and learning––he’s really good at making it sound like he knows what he’s doing [laughing].” When asked about his people skills, she reiterated, “great with upper management, but not so much with employees. Being on the side of not official management, you know, you hear it from everybody.” She continued, “I think people just don’t respect him . . . he doesn’t have that manager type of persona.” P10 explained that he deflected negative feedback to
217 employees back on his direct manager, trying “to be people’s friend more than anything.” P10 perceived that “he thinks that helps [employees] confide in him in some way––but it really just has people shutting down, because they don’t respect him as a manager.” Interestingly, P10 finished off the topic by stating, “he’s really nice though.” P3 described two leaders from within the same department who used to manage her, one was a man and one was a woman. She said the man “was a very positive influence on me. He really mentored me and took me under his wing and groomed me from [my previous position] to [my current position].” She described him as being transparent: Giving me feedback, whether it was good or bad. He basically, you know, let me know what it was I needed to do to get to the next level . . . he just, you know, kind of nurtured me and showed me exactly how I needed to progress to get there. When prompted about whether this leader had any negatives, she responded, “he did not, no.” The second leader she reported was a woman, and: This one was negative . . . she didn’t have very much product knowledge, but she was still a manager. We would butt heads because she didn’t really understand the process and the daily flow and would try to change things and didn’t understand why it wouldn’t work. P3 continued by saying, “she was very critical, with how she would, with handling her expectations.” P3 did not offer, nor was she prompted for, positives about the woman leader. When asked why P3 thought the woman got a management position, she opined, “There was not a lot of resources to pick from for these types of roles [at the time in her location]. And so I think people that have higher up friends were able to get positions easier.” For the women in formal leadership, RQ6 was the same. The primary themes that emerged from the data for this group were professional development,
218 trust/trustworthiness, and building confidence. Some in this group reported on leaders currently, while some participants shared reflections about leaders who influenced them as they advanced. Synopses of the answers to IQ6 follow. P9 described a current leader by stating: Oh gosh, okay so positives are . . . would be that they challenge you. I would say he’s . . . he’s just an optimist, like there’s no “we can’t.” There’s “go back to the drawing table and try again.” Uh, there’s this trustworthiness about him and his level of integrity. And a level of commitment that he exhibits every single day that want us to work for him. And I think that as a leader, that’s what you want the people to work for you to say, that they want to work for you. Not that they feel that it’s a job. Uh, I would say cons, unfortunately that he’s an optimist, because sometimes, you know, sometimes you have to be a little bit of a realist of what we can actually accomplish, so sometimes we may stress ourselves out even more because we’re trying to achieve this perfection that he’s basically putting out there for us. I think the other thing is that he definitely does not strive for work–life balance in his own life. So, if anything it, I guess sometimes it makes us feel that we’re not as committed, to the job or to the task at hand because you know, he’ll be there for 18 hours and you know, we’re like you know, been here 8 hours, I’m going home now. So, I mean outside of that, and uh I think sometimes he takes on a little bit too much. But I think sometimes, we all kind of do that to ourselves. Especially people that have a tendency to be overachievers, they have a tendency to take on a little too much. But I think, yeah, those are his cons. P9 did not have a woman leader at her current organization, but shared the following story about a leader at her last organization: I could probably pick one from my previous firm and she was actually a female. I would say the cons to her were that she was not approachable. If anything, it was more leadership through fear . . . I’m trying to think, but the pros to her is, and it was always interesting because I was very, very lucky that I never was on her bad side because clearly if you ever got on her bad side the you were done for. Uh, but I just really found her really inspirational. She was a single mom, high school graduate. Didn’t have a bachelor’s degree or anything and basically worked her way up through the brokerage firm. And she was considered, when she retired she was considered an expert in her field. You know, people from the industry came to her for advice on what to do. So, you know to a certain extent, understanding, kind of look . . . I guess I always try and put myself in other people’s shoes so I’m sure that, that leadership through fear and how she just was really scary. And she would tear your work apart, and unfortunately not in a very nice fashion. But it was to make you better, so one of her rules was is that there’s no such thing as a draft so whenever you came to her it better be your final product, and even your final product you knew she was going to rip to shreds.
219 But it was just that level of scrutiny that she would put on us. And she would actually, some of us felt that she was even harsher on the females that worked for her. But I’m assuming that she did that because, I mean obviously she went up the ranks in the 70s and 80s which I’m sure in a brokerage firm it’s just not the easiest thing for her to do. When asked if the leader always had that demeanor, P9 responded: So, interestingly enough, yes . . . that’s what she was known for. Like, people would shudder when you would say her name. But, you had very specific individuals that still wanted to work for her just because we knew––like myself for example––I just knew that she was going to put me through the ringer and I was only going to come out better in the end. So kind of have a––I’m a glutton for punishment when it comes to feedback, but I knew I was going to learn the most working for her. And sure enough I did. But funny enough is that on Christmas she would always invite her entire staff to her home for Christmas and you would get to see such a completely different side of her. So we, that’s where we really got to understand that that was really more her persona at work, and that was the persona that she built for herself to help her be successful in that environment. But actually outside of work she’s actually a really, really nice person. When asked, “was it a male dominated atmosphere you think?” P9 responded: Yeah . . . absolutely, it was interesting though, because it was a brokerage firm that we . . . it was the weirdest thing, so we all loved working for this brokerage firm. The culture of the brokerage firm was very much about being creative people, so the management team was interesting and there was a lot of politics and stuff like that, but at the end of the day you kind of felt like you were part of a family. But then, 2009 came around, we were sold to a bank and the culture changed drastically. I think that was really the other thing that kind of just sealed it for me. It wasn’t just the money, but it was also that the firm I had grown to love, to want to work in, it was just it was no longer that firm . . . it’s really weird, uh it’s a very weird breed of brokerage firm. But I mean I, the gentleman that I mentioned, that I started working with who had been with the firm for over 30 years, he was like one of the founders of the transfer system that’s utilized by [financial institution] currently, which was the depository trust company. So it’s just, I grew up in this firm with like the giants of the brokerage industry. When it came to operations, it was an interesting and really neat place to grow up in. P11 described a current manager and the manager she had differences with when she opted out. She stated: I’ll do the most recent just because it’s great contrast. My current manager, like I said, is very engaging, very open in terms of uh, wanting to know sort of interested in . . . interested in your life outside of work. Right, they care about
220 you as the individual, not just you as the employee. Certainly relaxed but still sets expectations very well in terms of what’s, you know, what’s expected to do their job. But manages, like I said, with a very pleasant style. And, in those instances you can’t help but want to do your job well. I’ve had the other which was more of uh, a little intimidation, a little bit of a fear factor . . . very blunt. No sort of . . . just very forward and no need to sort of-not that you have to him something––but sometimes you just need to be careful with the words you choose. And, uh, so they have to filter––so yeah, just two different management styles. When asked for negatives of the first manager, P11 replied: Oh my goodness, I feel like sometimes he can’t pick a direction, you know, when you go to your leader or manager for some direction, like he was no problem, he would help me solve it and sometimes he’s all over the place in his recommendation––I almost have to, you know, it takes longer to figure things out––put it that way. Because you have to take all the different pieces that he’s giving you and make sense out of it and almost determine on your own at the end of the day what––are you saying this, is this––I have to do lots of work trying to make sense of the direction because I feel like lots of times he can’t make up his mind. But he’s very knowledgeable. The researcher interrupted, asking, “do you think he’s overextended?” P11 replied: No. I think somebody who ends up coming with a situation, that . . . he probably needs a moment to digest, think it, and come back. So what he chooses to do lots of times is talk it all out. and it’s just like––which is, I think is a good thing––but sometimes it’s not. So that’s probably one of the things. I feel like, I feel like sometimes––this isn’t always the case, because sometimes he’s very direct, but sometimes there are situations where it’s not black and white. Where he can’t make a decision, and uh, or give a straight answer. And that to me sometimes, you know, worries me. When asked for positives for the second manager, P11 explained: Okay, yeah, so his positives, he was very clear––which is funny, the opposite of my boss right now––he was, there was never a question around what he wanted. So, he always made it very clear what he expected, and I guess that’s a positive for a manager. What other positives? He communicated very well. So I’m not talking just about me, I’m talking about in general, as a leader you lead meetings, you lead conference calls, and you have to be articulate. You know, you have to be able to communicate very well, to be able to run some of those things. And, he did a great job with that. Uh, what else, oh he delegated very well so . . . not to say that he didn’t have 10 balls in the air at one time because I think he was busy like everybody else, but he did a good job using his leaders to help him with many projects, and you know I think . . . and not that this other individual doesn’t do that-it’s a different world he’s in, that requires different things. So, you know, I
221 don’t know how well he delegates because you know, I haven’t seen that need. So, he delegated really well, so––he engaged his leadership. Describing two leaders, P2 replied: So there’s one person that I report to on a matrix bubble somewhere on more of a dotted line, who is responsible for the product that I work in. And um, this person was also recently promoted to their position, but with that I think kind of on the negative side I think this person is in the weeds a little too much [chuckling], in the day to day. Personally, I like to perform in an environment of autonomy, and if there is something in particular that I’m not doing or should be doing or doing that I shouldn’t be doing I think, then that’s an opportunity for my manager to have a conversation with me versus getting into every e-mail that we’re both copied on––On the flip side, I think from a positive note, this individual is very “in the know” as to the functions and tasks that the various teams report into me, perform and I think that’s very helpful when walking through and talking through any kind of issues trying to make decisions. I have had instances where my direct manager at 30,000 feet and really not necessarily that they don’t have experience but they don’t know enough of the details to, you know . . . I guess to contribute in a way that I think that they should, so it’s kind of a catch-22. The other individual I’ve not been reporting to for very long at this point . . . um, very much the opposite of the other individual that I mentioned [chuckling], very, and uh, you know I am a director into this individual but he has a much larger organization than the matrix project manager . . . so I don’t know, so I think if I have anything to say, so from a positive perspective, conversely to the other matrix manager, I’m very much left in a state of autonomy from, to manage and run my teams on a day-to-day basis which is nice. So conversations and things like that are very high level . . . on a positive, well I guess that it positive, I guess more on a, kind of a negative note or an opportunity, that I see is . . . sometimes . . . the communication doesn’t seem very clear or I might leave thinking one thing and then the next week I go back into the office and it’s something slightly different. So I think consistency with communication and decisions . . . or transparency even around that is an opportunity. P8 spoke regarding a team of people she looks up to and hopes to emulate her company after, stating: I have so many mentors within the organization that I’m associated with, and the company that I primarily do business with has several educational meetings throughout the year. Because we’re contractors, I have to sign up I have to be invited and it’s at my own expense, but it gives me the opportunity to rub elbows, if you will, talk at a personal level at an informal level and in an educational environment to see what is working for them. There’s a team, uh, I think they’re in the Northeast and it’s two women, and then they have a staff of five, and they’re probably within the top, at least the top 5% in our company. So their production level is a lot . . . a lot higher than mine, but I love their model––it’s
222 very collaborative. A lady that would be in my role, she know where her strengths are and all she does is see people. She’s never in front of a computer, she’s never at networking events, she’s simply, there meeting with current clients and prospective clients that have been introduced through the business development person. And then she’s got the analytical person on her team to run all the plans, and to put the suggestions together. Everybody has their role . . . I’m not there yet, but it’s really fun to see their success and learn that it’s worked for them, and be able to ask them questions about what’s working, what didn’t work, whether it’s with staffing, or product, or marketing ideas for that matter. P1 stated: At [company] I had a great boss and the owner of the company was very great too . . . valued loyalty and he was very––they were both very patient, and I was hired there as a staff accountant and after 2 years the accounting manager that was there––she left right after we split our one company into five and she had handled it all. And she gave 2 weeks’ notice and took a week’s vacation during that 2 weeks and gave me about 2 days’ worth of training . . . so I mean I was working 10-hour days taking things home feeling like the water was rising and my boss was saying to me, “we’ll get you any help that you need and as long as we keep making progress that’s ok . . . it’s alright it doesn’t matter as long as we keep making progress” and at the end of all that I think I came out much stronger person and I was promoted to controller and I was able to build a good accounting department. Once I got the right people in place and the right policies and procedures in place we were not only able to reduce the number of days of our annual audit but were able to reduce the cost of it I started putting together the unaudited financial statements and financials and just giving them to the auditors to basically review and approve. It was really because they gave me support but they also let me know that it was okay if I made mistakes we just had to not make the same mistakes and keep progressing and that really helped me as I had more and more people to manage. All of the participants stated how they had been influenced by leaders over the course of their careers. Regarding RQ6, there seemed to be a backlash effect (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Rudman et al., 2012) in some of the participants’ answers regarding the women’s leadership styles. For the women in junior positions, the backlash indicated a negative view of women’s leadership, or the need to defend a woman leader’s perceived underperformance. For three of the four women in junior positions describing a woman leader’s negatives, the primary defense revolved around perceptions of an extended workload that was not attributed to negatives of men as leaders.
223 Women in formal leadership indicated a backlash representing learning opportunities that supported their advancement to leadership. Thus, the formal leader participants described how women leaders were influenced by the described woman leader’s leadership style. Narratives––Women in Junior Positions Some of the women in junior positions provided notable anecdotes regarding their perceptions of women’s roles in the banking and finance industry that reinforced theoretical emergence. For example, as the interview with P6 progressed, the researcher asked, “Do you think if there were more women leadership roles or more women in leadership roles that might be different?” P6 replied: Maybe, maybe it would. Because I think that in, you know, if you’re going to be stereotypical or try to generalize women, I think that women have had to fight a lot harder to get to where they are and they understand what it takes to get there and they would want to support someone else to do that, and they’re naturally wanting to you know, I don’t know, have other people succeed because it makes them feel good––and maybe that’s just my perspective but when I train other people and I see them get their [license] and I see them feel more secure about what they’re doing––it’s like they have more of a skill set to offer here or at any other bank I’m like, “yeah that’s cool, I helped them get that,” you know. I think that a lot of men are focused more on advancing themselves––not that that’s a bad thing––everybody wants to advance, but maybe not so much in helping other people. They’re like “look, I got to support myself, I’ve got to climb this ladder really quick.” Whereas women, I think, are naturally more nurturing and open to helping out. So, that’s how it seems––like the people that have always helped me climb the ladder or taught me stuff have all been women except for one guy. So, because most of the guys are numbers driven, production, “I’ve got to get this going, I don’t have time to do that with you,” whereas women are like, “okay, I feel sorry for you, I’ll take time out of my day to show you this,” whereas the guy’s like no, they put their headphones on and you know not to approach them because they’re not––they don’t give out the I’m really down side, so there’s one guy that helped me with some self-employed income but for the most part, when I was coming up learning how to [do my job], everybody that helped me was a female.
224 P10 was talking about confidence, prompting the question: “You talk about confidence, what kind of––how do you build your confidence with certain situations do you think?” P10 explained: A lot of reflection, and I tend, I fail in the sense that I tend to only do it right before my head is wrapped around leaving a group or wanting to do something different. I do it once I’ve realized that I can’t go any further within a particular group, because it’s not, you know, it just isn’t something available. So I think reflection really helps, because during those times I can put my focus back on–– while I don’t have the title I don’t have numbers, such as I have this many direct reports and I’ve really led them towards their own goals because it’s not what I do. I make sure the day to day kind of gets done more than building that––I’ll breed relationships but I can’t help guide their careers in any way because I’m not at that level. Uh, the reflection to see how I’ve impacted specific processes or specific people. That helps me to relay it later on, whenever I move on to a different group or try to apply for something different. Following up about barriers and organizational cultures, the researcher asked P5, “Do you think, or have you witnessed, do you think stereotypes might play a role? Do you think it’s a White male dominated type of culture generally, and it might be a little different in [city]?” P5 responded It’s definitely a little different in [city]. I have seen that it’s more of a Caucasian dominated in [NE city], but it’s very, very diverse in [city] and it’s diverse––I wouldn’t really like to say more of a––it is what it is, but it’s a very diverse company. You see a lot of different ethnicity in a lot of different positions, so, at least in [bank], but maybe again because it’s global––but in my other company it was definitely Caucasian dominated, male. Narratives-–Women in Formal Leadership Some of the women in formal leadership provided notable anecdotes regarding their perceptions of women’s roles in the banking and finance industry that reinforced theoretical emergence. P11 explained the importance of connections and her career trajectory: In order to impress people you have to be doing good work, so that’s––that should be a given. But in my opinion, it’s who you know, it’s who you impress, it’s who you influence. You know, were there connections that you made, and to me that’s
225 very much how you advance in high positions, in the last 10 years. And I will say to you that, uh, the leadership that surrounded me was all males. There was one other female that was in my––was in sort of my world, and she retired, I don’t know, halfway through my career. Uh, and then it was just me. And actually when I left, my boss replaced me with another male. So, uh, you know it’s kind of difficult as a female, in the world I was in for those 10 years, to sometimes you know, link with others because they’re all males. Now, granted I had very good friends and I was very close to my counterparts, but uh, I don’t know . . . in my opinion, if I don’t know, if you don’t click with people . . . if you don’t do good networking, if you’re not visible to leadership and management above you it’s going to be very hard . . . to advance. Now, I got where I got because I felt, I feel that I was dealing with more my leadership at that point was actually a lot of the big guns, so now it sounds like it totally should fit, females. My direct report was a female, and had always been a female. And her direct report was a female, so the first sort of 10 years that before I became a manager. But I will say, that when I became a manager, I finally got promoted to the higher position, it was actually a male––because the lady that I’m telling you retired, she was replaced by a guy and so the guy––so, they were all females, two levels above me, the two levels above me got replaced with a male, okay, and then the lady I reported to retired, and the male that replaced two levels above, hired me. That’s the one time I would say there was a male-female sort of management––uh, leadership between both sexes. But, after that once I moved here, it’s all been males. And I feel like there’s definitely––there’s definitely differences moving up in a world with females and moving up in a world with males––for a female. When asked about the influence the woman who retired had on her, P11 explained: I think there was a better relationship. I don’t know if that had to do if she was a female or not, maybe it was just her personality. She was more . . . there was just more of a relationship there, in the years that we worked together, and I probably had the same level of years of working with this management and there were times, we were never able to clear that [type of] relationship. P11 went on, generalizing her views regarding women: Women are generally more understanding, or at least women are more empathetic, right. They want to seem more understanding, they probably––and so I felt that from . . . her––from them, that they actually––and there was that, I hate to sound cheesy but, there was a caring aspect there that even though. I always felt like even though . . . the world may not have changed too much, so we were always likely pushed back then as well that there was an understanding––because we lack resources, I’m sorry this is as good as we can do, but I understand what you’re going through. And then the second half of my career, it was “yo we like you because you’re tough, suck it up.” You know, that was a difference. And so– –whether it’s female or male, I don’t know.
226 The researcher asked whether having a woman as a manager might have “impacted [her] career trajectory, maybe helped her be more excited to advance.” P11 replied: I think that whenever you feel supported you want to do what it takes for that manager. You know, you want that manager to succeed because you’re a part of that, so you don’t want to let that manager down, especially if that manager is supporting you. Now, in the second half of my career, when I had a jerk as a manager (sorry for the word) [chuckle] . . . I still have the work ethic to need to do my job, at the end of the day I want a good review because that’s also who I am. So it didn’t change the amount of work that I did, or––it was still me, but I think that you do it a little bit more, uh, reluctantly and not with the same sort of satisfaction or eagerness. P4 was asked whether she saw inherent differences between men and women for some positions and stated: Yes, so the bigger difference is the males seem to come to the table with a lot more experience. But that’s not to say that the woman couldn’t be taught the skills. So, the influencing side of what we do as managers and leaders with our senior folks is being able to share with them the capabilities that an individual may have. So, it may take you a little bit longer to get them up to speed, but the long-term of what you’re going to get out of this manager, whether it’s their management style or their leadership abilities or what it’s going to do for morale in your group, those benefits are going to outweigh the immediate male that comes in an hits the road running per say, so it’s that influencing piece that it’s important that we, uh, share. You know, the whole thought process that perception is reality, that’s what our managers get, because you have to think in real type of things––hiring, going through the process of, you know, back filling a role, it’s just another added angst for our leaders . . . so, if they can get somebody in that knows the job and just, you know, takes less knowledge transfer, less time to get up to speed––that’s typically the path they want to take. Not necessarily always the best path to take, and that’s where we come into play, with from, you know, what the other skill sets they bring to the table, that might inherently outweigh the other, you know, hands-on skill sets. Following up on a comment made earlier in the interview about whether the organization had a diversity quota, P4 said, “It’s implied, I think is the safer word. [When] equality at the table . . . does not exist, there are definite conversations about how we’re going to amend that quickly.”
227 Regarding collaboration with groups aimed specifically at women’s advancement, P8 explained: There is a women in financial services group in [my city] . . . they’ve often approached me to be a part of their organization. But I don’t feel a strong desire to associate, simply because they’re females in the same profession. I have great colleagues within my network with this company where I hang my hat, that . . . great collaboration and several that I look up to, several that I mentor and I find that very personally fulfilling, but I have not felt very compelled to spend my precious time [chuckle]––because you know you only have so many hours in a day––toward that organization. And it’s probably a great group––I’ve heard good things about them-but that’s not where I’m being drawn right now. Based on a previous conversation, P8 was asked whether the classification as a “woman’s group . . . turn[ed] you off.” P8 replied: I guess it kind of does a little bit . . . I don’t care for excuses, and I’ve had some experiences in the past where there have been women in our industry that you know, simply didn’t . . . didn’t do what they needed to do to succeed, and . . . you know. P1 related a story regarding about her exposure to prejudice against women early in her career: I think that I wouldn’t have believed that there was still discrimination against women until I moved to [current city] and went to work at a small privately owned company, where men and women who were doing the same job had different pay rates and the men were salary and the women were hourly and the men got an hour for lunch and the women got a half an hour for lunch and the women had to cover the phone when the receptionist took her breaks and lunch. But the men didn’t and it really, really blew my mind. I mean I was 26 years old moved from the suburbs of [Midwestern city] with my husband, and I mean I was just shocked and I never really would have thought that existed. And maybe that’s very naïve, until I experienced it for myself and so I think that maybe it’s not an industry per se, as a company culture, so I believe that it exists but maybe not industry-wide, you know, I don’t know. Regarding a discussion about women wanting to put family first and being reticent about career goals, P9 was asked, “Do you find that might be true with women that you might manage or you’ve seen managed there at your organization now?” P9 responded:
228 Yes, so I definitely see that, and I see it more based on age. So, more women in their, I would say mid to later 30s and their 40s, and I think it’s just a, just a matter of kind of the generation that we grew up in, where I think mentally we’re still kind of fighting that stereotype that women can’t be as much as their male counterparts. I see the millennials now that are new coming into the bank where there’s not that fear factor in them. When asked, “Do you think that might have anything to do with maybe they’re not as established as far as family goes?” P9 explained: I think that could definitely be a portion of it, but I just feel that a lot of the millennials that I’m seeing coming out of college right now––there’s just a different mindset that they’re growing up in. But I know for me, being a Hispanic female, what I’m doing now as a career is not what was expected of me. So, because you know having the career that I have is not what was expected, it just, that drive had to come innate for me. It wasn’t necessarily what my family was pushing and encouraging me to be vocal and be out there. But I think parents now, that’s kind of the mindset that they’re giving their female children. They’re more “you can do anything” where I feel like I was kind of put into this mold of a role that was expected of me. P9 was then asked, “do you think when you started in the industry 16 years ago . . . it took you a little while to grow into the kind of person that could go after things, or do you think you had that naturally?” P9 explained: It’s a little bit of both. Growing up, I was always kind of that overachiever. You know, I’m very competitive . . . but definitely early on in my career it was––I was competitive in the sense of getting the job done, and getting it done to the best of my ability, but not necessarily thinking about what that career path looked like–– within a financial institution. It was more of, you know, I was newly married. I was straight out of college, we got married, we had a kid––so it was more like oh my gosh, like we need to pay bills. And it was a job that paid, it wasn’t probably about . . . 8 years into my career and being surrounded by females that were succeeding in the field, and kind of just seeking their guidance and I guess I started developing, uh, how do I put this (so I do this and the words always come to me in Spanish so I try to translate) because Spanish is my first language. But I guess just developing that confidence in myself, in my skill set, knowing what I want but it took other females around me and I think-I remember when I was in my late 20s––like mid to late 20s––I had a great peer, she was in her 40s and she told me, you know, the closer you get to 40, she’s like, the more confident you’re going to become. She’s like, and a lot of that comes from finally getting to a point in your life where you don’t care what other people think about you. And, a lot of times as a female, we’re worried about how we’re going to be perceived and
229 I think that worry about that perception keeps us from maybe putting ourselves out there more than what we should. Emergent Theories A heuristic approach for data collection helped mitigate biases throughout the data collection and dissemination processes (Douglass & Moustakas, 1985; Moustakas, 1994). Grounded theory is signified by theoretical emergence, which entails understanding the participants’ perceptions of reality (Charmaz, 2006; Powell, 2012), and using heuristic approaches help to legitimize the emergent theory. Table 2 illustrated the number of open themes found in the data through line-by-line analysis. The open themes were reduced to 24 axial themes for each participant group (see Table 3); the axial themes emerged from the patterns and connections found in the data. The axial codes were pared down to a selective theme for each interview question, for each participant group (see Table 4), based on the patterns that emerged from the participants’ perceptions. Four primary themes emerged for each participant group (see Table 5), which enabled the beginnings of conceptual development. The primary themes were analyzed by triangulating direct textual quotations, field notes, and memos that explained how and why the primary themes originated, while considering the participants’ narratives. In addition, a constructivist grounded theory approach identifies the relevance of the principal researcher as a co-constructor of the experiences, necessitating constant reflection and reciprocation between the author and the participants (Charmaz, 2006; Mills et al., 2006a). The proposed emergent theory uses a lens of systems thinking (Caldwell, 2012; Conti, 2010, 2011) from an autopoietic perspective (Maturana, 2014; Sice et al., 2013) that might augment the leadership path paradigm for women, ultimately
230 enhancing an organization’s human capital development and utilization. This constructivist grounded theory study yielded the following emergent theories:
In masculinized environments, the view of women as formal leaders induces implicit stereotypes of women trying to have it all, leading to psychological barriers that overwhelm women in junior positions who are trying to achieve formal leadership roles.
In masculinized environments, women as leaders create underlying system tensions. To mitigate the tension, these woman leaders embrace agentic traits, but do not transfer that knowledge effectively to women in junior positions. Therefore, the inefficiencies in these communications sabotage the progression of the women in junior positions.
In masculinized environments, undercurrents of the trait approach to leadership are culturally entrenched, leading to mixed signals regarding advancement between women in formal leadership and women in junior positions. Summary
The study revealed the represented banking and finance organizations as being defined largely by agentic stimuli. The results driven nature of these organizations render mechanistic cultures of vertical decision-making and clear hierarchies (Clemson & Evans, 2012; Dust et al., 2014), aligning with linear management models that reproduce leaders accordingly. Consequently, women immersed in these organizational cultures adapt (i.e., become habituated) to the pressures of the masculinized environments to achieve or withstand positions of formal leadership. Although the participants generally
231 perceived their organizations and organizational leaders as espousing situational leadership styles, the data revealed that the mechanistically inclined demands of such masculinized environments require many of the agentic traits concordant with the traditionally understood notion of the trait approach to leadership, which suggests that certain people have innate characteristics predicting leadership ability (da Cruz et al., 2011; Stogdill, 1948). Chapter 4 began with a review of the purpose, problem statement, method and rationale of participant recruitment, and data collection and storage. This chapter also included discussions regarding methods to ensure the study’s credibility and transferability along with an explanation of the study’s theoretical saturation. An overview of grounded theory analysis was presented to explain the processes for how the data were collected as well as to describe the beginnings of the dissemination process. An overview of the coding processes followed, with categories defined among each section. The codes were condensed to primary themes that were used to analyze the data triangulated from interview transcripts, field notes, and memos. Interview questions were analyzed, followed by an analysis of the research questions using the primary themes, and finally the proposition of three emergent theories. In Chapter 5, the researcher addresses the study’s assumptions, presents an overview of the findings in relation to the research questions, and relates the study’s findings to the existing literature. The chapter also contains a summary of the study findings, suggested recommendations for leaders, and areas for future study. Additionally discussed are the study’s limitations, conclusion, and additional researcher thoughts.
232 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this qualitative, constructivist grounded theory study was to explore the perceptions of leadership from the viewpoints of women who held junior positions and who desired to attain formal leadership positions within their organizations as well as those of women in formal leadership roles. The intended purpose was to gain a better understanding of the barriers, if any, regarding opportunities for women in junior positions to grow into formal leadership positions within their organizations. The study sample consisted of 11 participants located in the Southeastern United States: (a) six women holding formal leadership roles within an organization, defined as managing three or more people; and (b) five women holding junior positions but intending to advance within the masculinized industry of banking and finance. Addressed in this chapter are the study’s assumptions, an overview of the findings in relation to the research questions, and relating the study findings to literature. A summary of the study findings, suggested recommendations for leaders, and areas for future study are included. Additionally discussed are the study’s limitations, conclusion, and the researcher’s thoughts. Data were gathered through a purposive and snowball sampling of women currently employed in the U.S. banking and finance industry. All 11 participants were employed in the Southeastern United States; all but one participant were located in the same region of the same state (that participant had moved from this same region approximately 5 years ago). Five different organizations were represented among the candidates. There is a gap in the literature concerning the self-perceptions of women in junior positions compared to the perceptions held by women in leadership positions (Latu et al., 2013). Consequently, the researcher chose to compare the data retrieved from the
233 two groups to begin a process to help organizations and organizational leaders learn to maximize an organization’s existing human capital (Boxall, 2013; Lecuona & Reitzig, 2014). Organizations are facing increased complexity, where there are multiple causes leading to events and actions within organizational constructs (Checkland, 2012; Magzan, 2012; Senge, 1990). Consequently, systems thinking aligns with a holistic view of effectively utilizing the knowledge of an organization’s external and internal stakeholders (Cooperrider, 2012). Systems thinking using an autopoietic perspective provided the lens that framed the study. Senge (1990) explained that organizational learning requires holistic thinking, which invites the input of various stakeholders and legitimizes the actors’ experiences within the organizational context (Cooperrider, 2012; Parboteeah & Jackson, 2007). The systems thinking lens created the revelations of interdependencies apparent among the participants and their colleagues. Using an autopoietic perspective allowed for a new paradigmatic exploration, as suggested by Liang (2013), for theoretical advancement. Study Assumptions Addressed In Chapter 1, seven assumptions were discussed. Upon completion of the selective coding process, the previous chapters were reviewed to conglomerate the data with information from each chapter’s resources. Of the seven proposed assumptions, six were in complete agreement with the research and one was in partial agreement with the research. Study assumption highlights follow:
Human capital management aligned with the research, as limited leadership role availability and budgetary constraints within organizations were
234 recognized by all of the participants. Consequently, the need to maximize the contributions of every employee emerged from the participants’ responses. Furthermore, the data showed that women in junior positions regularly performed outside of their job scopes and felt a need to do so for advancement, while the same sentiments were shared by the women in formal leadership.
Desire for advancement was expressed by all participants. Women in junior positions were seeking advancement either within the organization or within the industry, while women in formal leadership sought career progression or small business expansion.
Masculinized environments were portrayed as normative for the U.S. banking and finance industry. The formal leaders’ exhibition of agentic traits was noticed throughout the data through their response styles, as the leaders were more confident and forthright when answering interview questions compared to the women in junior positions. Data revealed that the industry is results driven and requires hierarchal decision-making processes, which reinforces agentic leadership traits, consequently legitimizing the perceptions of the need for command and control structures.
Direct exposure to women in leadership was found in most of the interviews. All of the participants had worked with women leaders in the past, but not all were currently exposed directly to women as leaders. As dyadic relationships between women in junior positions and women in leadership were reported,
235 narratives and the emergence of themes regarding women’s leadership were encountered and reported.
The opportunity and importance of building networks emerged from the data. There was a dichotomy between the importance of networking and a physical capacity to effectively build networks. Networks and connections were referenced by all of the participants regarding the importance of professional growth. However, time constraints related to their professional duties and personal life balance hindered opportunities to enhance connections and networks.
Negative perceptions of feminism were pronounced throughout the data. The term feminism arose one time, and the participant related feminism as the idea that women have a harder time performing in typically masculinized environments or tasks. However, a general agreement that women and men can perform equally within masculinized environments was apparent. Consequently, undercurrents of feminist ideologies were developed throughout the participants’ responses.
Accurate self-reporting was anticipated and believed to be received from the participants. Two women in junior positions self-identified with formal leadership, but were reidentified based on their demographic question responses as holding junior roles based on their job structures. Furthermore, follow-up questions were used to probe areas and provide additional response clarity.
236 Findings in Relation to the Research Questions After analyzing the selective themes and establishing primary themes for the interview questions, the researcher triangulated the data from participants’ responses, field notes, and memos to establish the significance of each research question (see Table 1). RQ1: Systems Thinking Findings from both groups appeared to be systems thinking driven, legitimizing the systems thinking lens. The primary themes of commitment to the organization, support from the organization, professional development, and expectations of contributions to the organization were interlaced throughout the entirety of the data. These themes support the interdependencies of leaders and subordinates (see Greer et al., 2011) that enable an individual’s professional advancement and the subsequent perpetuation of organizational growth (see Caldwell, 2012; Checkland, 1992; Senge, 1990). In addition, the themes of mutual openness and trust/trustworthiness reinforced attributes of psychological safety and empowerment encountered throughout the data (Edmondson, 1999), further espousing the need for knowledge sharing and learning (Raes et al., 2013). All of the women participating in the study were seeking some sort of growth or advancement within the industry. P1 and P8, who were both self-employed, hoped to expand their business enterprises using both internal and external resources. P6, a junior woman, was seeking advancement outside her current organization, but intended to stay in the banking and finance industry using her connections with individuals within the industry. P5 expected a promotion to formal leadership within the next 6 months. P11,
237 though opting out of a management role held for almost a decade, realized the importance of maintaining connections and valued optimal performance as an individual contributor. The participants all acknowledged the existence of opportunities for education and training offered by their respective organizations. Both groups of participants recognized cultures of openness among colleagues, which allowed for a general flow of knowledge throughout the organization and the individual groups. All of the participants had contributed in various functional roles within the industry, and most had worked for more than one company in the industry. The practical roles often required crossfunctionality with other teams, potentially opening new opportunities for knowledge expansion and promotions. The women in junior positions generally described their managers as helpful, while the women in formal positions were inclined to help their subordinates grow and learn. Most of the participants described their organizations as focusing on promotions from within, with the exception of P6 (who was disenchanted positionally). Making lateral moves to increase their breadth of knowledge was described as a pathway for advancement and was encouraged by the women in leadership. In addition, intraorganizational lateral movement seemed to be an understood benefit by the women in junior positions. Managers were perceived as available for feedback regularly, although the feedback was sometimes perceived as lacking substance, depending on the manager’s experience. Furthermore, the participants factored perceptions that were similar regarding personal and professional challenges accompanying career advancement. Because of the agentic expectation of the masculinized environment of the banking and finance industry, fault lines (see Bezrukova et al., 2012) occur between
238 women in junior positions and women in formal leadership that separate the perceptions of abilities between the two groups of women, subsequently leading to the underestimation of women holding junior roles by women in leadership (Goncalo et al., 2010) in masculinized environments. Although women in junior positions exhibited organizational citizenship behaviors (López-Domínguez et al., 2013; Schermerhorn et al., 2011) and role breadth self-efficacy (López-Domínguez et al., 2013) to withstand the masculinized environment, a systemic barrier occurred between their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Bolat et al., 2011) and their reliance on leaders to set the course for advancement. RQ2: Stereotype Threat/Role Incongruity Stereotype threat and role incongruity seemed to affect the autopoietic motivation for leadership attainment in different ways for each participant group. For the women in junior positions, two participants, P3 and P6, perceived outright disadvantages for women’s advancement into leadership, citing glass ceiling phenomena (i.e., marital status, children, pay disadvantages, and social networking constraints) as inhibitors for growth; P5’s responses reinforced those arguments. A woman leader who recently opted out of leadership, P11, also implicitly legitimized such stereotypes in a story regarding a woman P11 perceived as “isolated” around a team of men. Women in leadership did not apply stereotype threat or role incongruence to themselves when considering professional advancement. For example, P1 maintained doubts about “women [having] it harder” than men when competing in the workplace. P9 described herself as always being an overachiever and inviting harsh feedback. P8 explained having a lack of interest in joining specialized women’s groups in her field
239 based on her perceptions of excuse making in such groups. P11 admitted that she had always gotten along better with men. P2 and P4 often mentioned the importance of career ownership and subordinates taking control of their own advancement. Regarding RQ2, some observations emerged from the field notes. The women in junior positions seemed markedly less confident in their interview question answers. For example, the women in junior positions often asked whether they answered the questions in an acceptable way (i.e., “I hope I answered that okay”), whereas the women in formal leadership seemed noticeably more steadfast when answering. The women in formal leadership spoke with more confidence and seemed more dynamic when answering the questions. The difference was evident in the number of open codes found for each group, despite similar interview lengths. The women in junior positions expressed the importance of having the ability to add value to the organization and the women in formal leadership expressed the importance of helping develop subordinates for leadership. In addition, the expectation of agentic and communal traits was evident between the two groups. However, a greater expectancy of portraying agentic traits was related to the women in leadership positions’ habituation (Dember, 1990; Nickerson, 1990) within masculinized environments, as industry tenure averaged 7.3 years longer than women in junior positions. This conflicts with the proclivity of women in junior positions to cling to communal trait prescriptions societally expected from women. RQ3: Glass Ceiling Although elements of a glass ceiling were acknowledged by all of the participants, they did not seem to impede the participants’ autopoietic motivation to
240 contribute to their organizations or advance in the industry. The women in junior positions all felt like advancement within their organizations or the industry was viable, although admitting perceptions that personal or professional challenges sometimes interfered. Two of the junior participants were explicit that being a woman was specifically challenging in the masculinized environment. The term “glass ceiling” was used only by P7 regarding a lack of management positions specifically within her group. While most participants admitted challenges regarding advancement related to a lack of positions or organizational economic considerations, there seemed to be no imposition on autopoietic motivation for advancement among any of the participants. Performance expectations for advancement were generally perceived as transparent by participants, although positional responsibilities sometimes inhibited the participants’ perceived ability to take advantage of the opportunities offered by their organizations to advance their knowledge. RQ4: Organizational Culture Organizational culture did affect the autopoietic motivation of the women in junior roles when pursuing formal leadership roles. With the exception of P11 (who acknowledged a lack of organizational diversity after moving), the participants did not indicate an absence of organizational diversity. P4 said there were “advantages for women” organizationally and P2 explained that specific women got “a sponsor, definitely providing opportunities and direct feedback on how to navigate the larger organization and to promote myself and my personal brand.” Both participant groups delivered reports of having open cultures between managers and subordinates. The openness motivated the women in junior positions to seek guidance from managers and to utilize
241 the resources offered by their respective organizations. Furthermore, the women in formal leadership expressed motivation to develop subordinates through both organizationally mandated processes (i.e., development plans, review process) and organic means (i.e., real-time feedback, connections). Notably absent from the participants’ responses were perspectives regarding professional and social expectations that might be aligned with the women’s desire to appear feminine. Although some of the barriers and challenges the participants mentioned involved stereotypes, the participants did not overtly express feeling a need to conform to prescribed gender roles to advance or fit into the organizational culture. The participants were confident in their abilities to perform their roles successfully, and regularly expressed cultural openness affiliated with a freedom to share knowledge and accept help. The women in formal leadership roles exhibited agentic traits in an effort to balance the perturbation caused by women serving as leaders in masculinized environments (see Sice et al., 2013; Urrestarazu, 2011a). A masculinized culture of banking and finance was pronounced in the study’s data. Evidence of budgetary concerns, results orientation, and time constraints revealed undercurrents of a perceived need for command and control leadership, which is traditionally paired with hierarchal, mechanistic organizations (Rijal, 2010). Consequently, the perception of command and control ideologies, conjoined with the women leaders’ espousal of communal traits, skewed the expectations for performance between the two participant groups.
242 RQ5: Organization’s Implicit Belief System Findings revealed perceptions were mixed regarding the participants’ beliefs about whether their respective organizations believed employees’ talents could be developed (incremental) or are fixed (entity). With the exception of P6, all of the participants conferred their respective organization’s commitment to internal promotions. Furthermore, the women in junior positions all showed a willingness and desire to take on extra responsibilities that were above and beyond their typical role responsibilities. The women in formal leadership all displayed an inclination to help their subordinates grow professionally. Thus, organizational cultures espouse incremental beliefs. The importance of being proactive with career trajectories was a caveat asserted by all of the participants, identifying with an entity perspective. For example, the women in junior positions acknowledged an expectation of proactive behaviors for advancement consideration. The women in formal leadership also shared the perspective of subordinates proactively approaching their careers. Therefore, while both sets of participants explained that opportunities were available within their organizations or the industry, there were clear expectations that subordinates needed to exhibit agentic traits when considering career advancement. The participants’ perceptions provided insight into the organizations’ implicit belief structures. For example, as a result of the internal constraints of manpower within teams, participants in junior positions expressed challenges with finding time to participate in organizational activities, such as educational opportunities or networking events. In addition, budgetary confines limited the number of accessible formal management positions available for employees. One participant made known that the
243 organization did not have the resources available for advancement to the desired role. Consequently, while the organizations espoused incremental beliefs, entity beliefs were entrenched throughout these organizations. RQ6: Leadership Styles Review of the copious data revealed findings specifying the influence of leaders and leadership styles on the participants. Each participant described people and characteristics that helped personally categorize leadership, while defining individual preferences and attitudes toward leadership within an organizational setting. The participants often described leadership characteristics in conjunction with organizational culture, portraying the participants’ understanding of the need to adapt to their surroundings. There appeared to be a backlash effect when participants described a woman’s leadership style in agentic ways. Four of the five women in junior positions described a man and a woman when asked to describe a leader’s positives and negatives. Three of those participants defended the woman leader’s negatives through alluding to high managerial loads (e.g., “she has so much on her plate”). Conversely, P9, a woman in formal leadership, explained that “people who have a tendency to be overachievers, have a tendency to take on a little too much” when describing a man as a manager who had the same propensity. Women’s leadership styles had peripheral influences regarding the participants’ perceptions of effective leadership. With a variety of descriptions, all of the participants shared similar ideals regarding effective leadership. Many of the descriptions included communal traits. Regarding both the men and women to whom the participants reported throughout their careers, the participants generally outlined both agentic and communal
244 traits; finding those qualities in many of their managers. In comparison to the women in junior positions, the women in formal leadership were more open to receiving and applying agentic leadership attributes. The study’s participants holding formal leadership designations developed arguments indicating that agentic traits helped the path toward attaining leadership roles. The agentic traits displayed by the leaders and mentors of the women in formal leadership created opportunities to enhance learning, further influencing their career growth compared to the participants’ attributions of communal traits regarding career growth. Relating the Study Findings to Literature There is evidence to support that women in formal organizational leadership positions might improve factors of corporate governance including long-term decisionmaking, team collaboration, and higher returns on investments (Bart & McQueen, 2013; Huang & Kisgen, 2013; Mahadeo et al., 2012; Spearly, 2007). Furthermore, women account for half of the U.S. workforce (Fetterolf & Eagly, 2011; Hoobler et al., 2011; Khan & Vieito, 2013; Schuh et al., 2014) and are beginning to outpace men in educational achievement (Derks, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2016; Vial, Napier, & Brescoll, 2016). Resulting from such statistics, Hoyt and Murphy (2016) acknowledged that “women hold a greater percentage of leadership roles in . . . the workforce than ever before . . . in the United States” (p. 387). The current study uncovered some exploratory opportunities for organizations and organizational leaders regarding boundaries women seeking leadership in masculinized environments face when contemplating and attempting to advance within masculinized constructs.
245 Stereotypes Stereotypes of women “as dependent, submissive and conforming, and . . . lacking leadership qualities” (Burns, 1978/2012, p. 50) have pervaded the culture and offered explanations for women’s struggles to reach high-level leadership positions (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016). Western cultural tradition has subordinated women to men socially and sexually for centuries (Quinn, 1977). Burns (1978/2012) asserted, “The male bias [of leadership] is reflected in the false conception of leadership as mere command and control” (p. 50). Command and control represents the traditionally mechanistic model of organizational structure, assuming vertical hierarchies that allow only the highest ranking officials to make decisions regarding an organization’s direction (Clemson & Evans, 2012; Dust et al., 2014). This researcher encountered deep rooted mechanistic structures—identifying explicit and implicit stereotypes—that resonated within the masculinized environments, leading women leaders to become habituated with the characteristics of trait leadership rather than cultivating situational models (see Chapter 2). Effectively, women in formal leadership are placed more in a position of power (control of people/possessions) rather than given the opportunity to exhibit leadership (cultivating relationships with subordinates; Burns, 1978/2012). Women in junior positions seemed keenly aware of the stereotypes regarding women, while women in formal leadership exacerbated the stereotypes in their attempts to create high quality relationships with subordinates. Detailed in Chapter 2, situational leadership theories (for examples, see Dionne et al., 2014) account for the relationships between leaders and subordinates. Mechanistic organizational constructs oppose situational leadership paradigms, essentially giving
246 organizations and organizational leaders minimal, if any, choice in leadership style. The organizations in this study were described by the participants as results driven, budget conscious, and time constrained. These organizational characteristics help to keep the mechanistic structures statically engaged (Cilliers & Greyvenstein, 2012), and therefore mechanistic models maintain relevance. While all of this study’s participants sought advancement within their organizations and the industry, the mechanistic models inhibited growth by creating barriers for stakeholders to contribute meaningfully to the organization. These barriers might not be specific to women, but prescriptive stereotypes seemed to encumber the advancement of the women in masculinized environments. Systems Thinking Nonaka et al. (2014) stated, “The source of real innovation stems from the creation and exploitation of knowledge” (p. 137), explaining the importance of synthesizing cultural expectations and views throughout an organization’s ecosystem. Systems thinking understands the interdependencies of an organization’s many parts (Caldwell, 2012; Senge, 1990; von Bertalanffy, 1968/1988). Feedback is a vital component for learning (A. J. Hillman et al., 2009). Caldwell (2012) tethered systems thinking and feedback, denoting the importance of system adaptation and organizational learning. Mechanistically oriented mindsets rely on historic cultural patterns of operations (Gharajedaghi, 2007). A myopic view of deterministic causality (i.e., if A, then B) dominates these inflexible, stagnant environments that are, by definition, learning averse (Argyris, 1997). Consequently, the mechanistic structures found in the perceptions of this study’s participants created boundaries for their learning and growth, and by default, for other organizational stakeholders.
247 Systems thinking was apparent in some aspects of the participants’ responses. For example, feedback was available from managers, there were numerous opportunities for education and training offered in every organization, and the participants described a focus on internal promotional opportunities. In addition, the paths for advancement were similar in nature throughout the different organizations. Lateral movement was encouraged and understood as necessary by the participants to help broaden their knowledge of different aspects of organizational functioning. Formal and informal education was another expectation that was accepted as culturally normal for career advancement. The ability to maintain relationships, such as participating in crossfunctional, intra-organizational teams, was also consistent across the participant data. Thus, the alignment of employee expectations with organizational values created the unified cultures necessary for systems thinking (Merl & Schönbauer, 2014; Nieminen et al., 2013). The expectation of agentic traits as fundamental for leadership in masculinized environments was also discernable. From a systems thinking perspective, women in leadership underestimated the ability of women in junior positions to advance into leadership positions. As evidenced in the data, women in leadership habituated to the masculinized environment, overcoming stereotype threat (Fogliati & Bussey, 2013; Hoyt & Murphy, 2016; Steele, 1997), in essence disqualifying themselves as relatable examples for women in junior positions (see also Derks et al., 2016). Women in junior positions saw women in leadership as overworked or overextended in the role, having a natural ability (perceived as not being possessed by the junior women) to balance the
248 demands of work–life balance—essentially submitting to stereotype threat. These factors point to a gap in the aforementioned systems thinking unification necessary for growth. Organizational Culture The organizational cultures were portrayed as mechanistic, relying heavily on hierarchal patterns of operations and decision-making. Because organizational culture explains an organization’s values and norms that enable members to feel a part of the organization’s mission and vision (Ahmad & Veerapandian, 2012), women looking to advance professionally are inclined to follow the patterns embedded within the organization. Generally, the organizations were portrayed as open and diverse, which enhanced the autopoietic motivation for women in junior positions to exhibit OCB. In addition, allusions to advantages for women in these organizations—importantly, made by women in formal leadership—allowed insight into the organizations’ espoused importance to promote women into leadership positions. Subsequently, women in junior positions were motivated to take advantage of the resources offered by their organizations to enable advancement, while women in formal leadership expressed motivation to develop subordinates. However, women leading in masculinized environments present perturbations for the masculinized system. For this study, autopoiesis explains how the women leaders balanced the internal and external forces to obtain and withstand leadership roles in the masculinized environments (Sice et al., 2013; Urrestarazu, 2011a, 2011b). Derks et al. (2016) explained that “women leaders more generally . . . elicit stronger resistance than men in leadership positions” (p. 463). Therefore, women in formal leadership—in an effort to balance expectations—assimilate to the masculinized culture through portraying
249 agentic traits (i.e., trait leadership). Because agentic traits are understood as cultural norms in masculinized environments (Vial et al., 2016), women in formal leadership make their womanhood invisible to abide by the masculinized constructs of culture (Kelan, 2013; Stead, 2013). In this study, responses from the women in junior positions regarding women in formal leadership being overworked or overextended provided evidence of a cultural backlash toward women in formal leadership (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Rudman et al., 2012; Vial et al., 2016). Women in junior positions portrayed RBSE by describing a willingness and ability to perform well in many levels of the organization (LópezDomínguez et al., 2013). However, women in junior positions (and P11 who opted out of a leadership role) also heavily factored in (in comparison to women in formal leadership) the importance of maintaining work–life balance, ultimately exposing the women in junior positions’ perceptions of lower self-efficacy to balance the demands of work–life balance than that of the women in formal leadership. Women in formal leadership exacerbated that sentiment, creating a gap in communication by making allowances for women in junior positions to pursue work–life balance—allowances that were not readily available throughout the leaders’ professional advancement. The gap in communication affects the expectations between the two groups and ultimately influences organizational culture. Summary of Findings for Leaders This exploration and description of the perceptions of women in junior positions who were seeking advancement and the perceptions of women holding formal leadership positions of women in junior positons in the masculinized environment of the banking
250 and finance industry revealed some clandestine boundaries for women who want to advance into formal leadership roles in the industry. Organizations and organizational leaders seeking to maximize the use of human capital should note that these findings are helpful for understanding an organization’s structure as innately mechanistic or organic. Enhancing organizational learning involves the qualities of knowledge sharing and innovation, which should lead to knowledge creation. Knowledge creation is enhanced in an organically (versus mechanistically) inclined environment (Nonaka et al., 2014). The results of this study align with Conti’s (2011) charge that many organizational cultures are embedded with mechanistic paradigms, despite establishing that mechanistically inclined organizations are “clearly incompatible with today’s social systems” (p. 253). Mechanistic organizations comprise clear hierarchies (Cilliers & Greyvenstein, 2012) recognized by vertical decision-making, often at the executive level (Clemson & Evans, 2012; Dust et al., 2014). The view of organizations as mechanistic is traditional and withstanding, and changing such views can be challenging (Gharajedaghi, 2007). Regarding sustaining changes brought about by Lewin’s (1942) field theory (i.e., the study of interactions between an individual and the environment), Burnes and Cooke (2013) explained, “This is why changes that are imposed or only have superficial participation tend to bring only limited benefits—those who have to make the changes have only limited understanding of, and commitment to, what is being changed and why” (p. 420). Consequently, an organization’s malabsorptive incompetence and maladapted competencies—which describe the unwillingness or inability to explore and exploit resources accompanied by an organization’s neglection of learning (Heine & Rindfleisch, 2013)—become exposed, encumbering an organization’s competitive advantage.
251 Ultimately, although organizations might espouse open systems, the malabsorptive incompetence and maladapted competencies create quasi-closed systems where learning is interrupted at some organizational levels in these masculinized environments. Systems thinking evokes a need for interdependence among a system’s parts, and united views among an organization’s stakeholders (Gharajedaghi, 2007), thus creating a fluid environment that aligns employee expectations with an organization’s values (Merl & Schönbauer, 2014; Nieminen et al., 2013). Having open systems is critical for influencing organizational change, as open systems utilize feedback from the entirety of an organization’s stakeholders (Caldwell, 2012; Hanson, 1979; Senge, 1990). Consequently, results of this study revealed that the women in junior positions outwardly displayed OCB and RBSE in an effort to prove worthy for career advancement, but their perceptions of women in formal leadership produced implicit stereotypes creating a psychological barrier that might be overwhelming when considering career advancement. In masculinized environments, women in formal leadership create underlying systems tensions, to which women in formal leadership respond through masculinized environmental habituation. The concept of self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that an organization’s ability to attract and retain employees resides in the organization allowing employees to fulfill goals (Öztürk, 2012; Vroom, 1966). An employee’s intrinsic psychological needs, such as autonomy, positional fit, and connections, often coincide with the employee’s motivation (or amotivation), which is usually bound by external values (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Graves & Luciano, 2013; Haivas et al., 2014). Producing high-quality exchanges between leaders and employees helps with satisfying intrinsic psychological needs (Graves & Luciano, 2013). Thus, efforts to create high-
252 quality exchanges cause (a) women in leadership’s habituation to agentic traits in an effort to withstand the environment, and (b) the perception held by women in leadership that building high-quality relationships with women in junior positions requires allowances for women to remain communally role congruent. Embedded in masculinized environments is the trait approach to leadership (Stogdill, 1948). Although leaders and organizations espouse situational styles of leadership (see Armandi et al., 2003; Shartle, 1979), the nature of the banking and finance industry was portrayed by this study’s participants as results driven, time constrained, and budget conscious. This revealed patterns of leaders as ultimately responsible for production, leading to a need for traditional command and control management structures (Cilliers & Greyvenstein, 2012). Furthermore, women as leaders cause a perturbation in the masculinized system, which is rebalanced by women’s systemic habituation (Dember, 1990) through displaying agentic traits. Women’s habituation to the masculinized environments creates weakened fault lines (Bezrukova et al., 2012) between women in junior positions and women in formal leadership through gaps in communication (Hassan et al., 2011) and misaligned expectancies between the two groups. Recommendations for Leaders The results of this study generated information regarding leadership advancement from the perspectives of women in junior positions and women holding formal leadership positions who were currently employed in the masculinized environment of the U.S. banking and finance industry. Participants expressed ideas regarding the need for interdependencies regarding professional growth within organizations. The following
253 recommendations might enhance the quality of relationships between leaders and subordinates as the recommendations suggest opportunities for relational paradigm shifts among dyads or groups. Interdependence Women in junior positions described a reliance on and trust in organizational leaders and the organization’s culture to pave a path to leadership positions. Women in formal leadership were willing to help proactive subordinates achieve greater role responsibilities within the organization. However, the results portrayed that the nature of these masculinized environments still demands a heavy reliance on agentic traits for leading. Agentic traits align with conventionally understood leadership paradigms (i.e., command and control, mechanistic), which interferes with the prescribed role designations of women in junior positions (i.e., displaying communal traits). Organizations that can harness the junior women’s reliance on and trust in the organization’s leaders and culture might create pathways toward maximizing human capital and subsequently competitive advantages. Organizational Learning The ability for organizations in the U.S. banking and finance industry to improve their competitive advantages aligns with the organizational challenges portrayed by this study’s participants. The participants were consistent in acknowledging that these organizations are results motivated, time constrained, and budget driven. As a result of environmental challenges, organizations and their leaders rely on mechanistic management models. Consequently, women in junior positions perceived women in formal leadership as having a distinct ability to manage their personal and professional
254 lives seamlessly—even while perceiving the women in formal leadership as overextended in their professional role responsibilities. Thus, an organization learning to recognize and implement resource dependence theory (RDT)—which relies on environmental feedback for systems optimization (Hillman et al., 2009)—should begin the development of more organically inclined management systems to enable horizontally oriented knowledge flow, subsequently bolstering knowledge creation and innovation (Nonaka et al., 2014). Coaching The interview data showed that women in junior positions committed great amounts of time and energy to both personal and professional endeavors. The primary variant between the two groups was in the perception of the ability to effectively manage both areas. Women in junior positions displayed OCB and RBSE with the same proficiency as women in formal positions. However, the two groups differed in the area of SDT. Women in formal leadership roles admitted making personal sacrifices to rise to positions of formal leadership, creating high-quality exchanges with the environment in order to advance. However, the women in junior positions generally seemed reluctant (or unable) to make the sacrifices, instead relying on leaders to make allowances and minimizing personal sacrifices. The women in formal leadership often acknowledged the challenges related to the desire (or need) of women in junior positions for work–life balance, and were striving to create the high-quality exchange by accommodating the junior women. Thus, coaching women in formal leadership to find different ways to communicate work–life balance expectations will enable greater self-replication and provide better understanding, and possibly greater opportunities, for women to advance within masculinized environments.
255 Internal Cultural Changes (Mechanistic to Organic Models) Embedded in the data was a reliance on agentic traits for effectively leading in masculinized environments. The culture of these organizations was described as mechanistic, where hierarchies and command and control strategies were rampant. Although the participants described agentic and communal traits regarding leaders and the organizations, the expectancy of agentic traits was most apparent. Women leaders in masculinized organizations cause a perturbation to the system, instigating the need to portray agentic traits in an effort to rebalance the expectations. Consequently, situational leadership methods, when applied, are used to subdue subordinates, possibly sabotaging their opportunities for advancement or learning. Organizational learning, which asserts that people provide value for an organization (Duden, 2014), makes systems thinking relevant for enabling feedback loops (Argyris, 1997; Senge, 1990) that could enable organizational leaders to recommend changes in leadership structures based on the adoption of situational leadership models as theories in use. Recommendations for Future Research In this chapter, perceptions regarding various facets of leadership advancement were presented. Because this was a grounded theory study, the findings serve as a starting point for future research. The study sample consisted of two distinct groups of women employed in the U.S. banking and finance industry. There were 11 participants from the same geographic vicinity. Perhaps a study from a different geographic vicinity might serve as a starting point for aligning the data. The results revealed inconsistencies between the organizations’ espoused missions to advance employees for leadership roles, instead remaining oriented with traditional systems of development and promotions.
256 Liang (2013) suggested that human systems are highly complex, asserting that “governance, leadership, strategies, and ethicality are highly interconnected” (p. 6). Therefore, a measure of autopoiesis to balance an organization’s collective intelligence and an individual’s intelligence allows the system to “continuously seek a best possible sustainable state” (Liang, 2013, p. 10). Consequently, the autopoiesis might lead to opportunities for new paradigmatic exploration that enhances organizational learning. The themes identified in this study are representative of the participants’ perceptions, but may constitute opportunities for refined categorization to conduct a quantitative study within a particular institution. Based on the refined categorization of data from multivariate to invariable, a quantitative study would allow for a greater scope of data collection to identify broader areas of opportunity for the organization to augment its human capital utilization. A benefit for organizations investigating these phenomena quantitatively lies in the opportunity for a massive scope of generalized data. This study uncovered perspectives relating organizational culture as localized. Thus, gathering a greater scope of information might create new ways for organizations and the leadership to align stakeholders’ views across varying locations with diverse populations. A mixed methods study might allow for greater focus within a particular population of the organization. If an organization’s leaders want to learn to utilize human capital more efficiently or even differently, categorizing the perceptions of the affected stakeholders through combining elements of quantitative and qualitative analysis might be effective. Demand has increased regarding the advantages of combining quantitative and qualitative data as a result of the combination, “promot[ing] the quality and rigour
257 [sic] of such studies (Darawsheh, 2014, p. 560). Consequently, an organization might conduct a mixed methods study on a relatively small segment of a population to gain deeper, and perhaps more valid, insights regarding the studied phenomena. Furthermore, action research could be considered through developing organizational advancement plans and evaluating processes. The information from the study might be sound pedagogically; however, learning to apply the research might require some additional steps. Luhmann (1997) explained the difficulty of planning— especially in large, diverse systems—related to the complexity born from significant environmental pressures that are “always more complex than the system” (Valentinov, 2012, p. 539). Action research defies positivist science, as an organization seeks to identify and resolve an immediate organizational problem (Beaulieu, 2013; Hind, Smit, & Page, 2013). An organization’s culture can offer unique challenges regarding power relations, information sources, and developmental opportunities (Castka, Balzarova, Bamber, & Sharp, 2004; Muo, 2013; Nieminen et al., 2013), impeding the generalizability of the action research’s results. However, Seddon and Caulkin (2007) explained, “Systems thinking is only truly learned by doing, by action learning: it is only by doing that managers can unlearn” (p. 15). Thus, action research can be viable for organization specific ventures. The focus of the current study was on women’s advancement in a masculinized industry. A longitudinal study tracking the paths of the participants would provide another opportunity to relate the consistency of the findings, as well as offering a chance to track possible differences in perceptions throughout the participants’ career progression. A study of other masculinized industries can be warranted to determine
258 whether similar themes emerge regarding women’s advancement. In addition, different population groups (e.g., African American, Hispanic, LGBT) can be studied, even within different industries. Perhaps a reverse study with men trying to advance in traditionally feminized environments might yield value. Furthermore, studying specific dyads of leaders and subordinates might designate areas of improvement for the organization’s training of leaders. Another opportunity for future research would be to replicate the study, adding the perceptions of men—or exploring men’s perceptions exclusively—from within the same industry. The men’s perspectives might then be correlated against the women’s findings. This researcher attempted gender neutrality to remain consistent with the parameters of grounded theory (see Glaser, 2002). However, the topic of gender was brought up by several participants throughout the interviews. The insights of men working in the same environment might benefit organizational leaders, as men’s perspectives could further legitimize or delegitimize this study’s findings. Generational considerations might be included within future research, as evidence emerged from this study regarding differentiations based on participants’ socialization. Farrell and Hurt (2014) explained that the millennial generation (born 1980-2000) will soon outnumber the baby boomer generation (born 1946-1964) in the workforce. Consequently, “to be successful in effectively managing the transition . . . [between generations] . . . a clearer understanding of the training and design preferences of millennials is essential” (Farrell & Hurt, 2014, p. 47). This study, although containing only one millennial, revealed the participants’ understanding of such needs—and more specifically, an attitudinal difference was noticed in the millennial participant’s
259 responses. In addition, future researchers might consider getting perspectives from participants located in different geographical locations, as regional or other country cultural differences might affect participants’ perspectives. Limitations of the Study This study was designed for purposeful participant sampling (Acharya et al., 2013; Breckenridge & Jones, 2009) to enable theory to emerge from the collected data. Constructivist grounded theory research accepts the researcher’s participation in the study and the study’s conceptual development (Charmaz, 2014; Mills et al., 2006b). As such, while the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, the researcher also created field notes, observations of body language and voice inflections, and memos to triangulate the data into information leading to the axial and selective codes and emergent theories. A heuristic approach to data collection was used in an attempt to mitigate researcher bias. To counter possible researcher bias, the researcher engaged in the process of epoché (Moustakas, 1994), relying on emotional intelligence and building trust with the participants (C. S. Collins & Cooper, 2014; Lincoln, 2012), and avoiding a review of the study’s literature review until coding was completed (see Elliott & Jordan, 2010) throughout the data collection progression. Researchers are responsible for presenting findings and interpretations of data discriminately (Frances Luce et al., 2012). Although not perceived to be the case, the researcher’s maleness might have mired participants’ answers to questions, as all participants were professional women. In addition, the sample size, although adequate for the purpose of this study, only accounts for the perspectives of these 11 participants located in the Southeast United States. Another limitation was a lack of interested
260 participants and time constraints related to the researcher’s timetable. Requests for participants on social media sites garnered zero replies and some women who declared interest in participating did not reply to several requests to schedule interviews within the allotted time. Thus, because of the narrow scope of the exploration, the study’s transferability was arguably reduced. Additional Researcher Thoughts Eagly and Heilman (2014) wrote an article for Leadership Quarterly announcing that “attention to the effects of gender on leadership has escalated in the past twenty years” (p. 1186) and proposing a special issue for the journal regarding the relationship of gender and leadership. The special issue was published in Leadership Quarterly’s June 2016 journal with some articles representing the themes and emergent theories found in this study, justifying the subject’s fertility. The relevance of gender and leadership is fervent in Western culture, partially evidenced by the protests initiated by the 2016 U.S. presidential election outcome. In business, organizations are strapped by commitments to a variety of stakeholders having diverse needs and expectations (C. Mason & Simmons, 2014). Evidence supports that the presence of women in corporate leadership positions adds value to organizations while increasing other facets of corporate governance (Bart & McQueen, 2013; Huang & Kisgen, 2013; Mahadeo et al., 2012; Spearly, 2007). Thus, recognizing gaps in employee engagement as a result of real or perceived cultural influences might enable organizations and organizational leaders to maximize women’s participation and contributions in masculinized environments.
261 Conclusion The purpose of the current study was to explore the viewpoints of women who held junior positions and who desired to attain formal leadership positions as well as the perceptions of women in formal leadership roles regarding women in junior positions; all participants were employed in masculinized organizational environments. The intended purpose was to gain a better understanding of the barriers, if any, to the opportunities for women in junior positions to grow into formal leadership positions within their organizations. Growth into a formal leadership position in a masculinized environment seems to largely negate the benefit of having a diverse workforce. Instead of seeing an increase in communal functioning in the work environment as a result of the presence of women leaders, there is a transformation in the women themselves toward increasingly agentic functioning. In other words, the environment changes the women rather than the women changing the environment. The constructivist grounded theory method was used to uncover emergent theories that might be valuable for further exploration in future studies. With the exception of P11, who opted out of management, all of the participants expressed a desire and willingness to advance professionally within the U.S. banking and finance industry. Participant habituation to masculine environments was extensive in the data, with mechanistic, command and control structures keeping agentic trait expectations relevant. The mechanistic structures inclined the women in formal leadership toward agentic traits. However, ironically, leaders made communal allowances for women in junior positions, which had the unfortunate and inadvertent effect of sabotaging the efforts of the junior women toward professional advancement. Until there is a fundamental shift in the
262 organization’s culture, helping junior women to be more successful still entails masculine enculturation. Organizations and organizational leaders arguably need to begin instilling new cultures of organizational learning, which will maximize stakeholder input and subsequently maximize an organization’s retained human capital. The researcher desires that this study be used pedagogically as well as being actionable for a diverse number of organizations. In addition, there are opportunities for future study that go beyond gender.
263 REFERENCES 396: Hippo. (2012). Lapham’s Quarterly, 5(3), 71. Acharya, A. S., Prakash, A., Saxena, P., & Nigam, A. (2013). Sampling: Why and how of it? Indian Journal of Medical Specialties, 4(2), 330–333. doi:10.7713/ijms.2013.0032 Adams, S. (2004). The witch of Wall Street. Forbes, 174(9), 236–237. Adkisson, R. V. (2014). Quantifying culture: Problems and promises. Journal of Economic Issues, 48(1), 89–108. doi:10.2753/JEI0021-3624480104 Afolabi, O. A. (2013). Stereotypes against women: How do subordinates perceive the job performance and level of achievement of their leaders? Gender & Behaviour, 11(2), 5698–5706. Agostinho, S. (2005). Naturalistic inquiry in e-learning research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4(1), 1–13. Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451. Ahmad, K. Z., & Veerapandian, K. A. (2012). The mediating effect of personenvironment fit on the relationship between organisational culture and job satisfaction. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(1), 91–102. Aime, F., Humphrey, S., Derue, D. S., & Paul, J. B. (2014). The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 327–352. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0756 Akpinar-Sposito, C. (2013). Career barriers for women executives and the glass ceiling syndrome: The case study comparison between French and Turkish women executives. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75(0), 488–497. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.053 Al-Swidi, A. K., Nawawi, M. K. M., & Al-Hosam, A. (2012). Is the relationship between employees’ psychological empowerment and employees’ job satisfaction contingent on the transformational leadership? A study on the Yemeni Islamic banks. Asian Social Science, 8(10), 130–150. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2001). Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management. The Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995– 1018. Amanatullah, E. T., & Tinsley, C. H. (2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much . . . or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against
264 assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 110. Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123. American Banker. (2015). The most powerful women in banking. Retrieved from http://www.americanbanker.com/women-in-banking/gallery/the-25-mostpowerful-women-in-finance-1042517-1.html Amernic, J., & Craig, R. (2013). Leadership discourse, culture, and corporate ethics: CEO-speak at news corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 379–394. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1506-0 An, S., & Jin, H. S. (2004). Interlocking of newspaper companies with financial institutions and leading advertisers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 578–600. Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2010). Beyond change management: How to achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Andrade, J. (2015). Reconceptualising whistleblowing in a complex world. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2), 321–335. Andressen, P., Konradt, U., & Neck, C. P. (2012). The relation between self-leadership and transformational leadership: Competing models and the moderating role of virtuality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 68. Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 39–46. Andriani, P., & McKelvey, B. (2009). From Gaussian to Paretian thinking: Causes and implications of power laws in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 1053– 1071. Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 746–771. Aoun, M., & Hasnan, N. (2013). Lean production and TQM: Complementary or contradictory driving forces of innovation performance? International Journal of Innovation Science, 5(4), 237–252. doi:10.1260/1757-2223.5.4.237 Appelbaum, S. H., Shapiro, B. T., Didus, K., Luongo, T., & Paz, B. (2013a). Upward mobility for women managers: Styles and perceptions: Part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training, 45(1), 51–59. doi:10.1108/00197851311296700
265 Appelbaum, S. H., Shapiro, B. T., Didus, K., Luongo, T., & Paz, B. (2013b). Upward mobility for women managers: Styles and perceptions: Part two. Industrial and Commercial Training, 45(2), 110–118. doi:10.1108/00197851311309552 Arazzini Stewart, M., & De George-Walker, L. (2014). Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of control and self-efficacy: A path model. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 160–164. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.038 Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363–375. Argyris, C. (1997). Initiating change that perseveres. The American Behavioral Scientist, 40(3), 299–309. Argyris, C. (2002). Teaching smart people how to learn. Reflections, 4(2), 4–15. doi:10.1162/152417302762251291 Armandi, B., Oppedisano, J., & Sherman, H. (2003). Leadership theory and practice: A “case” in point. Management Decision, 41(10), 1076–1088. doi:10.1108/002517840310509607 Armstrong, S. L., Davis, H. S., & Paulson, E. J. (2011). The subjectivity problem: Improving triangulation approaches in metaphor analysis studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(2), 151–163. Asgari, S., Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2012). When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire versus deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women’s leadership self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 370. Åsvoll, H. (2014). Abduction, deduction and induction: Can these concepts be used for an understanding of methodological processes in interpretative case studies? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 27(3), 289–307. doi:10.1080/09518398.2012.759296 Augustine, S. (2015). 395: Hippo. Lapham’s Quarterly, 8(2), 117. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421. Bachofen, J. J., & Partenheimer, D. (2007). An English translation of Bachofen’s Mutterrecht (mother right) (1861): A study of the religious and juridical aspects of gynecocracy in the ancient world. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Baird, L., & Kram, K. E. (1983). Career dynamics: Managing the superior/subordinate relationship. Organizational Dynamics, 11(4), 46.
266 Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P. N. (1992). Method slurring: The grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(11), 1355– 1360. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01859.x Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Barbulescu, R., & Bidwell, M. (2013). Do women choose different jobs from men? Mechanisms of application segregation in the market for managerial workers. Organization Science, 24(3), 737–756. Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study of elected officials. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 51–64. Barger, L. C. (2011). Backlash: From Nine to Five to the Devil Wears Prada. Women’s Studies, 40(3), 336–350. doi:10.1080/00497878.2011.553574 Barnett, W. P., & Hansen, M. T. (1996). The red queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 139–157. Bart, C., & McQueen, G. (2013). Why women make better directors. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 8(1), 93. Bartsch, V., Ebers, M., & Maurer, I. (2013). Learning in project-based organizations: The role of project teams’ social capital for overcoming barriers to learning. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 239–251. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.06.009 Barzinpour, F., Jafari, M., & Mousavi Biuki, S. H. (2014). An integrated approach for succession planning and knowledge management. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 4, 124–137. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. doi:10.1080/135943299398410 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Shatter the glass ceiling: Women may make better managers. Human Resource Management, 33, 549–560. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930330405 Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(1), 5–34. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1996.tb00847.x
267 Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181. Bastia, T. (2014). Intersectionality, migration and development. Progress in Development Studies, 14(3), 237–248. doi:10.1177/1464993414521330 Batalha, L., Reynolds, K. J., & Newbigin, C. A. (2011). All else being equal: Are men always higher in social dominance orientation than women? European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(6), 796–806. doi:10.1002/ejsp.829 Baturina, D. (2015). In expectation of the theory: Grounded theory method. Methodological Horizons, 10(1), 77–90. Baumgartner, M. S., & Schneider, D. E. (2010). Perceptions of women in management: A thematic analysis of razing the glass ceiling. Journal of Career Development, 37(2), 559–576. doi:10.1177/0894845309352242 Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 207–221. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2 Beaulieu, R. J. (2013). Action research: Trends and variations. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 14(3), 29–39. Becker, F. (2007). Organizational ecology and knowledge networks. California Management Review, 49(2), 42–61. Becker, K. H., & Haunschild, A. (2003). The impact of boundaryless careers on organizational decision making: An analysis from the perspective of Luhmann’s theory of social systems. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(5), 713–727. Beeley, C. A. (2009). Theology and pastoral leadership. Anglican Theological Review, 91(1), 11–30. Belkin, L. (2003, October 26). The opt-out revolution. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/magazine/the-opt-outrevolution.html Bellou, V. (2010). Organizational culture as a predictor of job satisfaction: The role of gender and age. Career Development International, 15(1), 4–19. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. Benuyenah, V. (2013). Conflict perspectives in international business organisations: The changing trends and its management. Proceedings of the International Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance, 417–VIII.
268 Bergelson, M. (2014). Developing tomorrow’s leaders: Innovative approaches to mentorship. People & Strategy, 37(2), 18–22. Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 405–417. Bergman, M. E., & Salter, P. (2013). Backlash! What it is, where it comes from, and how we can fix it. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 442–450. doi:10.1111/iops.12082 Berkery, E., Morley, M., & Tiernan, S. (2013). Beyond gender role stereotypes and requisite managerial characteristics. Gender in Management, 28(5), 278–298. Berson, Y., Da’as, R., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). How do leaders and their teams bring about organizational learning and outcomes? Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 79– 108. doi:10.1111/peps.12071 Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). Reviewing diversity training: Where we have been and where we should go. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 207. Bible, D., & Hill, K. L. (2007). Discrimination: Women in business. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 11(1), 65–76. Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2006). Moving grounded theory into the 21st century: Part 2 -- Mapping the footprints. Singapore Nursing Journal, 33(4), 12– 17. Bissessar, C. (2013). The movement from secret acts of defiance to manifestation of women’s empowerment. Advancing Women in Leadership, 33, 69–74. Blair-Loy, M., Wharton, A. S., & Goodstein, J. (2011). Exploring the relationship between mission statements and work-life practices in organizations. Organization Studies, 32(3), 427. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1982). A comparative analysis of situationalism and 9,9 management by principle. Organizational Dynamics, 10(4), 20–43. Bolat, T., Bolat, O. I., & Kiliç, T. (2011). Career self-efficacy and glass ceiling: Moderating effect of work-related masculinity values. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(10), 57–68. Bono, J. E., & Anderson, M. H. (2005). The advice and influence networks of transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1306–1314. Booysen, L. A. E., & Nkomo, S. M. (2010). Gender role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Gender in Management, 25(4), 285–300.
269 Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Exploring the dynamics of incongruent beliefs about women and leaders. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 254–269. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00731.x Bosak, J., Sczesny, S., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). The impact of social roles on trait judgments: A critical reexamination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 429. Boser, U. (2004). When she was bad. U.S. News & World Report, 137(16), 74. Boso, N., Story, V. M., Cadogan, J. W., Micevski, M., & Kadic-Maglajlic, S. (2013). Firm innovativeness and export performance: Environmental, networking, and structural contingencies. Journal of International Marketing, 21(4), 62–87. Bouchamma, Y., & Brie, J. (2014). Communities of practice and ethical leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 42(2), 81–96. Bowen, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 137–152. doi:10.1177/1468794107085301 Bowen, G. A. (2009). Supporting a grounded theory with an audit trail: An illustration. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 305–316. doi:10.1080/13645570802156196 Boxall, P. (2013). Mutuality in the management of human resources: Assessing the quality of alignment in employment relationships. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(1), 3–17. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12015 Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., Van Oosten, E., & Woolford, L. (2013). Developing resonant leaders through emotional intelligence, vision and coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 42(1), 17–24. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.12.003 Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Polychroniou, P., & Kostopoulos, K. (2014). Mentoring receipt and personality: Evidence for non-linear relationships. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 171–181. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.10.007 Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 385–392. doi:10.1037/a0029845 Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158.
270 Brady, L. M., Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., & Kirby, T. A. (2015). It’s fair for us: Diversity structures cause women to legitimize discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 100–110. Brandt, T., & Laiho, M. (2013). Gender and personality in transformational leadership context. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(1), 44–66. Branson, L., Chen, L., & Redenbaugh, K. (2013). The presence of women in top executive positions in non-profit organizations and Fortune 500 companies. International Journal of Business & Public Administration, 10(2), 15–29. Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270–283. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.006 Breckenridge, J., & Jones, D. (2009). Demystifying theoretical sampling in grounded theory research. Grounded Theory Review, 8(2), 113–126. Brescoll, V. L. (2011). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 622–641. Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2005). Attitudes toward traditional and nontraditional parents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 436–445. Briggs, E., Jaramillo, F., & Weeks, W. A. (2012). Perceived barriers to career advancement and organizational commitment in sales. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 937–943. Brown, C. M., Park, S. W., & Folger, S. F. (2012). Growth motivation as a moderator of behavioral self-handicapping in women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(2), 136–146. Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: A potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 867–871. Bruckmüller, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). The glass cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 433–451. doi:10. 1348/0 14466609X466594 Bruckmüller, S., Hegarty, P., & Abele, A. E. (2012). Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 210–218. doi:10.1002/ejsp.858 Burkley, M., Andrade, A., Stermer, S. P., & Bell, A. C. (2013). The double-edged sword of negative in-group stereotyping. Social Cognition, 31(1), 15–30.
271 Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2013). Kurt Lewin’s field theory: A review and re-evaluation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 408–425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00348.x Burns, J. M. (1978/2012). Leadership (Kindle eBook ed.). New York, NY: Open Road Integrated Media. Burns, J. M. (1979). Two excerpts from “Leadership.” Educational Leadership, 36(6), 380–383. Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York, NY: Grove Press. Caldwell, R. (2012). Systems thinking, organizational change and agency: A practice theory critique of Senge’s learning organization. Journal of Change Management, 12(2), 145. Caligiuri, P., & Tarique, I. (2012). Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 612. Callan, M. J., Dawtry, R. J., & Kay, A. C. (2014). Making sense of misfortune: Deservingness, self-esteem, and patterns of self-defeat. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 107(1), 142–162. doi:10.1037/a0036640 Calleros, O. L., Chanlat, A., Bédard, R., & Ramírez, G. (2014). Autopoietic decisions approach: A governance research network case study. TQM Journal, 26(4), 382– 394. Carlisle, Y., & McMillan, E. (2006). Innovation in organizations from a complex adaptive systems perspective. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(1), 2–9. Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2013). Leadership, creative problemsolving capacity, and creative performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 95. Carmy, S. (2010). Personal ethics, public virtue, and political legitimacy in biblical kings and American presidents. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40(1), 76–89. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2009.03734.x Carr, P. B., Dweck, C. S., & Pauker, K. (2012). “Prejudiced” behavior without prejudice? Beliefs about the malleability of prejudice affect interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 452–471. doi:10.1037/a0028849 Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2010). Stereotype threat affects financial decision making. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1411–1416. Carrasco, A., Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Laffarga, J., & Ruiz-Barbadillo, E. (2015). Appointing women to boards: Is there a cultural bias? Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 429–444. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2166-z
272 Carter, S. M., & Greer, C. R. (2013). Strategic leadership: Values, styles, and organizational performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(4), 375–393. doi:10.1177/1548051812471724 Castka, P., Balzarova, M. A., Bamber, C. J., & Sharp, J. (2004). How can SMEs effectively implement the CSR agenda? A UK case study perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 11(3), 140–149. Catalyst. (2016, July 1). Women in S&P 500 finance. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-sp-500-finance Chadwick, I. C., & Raver, J. L. (2015). Motivating organizations to learn: Goal orientation and its influence on organizational learning. Journal of Management, 41(3), 957–986. doi:10.1177/0149206312443558 Chalabaev, A., Major, B., Sarrazin, P., & Cury, F. (2012). When avoiding failure improves performance: Stereotype threat and the impact of performance goals. Motivation & Emotion, 36(2), 130–142. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9241-x Chandler, D. E., Kram, K. E., & Yip, J. (2011). An ecological systems perspective on mentoring at work: A review and future prospects. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 519–570. Changhong Lu, S., & Tjosvold, D. (2013). Socialization tactics: Antecedents for goal interdependence and newcomer adjustment and retention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 245–254. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.05.002 Charmaz, K. (2006). Measuring pursuits, marking self: Meaning construction in chronic illness. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Well-Being, 1(1), 27–37. doi:10.1080/17482620500534488 Charmaz, K. (2008). Views from the margins: Voices, silences, and suffering. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(1), 7–18. Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by international researchers. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1074–1084. doi:10.1177/1077800414545235 Checkland, P. (1992). Systems and scholarship: The need to do better. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43, 1023–1030. doi:10.1038/sj/jors/0431101 Checkland, P. (2012). Four conditions for serious systems thinking and action. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 29(5), 465–469. doi:10.1002/sres.2158 Chen, C., & Bozeman, B. (2013). Understanding public and nonprofit managers’ motivation through the lens of self-determination theory. Public Management Review, 15(4), 584–607. doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.698853
273 Cherniss, C., Extein, M., Goleman, D., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006). Emotional intelligence: What does the research really indicate? Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 239–245. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4104_4 Chiva, R., Ghauri, P., & Alegre, J. (2014). Organizational learning, innovation and internationalization: A complex system model. British Journal of Management, 25(4), 687–705. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12026 Choi, N., Herdman, K., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2011). Gender-role conflict and gender-role orientation in a sample of gay men. Journal of Psychology, 145(5), 507–519. Chu, S. C., & Xiang, Q. Z. (2013). The risk recognition of enterprise creative talents based on ecological system theory. Journal of Chemical & Pharmaceutical Research, 5(11), 118–123. Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2007). Leader group prototypicality and job satisfaction: The moderating role of job stress and team identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(3), 165–175. Cilliers, F., & Greyvenstein, H. (2012). The impact of silo mentality on team identity: An organisational case study. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 38(2), Art. 993. doi:10.4102/sajip.v38i2.993 Clemson, T., & Evans, T. S. (2012). The emergence of leadership in social networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 391(4), 1434–1444. Coder, L., & Spiller, M. S. (2013). Leadership education and gender roles: Think manager, think “?” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(3), 21–51. Colbert, A. E., Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G. (2012). Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The mediating role of contributions to group success. Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 670–685. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.004 Collay, M., & Cooper, J. (2008). Transformational learning and role of self-authorship in developing women leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(2), 21. Collins, C. S., & Cooper, J. E. (2014). Emotional intelligence and the qualitative researcher. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13, 88–103. Collins, J., & Hansen, M. T. (2013). Manage through chaos. Leadership Excellence, 30(5), 6–7. Conti, T. (2010). Systems thinking in quality management. TQM Journal, 22(4), 352– 368.
274 Conti, T. (2011). No panaceas for organizational diseases, but better knowledge and systems thinking. TQM Journal, 23(3), 252–267. Cooperrider, D. L. (2012). The concentration effect of strengths: How the whole system “AI” summit brings out the best in human enterprise. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 106. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3. Cording, M., Harrison, J. S., Hoskisson, R. E., & Jonsen, K. (2014). Walking the talk: A multistakeholder exploration of organizational authenticity, employee productivity, and post-merger performance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1), 38–56. doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0002 Cotter, D., Hermsen, J. M., & Vanneman, R. (2011). The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. The American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 259. Cotton, R. D., & Shen, Y. (2013). The company you keep. Career Development International, 18(4), 328–356. doi:10.1108/CDI-09-2012-0093 Coulson-Thomas, C. (2013). Knowledge management and the high performance organisation. Management Services, 57(4), 41–47. Covert, B. (2015, May 4). The main talking point against Carly Fiorina is wrong. Think Progress. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015 /05/04/3654326/carly-fiorina-glass-cliff/ Cowan, J. E., & Menchaca, M. P. (2014). Investigating value creation in a community of practice with social network analysis in a hybrid online graduate education program. Distance Education, 35(1), 43–74. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2011). Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 443–456. da Cruz, M. R. P., Nunes, A. J. S., & Pinheiro, P. G. (2011). Fiedler’s contingency theory: Practical application of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(4), 7–26.
275 Daft, R. L. (2007). The leadership experience (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Publishing Company. Daft, R. L. (2009). Organization theory and design (10th ed.). Mason, OH: SouthWestern Cengage Learning. Daghfous, A., Belkhodja, O., & Angell, L. C. (2013). Understanding and managing knowledge loss. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(5), 639–660. Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. Dansereau, F., Seitz, S. R., Chiu, C., Shaughnessy, B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). What makes leadership, leadership? Using self-expansion theory to integrate traditional and contemporary approaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 798–821. Darawsheh, W. (2014). Reflexivity in research: Promoting rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation, 21(12), 560–568. Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276–287. Dawidowicz, P. (2012). The person on the street’s understanding of systems thinking. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 29(1), 2–13. doi:10.1002/sres.1094 De Alwis, A. C. (2013). Effects of glass ceiling on women career development in private sector organizations - Case of Sri Lanka. Journal of Competitiveness, 5(2), 3–19. doi:10.7441/joc.2013.02.01 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227. De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N. T., & Dimov, D. (2011). A closer look at crossfunctional collaboration and product innovativeness: Contingency effects of structural and relational context. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(5), 680–697.doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00830.x De Florio, V. (2014). Quality indicators for collective systems resilience. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 16(3), 65–104. de Lemus, S., Spears, R., Bukowski, M., Moya, M., & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Reversing implicit gender stereotype activation as a function of exposure to traditional gender roles. Social Psychology, 44(2), 109–116. doi:10.1027/18649335/a000140
276 Dember, W. N. (1990). William James on sensation and perception. Psychological Science, 1(3), 163–166. Dempsey, P. (2015). Fiorina’s presidential bid: More than an outside bet. Engineering & Technology, 10(5), 10. Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19–34. Denzin, N. K. (2010). Qualitative inquiry under fire. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2016). The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 456–469. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007 Deutsche Bank. (2015). Diversity at Deutsche Bank: Questions & answers. Retrieved from https://www.db.com/cr/en/concrete-Diversity-Deutsche-Bank-Questionsand-Answers.htm Dhar, R. L. (2015). Service quality and the training of employees: The mediating role of organizational commitment. Tourism Management, 46, 419–430. Dhiman, S. (2011). Personal mastery and authentic leadership. Organization Development Journal, 29(2), 69–83. Dimovski, V., Maric, M., Uhan, M., Durica, N., & Ferjan, M. (2012). Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and implications for leadership: Theoretical discussion. Organizacija, 45(4), 151. Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62. Dionne, S. D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K. L., Shirreffs, K. A., Serban, A., Hao, C., . . . Yammarino, F. J. (2014). A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 6–35. Dobrow, S. R., Chandler, D. E., Murphy, W. M., & Kram, K. E. (2012). A review of developmental networks: Incorporating a mutuality perspective. Journal of Management, 38(1), 210–242. doi:10.1177/0149206311415858 Dominguez, C. M. (1991). The glass ceiling and workforce 2000. Labor Law Journal, 42, 715–717.
277 Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 504–518. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004 Douglass, B. G., & Moustakas, C. (1985). Heuristic inquiry: The internal search to know. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 25(3), 39. Drach-Zahavy, A., & Freund, A. (2007). Team effectiveness under stress: A structural contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(4), 423–450. Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 80–90. Duden, A. (2014). Successful learning is change. International Journal of Management Cases, 16(4), 56–64. Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(2), 111–124. doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.494930 Dunnion, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2014). Systems thinking and higher education: The Vanguard method. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 27(1), 23–37. doi:10.1007/s11213-012-9258-4 Dust, S. B., Resick, C. J., & Mawritz, M. B. (2014). Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic-organic contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 413–433. doi:10.1002/job.1904 Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040 Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644–658. Eagly, A. H. (2012). Women as leaders: Progress through the labyrinth. In S. Wiley, G. Philogène, & T. A. Revenson (Eds.), Social categories in everyday experience (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 807–834. Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65(3), 216–224. Eagly, A. H., & Heilman, M. (2014). Proposal for special issue of leadership quarterly on gender and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1186.
278 Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125–145. Eagly, A. H., & Riger, S. (2014). Feminism and psychology. American Psychologist, 69(7), 685–702. doi:10.1037/a0037372 Eddy, P. L. (2012). A holistic perspective of leadership competencies. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2012(159), 29–39. doi:10.1002/cc.20024 Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. Ehrenfeucht, R., & Nelson, M. (2013). Young professionals as ambivalent change agents in New Orleans after the 2005 hurricanes. Urban Studies, 50(4), 825. Eicher-Catt, D. (2005). The myth of servant-leadership: A feminist perspective. Women & Language, 28(1), 17–25. Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double-edged sword: Transformational leadership and individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 54. Eisner, S. (2013). Leadership: Gender and executive style. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 78(1), 26–41. Eken, I., Özturgut, O., & Craven, A. E. (2014). Leadership styles and cultural intelligence. Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 11(3), 154–165. El-Den, J., & Bean, R. (2014). A new perspective in organizational learning: Do organizations really learn? Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning, 148– 156. Eller, C. (2013). Matriarchy and the Volk. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 81(1), 188–221. Eller, L. S., Lev, E. L., & Feurer, A. (2014). Key components of an effective mentoring relationship: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 34(5), 815–820. Elliott, N., & Jordan, J. (2010). Practical strategies to avoid the pitfalls in grounded theory research. Nurse Researcher, 17(4), 29–40. Ely, R. J., Stone, P., & Ammerman, C. (2014). Rethink what you “know” about highachieving women. Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 100–109.
279 Emerson, K. T. U., & Murphy, M. C. (2015). A company I can trust? Organizational lay theories moderate stereotype threat for women. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 295–307. doi:10.1177/0146167214564969 Emmerling, R. J., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2012). Emotional and social intelligence competencies: Cross cultural implications. Cross Cultural Management, 19(1), 4– 18. Enz, M. G., & Lambert, D. M. (2012). Using cross-functional, cross-firm teams to cocreate value: The role of financial measures. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(3), 495. Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of informationprocessing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858–881. Erhardt, N. (2011). Is it all about teamwork? Understanding processes in team-based knowledge work. Management Learning, 42(1), 87. Evans, M. (1996). R. J. House’s “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.” Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 305. Evans, M., Dalkir, K., & Bidian, C. (2014). A holistic view of the knowledge life cycle: The knowledge management cycle (KMC) model. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 148–160. Ezzedeen, S. R., Budworth, M., & Baker, S. D. (2015). The glass ceiling and executive careers. Journal of Career Development, 42(5), 355–369. Falk, I. (2000). Human capital and social capital: What’s the difference? Retrieved from https://ala.asn.au/public/commentaries/Falk1810.pdf The fall of Rome. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org /medieval/fall-of-rome.html Farrell, L., & Hurt, A. C. (2014). Training the millennial generation: Implications for organizational climate. E Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 12(1), 47–60. Farrington, J. (2012). From the research: Myths worth dispelling--Gender--Still a long way to go. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(2), 107–114. Fetterolf, J., & Eagly, A. (2011). Do young women expect gender equality in their future lives? An answer from a possible selves experiment. Sex Roles, 65(1), 83–93. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9981-9 Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
280 Fiedler, F. E. (1972). The effects of leadership training and experience: A contingency model interpretation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(4), 453–470. Fiori, M. (2015). Emotional intelligence compensates for low IQ and boosts low emotionality individuals in a self-presentation task. Personality and Individual Differences, 81(0), 169–173. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.013 Firoozmand, N. (2013). When change is inevitable, embrace it. Financial Management, 42(5), 57–59. Fitzgerald, S., & Schutte, N. S. (2010). Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing self-efficacy. The Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 495– 505. Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(3), 153–158. doi:10.1037/h0063436 Fogliati, V. J., & Bussey, K. (2013). Stereotype threat reduces motivation to improve: Effects of stereotype threat and feedback on women’s intentions to improve mathematical ability. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1). doi:10.1177/0361684313480045 Frances Luce, M., McGill, A., & Peracchio, L. (2012). Promoting an environment of scientific integrity: Individual and community responsibilities. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), iii–viii. Fuchs, E. (1999). Moses/Jesus/women: Does the New Testament offer a feminist message? Cross Currents, 49(4), 463–474. Futris, T. G., Schramm, D. G., Richardson, E. W., & Lee, T. K. (2015). The impact of organizational support on the transfer of learning to practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 51, 36–43. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322 Gaiter, D. J. (2013). Facets of leadership. Neurodiagnostic Journal, 53(4), 323–327. Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in malecongenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55(1), 51–61. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9068-1 Gehlert, K. M., Ressler, T., & Baylon, D. (2013). Global challenges demand global education of systems thinking. Human Systems Management, 32(2), 79–94. doi:10.3233/HSM-120777 Gehring, D. R. (2007). Applying traits theory of leadership to project management. Project Management Journal, 38(1), 44–54.
281 Georgopoulos, B. S., Mahoney, G. M., & Jones, N. W., Jr. (1957). A path-goal approach to productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41(6), 345–353. Gershenson, C. (2015). Requisite variety, autopoiesis, and self-organization. Kybernetes, 44(6/7), 866–873. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. Gervais, S. J., & Hillard, A. L. (2011). A role congruity perspective on prejudice toward Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy: ASAP, 11(1), 221–240. Gharajedaghi, J. (2007). Systems thinking: A case for second-order-learning. The Learning Organization, 14(6), 473–479. Gheaus, A. (2015). Three cheers for the token woman! Journal of Applied Philosophy, 32(2), 163–176. doi:10.1111/japp.12088 Ghosh, R. (2014). Antecedents of mentoring support: A meta-analysis of individual, relational, and structural or organizational factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(3), 367–384. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.009 Ghosh, R., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 106–116. Ghosh, R., Shuck, B., & Petrosko, J. (2012). Emotional intelligence and organizational learning in work teams. The Journal of Management Development, 31(6), 603– 619. Gilkey, R., Caceda, R., & Kilts, C. (2010). When emotional reasoning trumps IQ. Harvard Business Review, 88(9), 27. Gill, C. (2012). The role of leadership in successful international mergers and acquisitions: Why Renault-Nissan succeeded and DaimlerChrysler-Mitsubishi failed. Human Resource Management, 51(3), 433–456. doi:10.1002/hrm.21475 Gilligan, C. (2014). Moral injury and the ethic of care: Reframing the conversation about differences. Journal of Social Philosophy, 45(1), 89–106. doi:10.1111/josp.12050 Gilstrap, D. L. (2013). Leadership and decision-making in team-based organizations: A model of bounded chaotic cycling in emerging system states. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 15(3), 24–54. Glaser, B. G. (2002). Grounded theory and gender relevance. Health Care for Women International, 23(8), 786–793. doi:10.1080/07399330290112317
282 Glaser, B. G. (2010). The future of grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 9(2), 1– 14. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction. Glass, C., & Cook, A. (2016). Leading at the top: Understanding women’s challenges above the glass ceiling. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 51–63. Goh, S., & Zhen-Jie, B. (2014). The influence of servant leadership towards organizational commitment: The mediating role of trust in leaders. International Journal of Business & Management, 9(1), 17–25. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v9n1p17 Goldin, C. (2006, March 15). Working it out. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/opinion/working-it-out.html Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (2013). The focused leader. Harvard Business Review, 91(12), 50–60. Goleman, D., & Lueneburger, C. (2010). The change leadership sustainability demands. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(4), 49–55. Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(1), 13. Goncalves De Abreu, M. Z. (2003). John Knox: Gynaecocracy, ‘the monstrous empire of women’. Reformation & Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies, 5(2), 166–187. Gordon, A. D. (2015). From Eve to evolution: Darwin, science, and women’s rights in gilded age America. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 24(3), 530–532. Gould, D., Voelker, D. K., & Griffes, K. (2013). Best coaching practices for developing team captains. The Sport Psychologist, 27(1), 13. Gramick, J. (2001). Catholic women: A contemporary style of leadership. Muslim World, 91(1), 19–29.doi:10.1111/j.1478-1913.2001.tb03704.x Grant, J. (1988). Women as managers: What they can offer to organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 16(3), 56–63. Graves, L. M., & Luciano, M. M. (2013). Self-determination at work: Understanding the role of leader-member exchange. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 518–536.
283 Greer, L. L., Caruso, H. M., & Jehn, K. A. (2011). The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 116. Gregory, A. (2012). Changing direction on direction of fit. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, 15(5), 603–614. doi:10.1007/s10677-012-9355-6 Gregory, A., Jeanes, E., Tharyan, R., & Tonks, I. (2013). Does the stock market gender stereotype corporate boards? Evidence from the market’s reaction to directors’ trades. British Journal of Management, 24(2), 174. Griffin, P. (2013). Gendering global finance: Crisis, masculinity, and responsibility. Men and Masculinities, 16(1), 9. doi:10.1177/1097184X12468097 Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 261–310. doi:10.1037/a0038231 Grimes, D. S., & Parker, P. S. (2009). Imagining organizational communication as a decolonizing project: In conversation with Broadfoot, Munshi, Mumby and Stohl. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(3), 502. Groggins, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2013). Embracing uniqueness: The underpinnings of a positive climate for diversity. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 86(2), 264–282. doi:10.1111/joop.12008 Gronhaug, K., & Stone, R. (2012). The learning organization. Competitiveness Review, 22(3), 261–275. doi:10.1108/10595421211229673 Groysberg, B., & Bell, D. (2013). Dysfunction in the boardroom. Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 88–95. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 30(4), 233–252. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Fourth generation evaluation as an alternative. Educational Horizons, 63, 139–141. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
284 Guldberg, K. R., Mackness, J., Makriyannis, E., & Tait, C. (2013). Knowledge management and value creation in a third sector organisation. Knowledge & Process Management, 20(3), 113–122. doi:10.1002/kpm.1410 Guthrie, J., Dumay, J., Massingham, P. R., & Tam, L. (2015). The relationship between human capital, value creation and employee reward. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 390–418. doi:10.1108/JIC-06-2014-0075 Hackman, J. R. (1975). Is job enrichment just a fad? Harvard Business Review, 53(5), 129–138. Haivas, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2014). ‘What motivates you doesn’t motivate me’: Individual differences in the needs satisfaction-motivation relationship of Romanian volunteers. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63(2), 326– 343. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00525.x Hall, E. L., & Maltby, L. E. (2013). Mentoring: The view from both sides. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 32(1), 70–74. Hall, H., Griffiths, D., & McKenna, L. (2013). From Darwin to constructivism: The evolution of grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 20(3), 17–21. Handy, C. (1986). Gods of management. London, England: Souvenir Press. Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669–692. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.007 Hanson, E. M. (1979). School management and contingency theory: An emerging perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(2), 98–116. Hassan, B., Aneela, M., & Muhammad, N. R. (2011). Relationship between organizational communication climate and interpersonal conflict management styles. Pakistan Journal of Psychology, 42(2). The Hawthorne effect. (2012). Pediatrics, 130(5), 838. Heffes, E. M. (2005). Boards of directors: Expectations elevated. (cover story). Financial Executive, 21(4), 34. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003 Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 393–398.
285 Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905–916. Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92. Heine, K., & Rindfleisch, H. (2013). Organizational decline: A synthesis of insights from organizational ecology, path dependence and the resource-based view. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(1), 8–28. doi:10.1108/09534811311307888 Henderson, J. R., Ruikar, K. D., & Dainty, A. R. J. (2013). The need to improve doubleloop learning and design-construction feedback loops. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20(3), 290–306. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53–62. Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 87–96. Higginbottom, G., & Lauridsen, E. I. (2014). The roots and development of constructivist grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 21(5), 8–13. doi:10.7748/nr.21.5.8.e1208 Hillier, J., & Dunn-Jensen, L. (2013). Groups meet . . . teams improve: Building teams that learn. Journal of Management Education, 37(5), 704–733. doi:10.1177/1052562912459947 Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. doi:10.1177/0149206309343469 Hillman, B. L. (2013). “The clothes I wear help me to know my own power”: The politics of gender presentation in the era of women’s liberation. Frontiers, 34(2), 155– 185, 272. Hind, P., Smit, A., & Page, N. (2013). Enabling sustainability through an action research process of organisational development. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 49, 137–161. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Hollander, E. P. (1979). The impact of Ralph M. Stogdill and the Ohio State Leadership Studies on a transactional approach to leadership. Journal of Management, 5(2), 157–165.
286 Holton, J. A. (2010). The coding process and its challenges. Grounded Theory Review, 9(1), 21–40. Hoobler, J. M., Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. J. (2011). Women’s underrepresentation in upper management: New insights on a persistent problem. Organizational Dynamics, 40(3), 151–156. Hope, D. S. (1975). Redefinition of self. Today’s Speech, 23, 17–25. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–339. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. Hoyt, C. L., & Burnette, J. L. (2013). Gender bias in leader evaluations: Merging implicit theories and role congruity perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1306–1319. Hoyt, C. L., & Murphy, S. (2016). Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 387–399. Hoyt, C. L., Simon, S., & Reid, L. (2009). Choosing the best (wo)man for the job: The effects of mortality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations. Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 233–246. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.016 Hu, Q., Found, P., Williams, S., & Mason, R. (2014). The role of consultants in organizational learning. Journal of Management Policy & Practice, 15(4), 29–39. Huang, J., & Kisgen, D. J. (2013). Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives overconfident relative to female executives? Journal of Financial Economics, 108(3), 822–839. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.12.005 Hui-Wen, V. T., Mu-Shang, Y., & Nelson, D. B. (2010). The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 899–926. Hunt, J. G. (1967). Fiedler’s leadership contingency model: An empirical test in three organizations. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 2(3), 290–308. Hunt-Earle, K. (2012). Falling over a glass cliff: A study of the recruitment of women to leadership roles in troubled enterprises. Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 31(5), 44–53. doi:10.1002/joe.21441 Ibarra, H. (2015). The authenticity paradox. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 93(1), 52–59.
287 Ihrig, M., & Macmillan, I. (2015). Managing your mission-critical knowledge. Harvard Business Review, 93(1), 80–87. Indvik, J. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 189–192. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1986.4980581 Isaac, C. A., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2012). Deconstructing the glass ceiling. Sociology Mind, 2(1), 80–86. Janssen, S., van Vuuren, M., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2014). Motives to mentor: Selffocused, protégé-focused, relationship-focused, organization-focused, and unfocused motives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 266–275. Jasimuddin, S. M., & Zhang, Z. (2014). Knowledge management strategy and organizational culture. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65(10), 1490–1500. doi:10.1057/jors.2013.101 Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596. Johnson, R. B., McGowan, M. W., & Turner, L. A. (2010). Grounded theory in practice: Is it inherently a mixed method? Research in the Schools, 17(2), 65–78. Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(1), 39. Karelaia, N., & Guillén, L. (2014). Me, a woman and a leader: Positive social identity and identity conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125(2), 204. Katila, S., & Eriksson, P. (2013). He is a firm, strong-minded and empowering leader, but is she? Gendered positioning of female and male CEOs. Gender, Work & Organization, 20(1), 71–84. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00570.x Kelan, E. K. (2013). The becoming of business bodies: Gender, appearance, and leadership development. Management Learning, 44(1), 45. Kelle, U. (2005). “Emergence” vs. “forcing” of empirical data? A crucial problem of “grounded theory” reconsidered. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), 1–17. Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12(1), 62.
288 Keung, E. K., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2013). The relationship between transformational leadership and cultural intelligence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(6), 836–854. Khalid, A., Murtaza, G., Zafar, A., Zafar, M. A., Saqib, L., & Mushtaq, R. (2012). Role of supportive leadership as a moderator between job stress and job performance. Information Management and Business Review, 4(9), 487–495. Khan, W. A., & Vieito, J. P. (2013). CEO gender and firm performance. Journal of Economics and Business, 67, 55–66. Kim, H., MacDonald, R. H., & Andersen, D. F. (2013). Simulation and managerial decision making: A double-loop learning framework. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 291–300. Kim, T. (2015). Impacts of learning interventions on organizational human capital and performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 27(4), 7–28. doi:10.1002/piq.21180 Kinsler, L. (2014). Born to be me . . . Who am I again? The development of authentic leadership using evidence-based leadership coaching and mindfulness. International Coaching Psychology Review, 9(1), 92–105. Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 107(3), 371–392. doi:10.1037/a0037215 Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. doi:10.1037/a0023557 Kontoghiorghes, C., & Frangou, K. (2009). The association between talent retention, antecedent factors, and consequent organizational performance. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 74(1), 29–36, 58. Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., & Falk, D. W. (2012). Further development of a measure of Theory X and Y managerial assumptions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 24(4), 450–470. Kort, E. (2008). What, after all, is leadership? ‘Leadership’ and plural action. Leadership Quarterly, 19(4), 409. Koskinen, K. U. (2010). Organisational memories in project-based companies: An autopoietic view. The Learning Organization, 17(2), 149–162. Kotter, J. (2013). Change leadership. Leadership Excellence, 30(1), 6–7.
289 Krech, D. (1950). Dynamic systems as open neurological systems. Psychological Review, 57, 345–361. doi:10.1037/h0054674 Kudonoo, E., Schroeder, K., & Boysen-Rotelli, S. (2012). An Olympic transformation: Creating an organizational culture that promotes healthy conflict. Organization Development Journal, 30(2), 51–65. Kuperberg, A., & Stone, P. (2008). The media depiction of women who opt out. Gender & Society, 22(4), 497–517. Kurtulus, F. A., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2012). Do female top managers help women to advance? A panel study using EEO-1 records. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639(1), 173–197. Kwon, K., & Rupp, D. E. (2013). High-performer turnover and firm performance: The moderating role of human capital investment and firm reputation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 129–150.doi:10.1002/job.1804 Lambert, L. S., Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Holt, D. T., & Barelka, A. J. (2012). Forgotten but not gone: An examination of fit between leader consideration and initiating structure needed and received. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 913–930. Laszlo, K. C. (2012). From systems thinking to systems being: The embodiment of evolutionary leadership. Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 9(2), 95. Latu, I. M., Mast, M. S., Lammers, J., & Bombari, D. (2013). Successful female leaders empower women’s behavior in leadership tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 444. Lawson, K. M., & Lips, H. M. (2014). The role of self-perceived agency and job attainability in women’s impressions of successful women in masculine occupations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(6), 433–441. doi:10.1111/jasp.12236 Lecuona, J. R., & Reitzig, M. (2014). Knowledge worth having in ‘excess’: The value of tacit and firm-specific human resource slack. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 954–973. doi:10.1002/smj.2143 Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Pratcical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Lemasters, L., & Roach, V. (2012). 3-dimensional portrait of the female CEO. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(1), 12. Leon, L. C., & Matthews, L. R. (2010). Self-esteem theories: Possible explanations for poor interview performance for people experiencing unemployment. Journal of Rehabilitation, 76(1), 41–50.
290 Leroy, H., Palanski, M., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 255–264. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1036-1 Levinson, H. (2003). Management by whose objectives? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 107–116. Levoy, B. (2014). The many benefits of job enrichment. Podiatry Management, 33(5), 77–78. Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. Journal of Social Psychology, 17(1), 113–131. Liang, T. Y. (2013). Edge of emergence, relativistic complexity and the new leadership. Human Systems Management, 32(1), 3–15. doi:10.3233/HSM-130781 Lin, C., Wu, J., & Yen, D. C. (2012). Exploring barriers to knowledge flow at different knowledge management maturity stages. Information & Management, 49(1), 10– 23. Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289. Lincoln, Y. S. (2010). “What a long, strange trip it’s been . . .” Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(1), 3–9. Lincoln, Y. S. (2012). The political economy of publication: Marketing, commodification, and qualitative scholarly work. Qualitative Health Research, 22(11), 1451–1459. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1987). Ethics: The failure of positivist science. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Lincoln, Y. S., & Lynham, S. A. (2011). Criteria for assessing theory in human resource development from an interpretive perspective. Human Resource Development International, 14(1), 3–22. doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.542895 Lips, H. (2013). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations. Perceived equity, discrimination, and the limits of human capital models. Sex Roles, 68(3), 169– 185. Lisak, A., & Erez, M. (2015). Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 3–14. Liu, Y., Slotine, J., & Barabási, A. (2013). Observability of complex systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(7), 2460–2465. doi:10.1073/pnas.1215508110
291 Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(3), 239–245. Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory’s research practices. In R. Thorpe, & M. EasterbySmith (Eds.), Grounded theory in management research (pp. 44–62). London, England: Sage Publications. López-Domínguez, M., Enache, M., Sallan, J. M., & Simo, P. (2013). Transformational leadership as an antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2147–2152. Lopez-Zafra, E., & Gartzia, L. (2014). Perceptions of gender differences in self-report measures of emotional intelligence. Sex Roles, 70(11), 479– 495.doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0368-6 Lopez-Zafra, E., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Berrios Martos, M. P. (2012). The relationship between transformational leadership and emotional intelligence from a gendered approach. Psychological Record, 62(1), 97–114. Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402–410. Lubitch, R. (1993). A feminist’s look at Esther. Judaism, 42, 438–446. Luhmann, N. (1997). Limits of steering. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(1), 41–57. Luhmann, N., & Barrett, R. (2012). Theory of society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Luthans, F., Milosevic, I., Bechky, B. A., Schein, E. H., Wright, S., Van Maanen, J., & Greenwood, D. J. (2013). Reclaiming “anthropology: The forgotten behavioral science in management history” - Commentaries. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 2(1), 92–116. Magretta, J. (2012). Understanding Michael Porter: The essential guide to competition and strategy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Magzan, M. (2012). Mental models for future leadership effectiveness: Building future different than the past. Journal of Engineering Management and Competitiveness, 2(2), 57. Mahadeo, J. D., Soobaroyen, T., & Hanuman, V. O. (2012). Board composition and financial performance: Uncovering the effects of diversity in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(3), 375–388.
292 Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. E. (2011). Human capital, efficiency, and innovative adaptation as strategic determinants of firm performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(2), 229. Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358(9280), 483–488. Mano, R. S. (2010). Past organizational change and managerial evaluations of crisis. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(8), 489–507. doi:10.1108/13665621011082864 Marangoni, G., Colombo, G., & Fezzi, G. (2004). Modelling intra-group relationships. Economic Systems Research, 16(1), 85–104. Markovic, D., & Gros, C. (2014). Power laws and self-organized criticality in theory and nature. Physics Reports, 536(2), 41–74. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.11.002 Marsh, C. (2013). Business executives’ perceptions of ethical leadership and its development. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 565–582. Maruffi, B. L., Petri, W. R., & Malindretos, J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and the competitive advantage of multinational corporations: What is the right balance? Journal of Global Business Issues, 7(2), 69–81. Maruta, R. (2014). The creation and management of organizational knowledge. Knowledge-Based Systems, 67, 26–34. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2014.06.012 Masi, R. J. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms, and organizational productivity. International Journal of Organizational Analysis (1993 - 2002), 8(1), 16. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370– 396. Mason, C., & Simmons, J. (2014). Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate governance: A stakeholder systems approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 77–86. Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). Matsa, D. A., & Miller, A. R. (2013). A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal.Applied Economics, 5(3), 136–169. Maturana, H. R. (1975). The organization of the living: A theory of the living organization. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7.
293 Maturana, H. R. (2014). Understanding social systems? Constructivist Foundations, 9(2), 187–198. McAvoy, J., & Butler, T. (2007). The impact of the Abilene Paradox on double-loop learning in an agile team. Information and Software Technology, 49(6), 552. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (2003). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 117–126. McGinn, L. K., & Newman, M. G. (2012). Lessons learned in looking back: Perspectives from trailblazers. Behavior Therapy, 43(4), 698. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. McIntyre, H. H., & Foti, R. J. (2013). The impact of shared leadership on teamwork mental models and performance in self-directed teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 46–57. doi:10.1177/1368430211422923 McKelvey, B. (2004). Complexity science as order-creation science: New theory, new method. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 6(4), 2–27. McKelvey, B., & Andriani, P. (2005). Why Gaussian statistics are mostly wrong for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 3(2), 219. Mendelson, M. (2012). Saint Augustine. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/ Mendenhall, M. E., & Bird, A. (2013). In search of global leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 42(3), 167–174. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.06.001 Mendenhall, M. E., Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Oddou, G. R., Maznevski, M. L., Stevens, M. J., . . . Stahl, G. K. (2013). Global leadership: Research, practice, and development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Mendenhall, M. E., Reiche, B. S., Bird, A., & Osland, J. S. (2012). Defining the “global” in global leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 493–503. Merat, A., & Bo, D. (2013). Strategic analysis of knowledge firms: The links between knowledge management and leadership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 3–15. Merl, C., & Schönbauer, U. (2014). GEDIFO: A cross-organizational approach to learning in communities of practice. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 7(2), 18–22. doi:10.3991/ijac.v7i2.3613 Mihi Ramirez, A., & Girdauskiene, L. (2013). Creation of knowledge and reverse logistics. Empirical analysis from perspective of the resource based view theory. Engineering Economics, 24(5), 478–487.
294 Miller, J. B., & Mothner, I. (1971). Psychological consequences of sexual inequality. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 767–775. Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006a). Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: Implications for research design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12(1), 8–13.doi:10.1111/j.1440-172X.2006.00543.x Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006b). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–10. Mitchell, M. E., Eby, L. T., & Ragins, B. R. (2015). My mentor, my self: Antecedents and outcomes of perceived similarity in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.008 Mitchell, T. R., Biglan, A., Oncken, G. R., & Fiedler, F. E. (1970). The contingency model: Criticism and suggestions. Academy of Management Journal (Pre-1986), 13(3), 253. Moe, A. M. (2011). Autopoiesis and Cummings’ cat. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 3(1), 110–120. Mohammad, F. N., Lau, T. C., Law, K. A., & Migin, M. W. (2014). Emotional intelligence and turnover intention. International Journal of Academic Research, 6(4), 211–220. doi:10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-4/B.33 Molleman, E., & Broekhuis, M. (2012). How working in cross-functional teams relates to core attributes of professional occupations and the moderating role of personality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(1), 50–67. Momsen, K. M., & Carlson, J. A. (2013). To know I can might be enough: Women’s selfefficacy and their identified leadership values. Advancing Women in Leadership, 33, 122–131. Mondani, H., Holme, P., & Liljeros, F. (2014). Fat-tailed fluctuations in the size of organizations: The role of social influence. PLoS ONE, 9(7), 1–9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100527 Montas-Hunter, S. S. (2012). Self-efficacy and Latina leaders in higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 11(4), 315–335. Monter, W. (2011). Gendered sovereignty: Numismatics and female monarchs in Europe, 1300–1800. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 41(4), 533–564. doi:10.1162/JINH_a_00155 Moradi, B., Velez, B. L., & Parent, M. C. (2013). The theory of male reference group identity dependence: Roles of social desirability, masculinity ideology, and collective identity. Sex Roles, 68(7-8), 415–426.
295 Morgan, L., Paucar-Caceres, A., & Wright, G. (2014). Leading effective global virtual teams: The consequences of methods of communication. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 27(6), 607–624. doi:10.1007/s11213-014-9315-2 Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212. Moses, C. G. (2012). “What’s in a name?” On writing the history of feminism. Feminist Studies, 38(3), 757–779, 784–785. Mosher, C. E., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2005). Agentic and communal personality traits: Relations to attitudes toward sex and sexual experiences. Sex Roles, 52(1-2), 121– 129. Mousavi Davoudi, S. M. (2013). Impact: Job enrichment in organizational citizenship behaviour. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 10(2), 106–112. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mowczko, M. (2015). Women church leaders in the new testament. Retrieved from http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/new-testament-women-churchleaders/ Muo, I. (2013). Motivating & managing knowledge workers: Evidences from diverse industries & cultures. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3(2), 119–131. Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2010). A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 283–296. doi:10.1177/0146167209347380 Myers, S. A. (2006). Using leader-member exchange theory to explain students’ motives to communicate. Communication Quarterly, 54(3), 293. Naidoo, L., Scherbaum, C., Goldstein, H., & Graen, G. (2011). A longitudinal examination of the effects of LMX, ability, and differentiation on team performance. Journal of Business & Psychology, 26(3), 347–357. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9193-2 Nakajima, T. (2015). Biologically inspired information theory: Adaptation through construction of external reality models by living systems. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 119(3), 634–648. doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.07.008 Nakano, D., Muniz, J., & Batista, E. D., Jr. (2013). Engaging environments: Tacit knowledge sharing on the shop floor. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 290–306. Neeley, T. B. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science, 24(2), 476–497.
296 Neumann, K. (2013). ‘Know why’ thinking as a new approach to systems thinking. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 15(3), 81–93. Newman, M. G., & McGinn, L. K. (2012). Inspiration from role models and advice for moving forward. Behavior Therapy, 43(4), 721. Nguyen, N. C., & Bosch, O. J. (2013). A systems thinking approach to identify leverage points for sustainability: A case study in the Cat Ba Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(2), 104. Nickerson, R. S. (1990). William James on reasoning. Psychological Science, 1(3), 167– 171. Nieminen, L., Biermeier-Hanson, B., & Denison, D. (2013). Aligning leadership and organizational culture: The leader–culture fit framework for coaching organizational leaders. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(3), 177–198. Nienhüser, W. (2008). Resource dependence theory - How well does it explain behavior of organizations? Management Revue, 19(1), 9–32. Niiya, Y., Brook, A. T., & Crocker, J. (2010). Contingent self-worth and selfhandicapping: Do incremental theorists protect self-esteem? Self & Identity, 9(3), 276–297. doi:10.1080/15298860903054233 Njoroge, C. N., & Yazdanifard, R. (2014). The impact of social and emotional intelligence on employee motivation in a multigenerational workplace. International Journal of Information, Business & Management, 6(4), 163–170. Nonaka, I. (2007). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 85(7), 162–171. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54. Nonaka, I., Kodama, M., Hirose, A., & Kohlbacher, F. (2014). Dynamic fractal organizations for promoting knowledge-based transformation – A new paradigm for organizational theory. European Management Journal, 32(1), 137–146. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.02.003 Normington, K. (2013). ‘Faming of the shrews’: Medieval drama and feminist approaches. Yearbook of English Studies, 43, 105–120. North, L. (2012). Rejecting the ‘F’- word: How feminism and feminists are understood in the newsroom. Journalism, 10(6), 739. Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
297 Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 321–334. O’Boyle, E., Jr., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 79–119. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x Odetunde, O. J. (2013). Influence of transformational and transactional leaderships, and leaders’ sex on organisational conflict management behaviour. Gender & Behaviour, 11(1), 5323–5335. Ojedokun, O., & Idemudia, E. S. (2014). Examining the roles of gender and personal dispositions in attitudes toward knowledge sharing of senior administrators. Gender & Behaviour, 12, 5857–5867. Oliver, D. P. (2011). Rigor in qualitative research. Research on Aging, 33(4), 59. Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(2), 196–222. Olson, J. E. (2013). Human capital models and the gender pay gap. Sex Roles, 68(3-4), 186–197. Osborne, L. (1997). The women warriors. Lingua Franca: The Review of Academic Life, 7, 50–57. Öztürk, E. Ö. (2012). Contemporary motivation theories in educational psychology and language learning: An overview. The International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 33–46. Palaima, T., & Skarzauskiene, A. (2010). Systems thinking as a platform for leadership performance in a complex world. Baltic Journal of Management, 5(3), 330–355. Pan, W. S. Y., & Werblow, J. (2012). Does good job enrichment policy and practices impact employee’s job satisfaction? Journal of Global Business Issues, 6(1), 1–5. Papadopoulos, F., Kitsak, M., Serrano, M. Á., Boguñá, M., & Krioukov, D. (2012). Popularity versus similarity in growing networks. Nature, 489(7417), 537–540. doi:10.1038/nature11459 Parboteeah, P., & Jackson, T. W. (2007). An autopoietic framework for organisational learning. Knowledge & Process Management, 14(4), 248–259. doi:10.1002/kpm.291 Paris, L. L. D., & Decker, D. L. (2012). Sex role stereotypes: Does business education make a difference? Gender in Management, 27(1), 36–50.
298 Parks-Stamm, E. (2013). Exclusion as self-protection: The function of subtypes for in group members. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 651–662. Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman, M. E., & Hearns, K. A. (2008). Motivated to penalize: Women’s strategic rejection of successful women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 237. Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6 Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations--I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(1), 63–85. Pasini, J. A. (2008). Honorable and dishonorable killing: The gender of war in “Caesar and Cleopatra”. Shaw: The Annual of Bernard Shaw Studies, 28, 45–64. Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5), 1189. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283. Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1129–1145. doi:10.1037/a0036751 Perrault, E. (2015). Why does board gender diversity matter and how do we get there? The role of shareholder activism in deinstitutionalizing old boys’ networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 149–165. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2092-0 Peus, C., Braun, S., & Knipfer, K. (2015). On becoming a leader in Asia and America: Empirical evidence from women managers. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 55– 67. Pfafman, T. M., & Bochantin, J. E. (2012). Negotiating power paradoxes: Contradictions in women’s constructions of organizational power. Communication Studies, 63(5), 574. Pfafman, T. M., & McEwan, B. (2014). Polite women at work: Negotiating professional identity through strategic assertiveness. Women’s Studies in Communication, 37(2), 202–219. Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 406–413.
299 Plaks, J. E., & Halvorson, H. G. (2013). Does accountability attenuate or amplify stereotyping? The role of implicit theories. Social Cognition, 31(5), 543–561. doi:10.1521/soco.2013.31.5.543 Podrug, N. (2011). Influence of national culture on decision-making style. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 6(1), 37–44. Polanyi, M. (1968). Logic and psychology. American Psychologist, 23(1), 27–43. Pollack, J. M., Burnette, J. L., & Hoyt, C. L. (2012). Self-efficacy in the face of threats to entrepreneurial success: Mind-sets matter. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 287–294. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.674452 Powell, G. N. (2012). Six ways of seeing the elephant: The intersection of sex, gender, and leadership. Gender in Management, 27(2), 119–141. Pullen, A., & Rhodes, C. (2008). ‘It’s all about me!’: Gendered narcissism and leaders’ identity work. Leadership, 4(5), 5. doi:10.1177/1742715007085767 Quinn, N. (1977). Anthropological studies of women’s status. Annual Review of Anthropology, 6, 181–225. Raes, E., Decuyper, S., Lismont, B., Van den Bossche, P., Kyndt, E., Demeyere, S., & Dochy, F. (2013). Facilitating team learning through transformational leadership. Instructional Science, 41(2), 287–305. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9228-3 Ramlall, S. (2012). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. Journal of American Business Review, Cambridge, 1(1), 189–200. Raymond, J. (2013). Most of us are biased. Nature, 495(7439), 33–34. Rego, A., Vitória, A., Magalhães, A., Ribeiro, N., & Pina e Cunha, M. P. (2013). Are authentic leaders associated with more virtuous, committed and potent teams? Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 61. Reichertz, J. (2010). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(1), 1–16. Rennstam, J., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2013). Knowing work: Cultivating a practice-based epistemology of knowledge in organization studies. Human Relations, 1. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(12), 4403–4408.doi:10.1073/pnas.1314788111 Riad, S. (2011). Invoking Cleopatra to examine the shifting ground of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 831–850. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.006
300 Rijal, S. (2010). Leadership style and organizational culture in learning organization: A comparative study. International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 14(5), 119–127. Rivas, J. L. (2012). Co-opting the environment: An empirical test of resource-dependence theory. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(2), 294–311. Roberts, N. (2015). Absorptive capacity, organizational antecedents, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2426–2433. Roebuck, D. B., Smith, D. N., & Haddaoui, T. E. (2013). Cross-generational perspectives on work-life balance and its impact on women’s opportunities for leadership in the workplace. Advancing Women in Leadership, 33, 52–62. Rosenwasser, M. J. (1972). Rhetoric and the progress of the women’s liberation movement. Today’s Speech, 20, 45–56. Rosette, A. S., & Tost, L. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 221–235. Rowe, W. (2014). Some antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership: An examination using the kings of Judah from 931 BC to 586 BC. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(4), 557–572. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41(3), 192–202. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are overrepresented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 81–90. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2009). Glass cliffs are not so easily scaled: On the precariousness of female CEOs’ positions. British Journal of Management, 20(1), 13. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis-think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager-think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 470. Saavedra, L. K. (2013). Effective team building: The role of coaches. Strategies, 26(4), 3–6.
301 Saini, R. (2013). Model development for key enablers in the implementation of knowledge management. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 46–62. Salminen-Karlsson, M. (2014). Enabling virtual communities of practice: A case-study of Swedish-Indian collaboration in IT development. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 17(1), 60–70. Sarinnapakorn, F., & Sucaromana, U. (2013). Emotional intelligence among business consultants: A comparative study. Asian Social Science, 9(3), 1–6. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–436. Schein, E. (2011). Douglas McGregor: Theoretician, moral philosopher or behaviorist? Journal of Management History, 17(2), 156–164. Schein, V. E. (1973). Relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100. doi:10.1037/h0037128 Schermerhorn, J. R., Osborn, R. N., Uhl-Bien, M., & Hunt, J. (2011). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). Vitalsource Bookshelf Version. Schmader, T., Croft, A., & Whitehead, J. (2013). Why can’t I just be myself? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(1), 4–11. Schneider, W. J., & Newman, D. A. (2015). Intelligence is multidimensional: Theoretical review and implications of specific cognitive abilities. Human Resource Management Review, 25(1), 12–27. Schnell, E. R. (2005). A case study of executive coaching as a support mechanism during organizational growth and evolution. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(1), 41–56. Schriesheim, C. A., & Bird, B. J. (1979). Contributions of the Ohio State studies to the field of leadership. Journal of Management, 5(2), 135–145. Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leadermember exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 298–318. doi:10.2307/256909 Schuh, S., Hernandez Bark, A., Van Quaquebeke, N., Hossiep, R., Frieg, P., & Dick, R. (2014). Gender differences in leadership role occupancy: The mediating role of power motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 363–379. Schultz, R. (2014). Adjacent opportunities: Tools for thought. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 16(2), 177–179.
302 Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 114, 11–25. Schwartz, E. B., & Rago, J. J., Jr. (1973). Beyond tokenism: Women as true corporate peers. Business Horizons, 16(6), 69. Schyns, B., & Day, D. (2010). Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 1. Seddon, J., & Caulkin, S. (2007). Systems thinking, lean production and action learning. Action Learning: Research & Practice, 4(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/14767330701231438 Sekano, G. H., & Masango, M. J. (2012). In support of female leadership in the church: Grappling with the perspective of Setswana men - Shepherding as solution offered. Verbum Et Ecclesia, 33(1), 1–8. doi:10.4102/ve.v33i1.433 Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 32, 7. Sevincer, A., Kluge, L., & Oettingen, G. (2014). Implicit theories and motivational focus: Desired future versus present reality. Motivation & Emotion, 38(1), 36–46. Sewpaul, V. (2013). Inscribed in our blood: Challenging the ideology of sexism and racism. Affilia: Journal of Women & Social Work, 28(2), 116–125. Shapiro, J. R., Williams, A. M., & Hambarchyan, M. (2013). Are all interventions created equal? A multi-threat approach to tailoring stereotype threat interventions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 277–288. Shartle, C. L. (1979). Early years of the Ohio State University Leadership Studies. Journal of Management, 5(2), 127–134. Shewchuk, V. (n.d.). Organizational ecology: Intangible assets in play with today’s enterprise. Retrieved from http://www.spottedcowpress.ca /KnowledgeManagement/pdfs/03Shewchuk.pdf Shi, X., & Wang, J. (2011). Interpreting Hofstede model and GLOBE model: Which way to go for cross-cultural research? International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5), 93–99. Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2012). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
303 Sice, P., Koya, K., & Mansi, S. (2013). Leadership capability: An autopoietic perspective. Human Systems Management, 32(2), 95–103. doi:10.3233/HSM130790 Singh, J. V., & Lumsden, C. J. (1990). Theory and research in organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 161–195. Skaggs, S., Stainback, K., & Duncan, P. (2012). Shaking things up or business as usual? The influence of female corporate executives and board of directors on women’s managerial representation. Social Science Research, 41(4), 936. Skarzauskiene, A. (2010). Managing complexity: Systems thinking as a catalyst of the organization performance. Measuring Business Excellence, 14(4), 49–64. Slater, L. (2015). Defining queenship at Greyfriars London, c.1300-58. Gender & History, 27(1), 53–76. doi:10.1111/1468-0424.12102 Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2012). How are women’s glass ceiling beliefs related to career success? Career Development International, 17(5), 458–474. Spearly, J. (2007). Women on boards lead to better governance. BizEd, 6(1), 52. Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 511–526. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251. Srivastra, S., & Cooperrider, D. L. (1986). The emergence of the egalitarian organization. Human Relations, 39(8), 683. Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. B. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1372–1380. Stead, V. (2013). Learning to deploy (in)visibility: An examination of women leaders’ lived experiences. Management Learning, 44(1), 63–79. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. Stefaniak, J. (2014). Assembling the puzzle that is professional development: Mentorship, networking, and camaraderie! TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 58(5), 7–8.doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0777-y
304 Steinberg, W. J. (2010). Statistics alive! (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Still, K., Huhtamäki, J., & Russell, M. (2014). New insights for relational capital. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning, 384–392. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: Survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71. Stogdill, R. M. (1975). The evolution of leadership theory. Academy of Management. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1975.4975786 Stone, P. (2013). “Opting out”: Challenging stereotypes and creating real options for women in the professions. Research symposium: Gender & work: Challenging conventional wisdom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School. Strom, R. D., & Strom, P. S. (2015). Assessment of intergenerational communication and relationships. Educational Gerontology, 41(1), 41–52. doi:10.1080/03601277.2014.912454 Su, H. (2014). Business ethics and the development of intellectual capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 87–98. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1623-4 Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083020 Suliman, A. M., & Al-Shaikh, F. N. (2007). Emotional intelligence at work: Links to conflict and innovation. Employee Relations, 29(2), 208–220. Syed, J., & Murray, P. A. (2008). A cultural feminist approach towards managing diversity in top management teams. Equal Opportunities International, 27(5), 413–432. Tan, E. (2014). Human capital theory: A holistic criticism. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 411–445. Taylor, C. A., Lord, C. G., McIntyre, R. B., & Paulson, R. M. (2011). The Hillary Clinton effect: When the same role model inspires or fails to inspire improved performance under stereotype threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(4), 447–459. Teagarden, M. B., & Schotter, A. (2013). Leveraging intellectual capital in innovation networks: Growing, sharing and exploiting mindshare. Organizational Dynamics, 42(4), 281–289.
305 Terblanche, N. (2014). Knowledge sharing in the organizational context: Using social network analysis as a coaching tool. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 12(2), 146–164. Thomas, G. (2010). Doing case study: Abduction not induction, phronesis not theory. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(7), 575–582. doi:10.1177/1077800410372601 Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243–259. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 Tolciu, A., & Zierahn, U. (2012). Women and work: What role do social norms play? International Review of Applied Economics, 26(6), 711. Tolich, M. (2004). Internal confidentiality: When confidentiality assurances fail relational informants. Qualitative Sociology, 27(1), 101–106. Tomasetto, C., & Appoloni, S. (2013). A lesson not to be learned? Understanding stereotype threat does not protect women from stereotype threat. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 16(2), 199–213. Tompkins, T. C., & Rhodes, K. (2012). Groupthink and the ladder of inference: Increasing effective decision making. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 8(2), 84–90. Trop, J. (2014, April, 29). Is Mary Barra standing on a “glass cliff”? The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/is-mary-barrastanding-on-a-glass-cliff Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80–96. Tumanov, V. (2011). Mary versus Eve: Paternal uncertainty and the Christian view of women. Neophilologus, 95(4), 507–521. Turaga, R. (2013). Building trust in teams: A leader’s role. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 7(2), 13–31. Turco, C. J. (2010). Cultural foundations of tokenism: Evidence from the leveraged buyout industry. American Sociological Review, 75(6), 894–913. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. Urrestarazu, H. (2011a). Autopoietic systems: A generalized explanatory approach - Part 1. Constructivist Foundations, 6(3), 307–324.
306 Urrestarazu, H. (2011b). Autopoietic systems: A generalized explanatory approach -- Part 2. Constructivist Foundations, 7(1), 48–67. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016, February 10). Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human capital. The environmental scan. A fact-finding report of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Valdez, D. (2009). Bachofen’s Rome and the fate of the feminine Orient. Journal of the History of Ideas, 70(3), 421–443. Valentinov, V. (2012). System-environment relations in the theories of open and autopoietic systems: Implications for critical systems thinking. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 25(6), 537–542. Vandegrift, R., & Matusitz, J. (2011). Path-goal theory: A successful Columbia Records story. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21(4), 350. Vanmeter, R. A., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). Generation Y’s ethical ideology and its potential workplace implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 93–109. Varela, F. G., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: The organizing of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems, 5, 187. Verlage, H., Rowold, J., & Schilling, J. (2012). Through different perspectives on leadership: Comparing the full range leadership theory to implicit leadership theories. E Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 10(2), 68–91. Vial, A. C., Napier, J. L., & Brescoll, V. (2016). A bed of thorns: Female leaders and the self-reinforcing cycle of illegitimacy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 400–414. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968/1988). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications (rev. ed.). New York, NY: George Braziller. von Hippel, C., Sekaquaptewa, D., & McFarlane, M. (2015). Stereotype threat among women in finance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(3), 405–414. doi:10.1177/0361684315574501 von Hippel, C., Wiryakusuma, C., Bowden, J., & Shochet, M. (2011). Stereotype threat and female communication styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(10), 1312–1324. von Krogh, G., & Geilinger, N. (2014). Knowledge creation in the eco-system: Research imperatives. European Management Journal, 32(1), 155–163.
307 Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational choice: A study of pre- and postdecision processes. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 1(2), 212–225. Wada, T., Ichikohji, T., & Ikuine, F. (2014). Platform paradox. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 13(2), 91–103. doi:10.7880/abas.13.91 Waltuck, B. A. (2011). Exploring chaos and complexity. Journal for Quality & Participation, 34(3), 20–21. Wang, A., Chiang, J. T., Tsai, C., Lin, T., & Cheng, B. (2013). Gender makes the difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101–113. Washington, M. C., Okoro, E. A., & Okoro, S. U. (2013). Emotional intelligence and cross-cultural communication competence: An analysis of group dynamics and interpersonal relationships in a diverse classroom. Journal of International Education Research, 9(3), 241. Way, C., & McKeeby, J. W. (2012). Systems thinking as a team-building approach. Reflections, 11(4), 44–49. Wealthy women. (1890). Journal of Education, 32(18), 298. Werhane, P. (2007). Women leaders in a globalized world. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 425–435. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9516-z White, R. P., & Shullman, S. L. (2012). Thirty years of global leadership training: A cross-cultural odyssey. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(4), 268–278. Williams, D. A. (2014). Organizational learning as a framework for overcoming glass ceiling effects in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2013(159), 75–84. doi:10.1002/ir.20055 Witherspoon, R. (2014). Double-loop coaching for leadership development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(3), 261–283. Woehr, D., Arciniega, L., & Poling, T. (2013). Exploring the effects of value diversity on team effectiveness. Journal of Business & Psychology, 28(1), 107–121. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9267-4 Woolliams, P., & Trompenaars, F. (2013). Realizing change through other ways of working: Reconciling competing demands. Organization Development Journal, 31(2), 6–16.
308 Wu, H., Ying, S., Jia, X., Zhang, L., & Chen, X. (2013). Robustness analysis of social network based on a dynamic model. Journal of Digital Information Management, 11(6), 453–461. Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 693–707.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.004 Yeo, R. K. (2005). Revisiting the roots of learning organization: A synthesis of the learning organization literature. Learning Organization, 12(4), 368–382. Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 441–455. Yucel, I., McMillan, A., & Richard, O. C. (2014). Does CEO transformational leadership influence top executive normative commitment? Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1170–1177. Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research. Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 49. Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66. Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81–93. Zeleny, M. (1977). Self-organization of living systems: A formal model of autopoiesis. International Journal of General Systems, 4(1). Zexian, Y., & Xuhui, Y. (2010). A revolution in the field of systems thinking—A review of Checkland’s system thinking. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 27(2), 140–155. doi:10.1002/sres.1021
309
APPENDICES
310
APPENDIX A Request for Permission from Professional Websites
311 Dear (Group Owner), My name is John Mevers, and I am a doctoral candidate at Argosy University-Online Graduate School of Business and Management. I am seeking permission to post a message within the (group) regarding gaining participants for my dissertation study. I do not intend to conduct the study in the group message board, only to seek potential study participants. I would like to post in the message board the purpose of the study, study participant criteria, and my contact information so anyone who desires to participate or has additional questions can contact me. Prior to any data collection, the study will be approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board and as part of that approval process I am required to obtain gatekeeper permission from sites where I hope to recruit potential study participants. The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding about the barriers, if any, to women in junior positions’ opportunity to grow into formal leadership positions within the banking and finance industry. The study will consist of one-on-one interviews using open ended interview questions, and the interviews should take approximately 60 minutes. Participation is strictly voluntary and there are minimal, if any, potential risks. All participant and organizational names will remain anonymous though the use of pseudonyms. Participants can select the time for the interviews and I certainly do not intend to take away from their workday. To reiterate, I am only seeking permission to post a message regarding the purpose of the study, study participant criteria, and my contact information for anyone interested in participating or who has additional questions. I am not seeking to conduct the study within the group. I appreciate your kind consideration of my request to assist me in completing my doctoral dissertation. John Mevers Doctoral Candidate, Argosy University – Online (Principal researcher email address)
312
APPENDIX B Social Networking Group Message Board Post
313 Hi, my name is John Mevers and I am a doctoral candidate at Argosy University Online working on a Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership. I am conducting a study entitled An Autopoietic, Systems Thinking Exploration of Professional Women’s Perceptions of Leadership in a Masculinized Environment: A Grounded Theory Study. The purpose of this qualitative study is to gain a better understanding about the barriers, if any, to women in junior positions’ opportunity to grow into formal leadership positions within the banking and finance industry. I am seeking 25 professional women who meet the following criteria in order to participate in the study:
Participant must be a woman who is at least 18 years of age Participant must complete the informed consent form Participant must work within the United States in a banking or financial organization Junior positions participants must desire to attain senior/formal leadership position. Participant must be currently employed Participant must have a defined organizational role: o A senior/formal leader must hold a position that oversees three or more people within the organization and working within the United States o A woman in a junior position must have direct connection with a woman who is a formal leader within the organization, and preferably, indicates an aspiration to advance into formal positional leadership (not necessarily within the same organization)
The participant’s name will not be used in the material write-up so there will be no manner of knowing from where the participant works nor will the particular organization’s name be shared in the material write-up. Participants will be given pseudonyms such as Participant 1, Participant 2, etc. Should organizational names emerge in the interviews, the organizations will be given pseudonyms as well such as Organization 1, Organization 2, etc. and only the principal researcher will know to which participant or organization the pseudonym aligns. By participating in this study, the participant might contribute to new ideas regarding organizational learning and human capital maximization. In addition, the participant will know that she has contributed to adding to the body of knowledge in Organizational Leadership. If interested in participating and you believe you meet the study participant qualifications, please contact John Mevers at
[email protected] (Note: Please do not contact via a work/organizational email address) to arrange for an interview. A signed informed consent form will be required prior to participation.
314 Disclaimer: To participate in this study, a personal email and not a work email must be used for any contact with the principal researcher. If potential participants do not have a personal email, please setup a Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo, or other personal email account before responding to this posting. Any responses sent to the principal researcher via a potential participant’s work/organization email address will not be considered for the study. In addition, by responding to this posting, potential participants who become participants acknowledge that any responses made regarding the study are the participant’s personal opinions and are not the opinions of the participant’s employer organization. Participants further acknowledge understanding this study is not targeting any particular organization but is seeking industry knowledge from professionals in the industry.
315
APPENDIX C Informed Consent
316 Basic Consent Form
This study is being done by John Mevers who is a student in the Graduate School of Business and Management at Argosy University-Online working on a dissertation. This study is a requirement to fulfill the researcher’s degree and will not be used for decisionmaking by any organization. The title of this study is: An Autopoietic, Systems Thinking Exploration of Professional Women’s Perceptions of Leadership Attainment in a Masculinized Environment: A Grounded Theory Study.
The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding about the barriers, if any, to women in junior positions’ opportunity to grow into formal leadership positions within the banking and finance industry.
I was asked to be in this study because of my employment, as a woman, in the banking and finance industry.
A total of at least 20 women (no men) have been asked to participate in this study.
If I agree to be in this study, I will be asked to participate in an audio-recorded interview facilitated by the principal researcher, John Mevers. In addition, maintain availability, if willing, for follow up with the principal researcher.
This study will take approximately 4 months to complete. Interviews are anticipated to take approximately one-hour of time for the participant.
The risks associated with this study are minimal to none.
The benefits of participation are: There will be no direct or indirect immediate personal benefits from your participation in this research, although the research might provide benefit for the banking and finance industry and the industry’s employees.
I will receive no compensation (monetary or otherwise) for participation.
The information I provide will be treated confidentially, which means that nobody except the Principal Researcher, John Mevers, will be able to tell who I am.
The records of this study will be kept private. No words linking me to the study will be included in any sort of report that might be published.
317
The records will be stored securely and only the Principal Researcher, John Mevers, will have access to the records.
I have the right to get a summary of the results of this study if I would like to have them. I can get the summary by contacting the Principal Researcher, John Mevers at
[email protected].
I understand that my participation is strictly voluntary. If I do not participate, it will not harm my relationship with Argosy University – Online or John Mevers. If I decide to participate, I can refuse to answer any of the questions that may make me uncomfortable. I can quit at any time without my relations with the university, job, benefits, etc., being affected.
I can contact John Mevers (
[email protected]) or Dr. Roger Fuller, Dissertation Chair (
[email protected]), with any questions about this study.
I understand that this study has been reviewed and Certified by the Institutional Review Board, Argosy University – Online. For problems or questions regarding participants’ rights, I can contact the Institutional Review Board Chair, Dr. Nancy Hoover, at
[email protected] I have read and understand the explanation provided to me. I have had all my questions answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this consent form. By signing this document, I consent to participate in the study. Name of Participant (printed) ____________________________________________
Signature: __________________________________ Date: __________________ Signature of Principal Investigator: ______________________ Date: __________________
Principal Investigator Contact Information: John Mevers 904-505-5802
[email protected]
318
APPENDIX D Participant Demographic Questions
319 1. Are you currently employed in the U.S.? 2. What is the highest level of education you’ve received? 3. How long have you been employed professionally in this industry? (If less than one year, what industry were you previously employed in?) 4. How long have you been employed with this company? (If less than 3 years, how long were you employed in your last position.) 5. On average, how many hours per week do you work? 6. Does your position include formally managing three or more people? 7. As a leader, do you have women that report to you or that you influence in the workplace? a. As a junior woman, are there women in your organization to whom you report or have senior women that influence you? 8. Are you interested in career advancement? (If so, what position is the next step in your progression?) 9. Are you willing to share your age and race or ethnicity?
