Seeking the best: Leadership lessons from the ... - Wiley Online Library

SEEKING THE BEST: LEADERSHIP LESSONS FROM THE MILITARY

C AT H E R I N E L O U G H L I N A N D K A R A A . A R N O L D Based on the experiences of the armed forces in the United States and Canada, and incorporating insights from interviews recently conducted in the Canadian military, this article discusses lessons learned about moving women into positions of leadership. The masculine nature of the military exposes many barriers facing women elsewhere. First, we discuss the need for a new kind of leader, and then the consequences for organizations ignoring external realities. Third, we discuss innovative research demonstrating that genuine change must go beyond legislation. Finally, the military illustrates some challenges in identifying the best candidates for leadership positions. Implications for management are discussed throughout the article. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

he persistent lack of women in leadership roles across organizational contexts in North America has sustained the interest of writers in both the academic literature (e.g., Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Hewlett & Luce, 2005) and the popular press (e.g., Morris, 2005; Sellers, 2003). In business, for example, women lead only seven of Fortune’s top 500 U.S. companies (Catalyst, 2005). In Canada, Report on Business (a leading Canadian business magazine) recently listed the 25 most influential Canadian business leaders—none were female (Kingston, 2005). Across both nations, the percentages of women in military roles are similarly low, with strikingly fewer women

T

at higher officer ranks and in combat roles. In the United States and Canada (respectively), 15% and 17% of commissioned officers and 14% and 14% of noncommissioned officers are women (Department of Defense, 2004; Febbraro, 2003). In this article, we consider some parallels between the modern military and civilian management with respect to women’s advancement into positions of leadership. Research conducted in military settings has contributed to the organizational leadership literature in the past (e.g., Bass, 1985). However, most important from our perspective is the fact that the masculine nature of military settings tend to epitomize barriers facing women elsewhere.

Correspondence to: Catherine Loughlin, Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, B3H-3C3. E-mail: [email protected] Human Resource Management, Spring 2007, Vol. 46, No. 1, Pp. 147–167 © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20150

148

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2007

We will consider the way the military selects, promotes, and retains qualified women into leadership positions. Further, although the U.S. and Canadian forces are different in many ways (e.g., the Canadian forces have been ordered to give women equal access), many of their experiences are similar. This similarity increases our confidence in generalizing lessons learned to civilian organizations, and the implications for civilian management are discussed throughout. First, we consider the need for leadership definitions to catch up with current realities. Next, based Globalization, the on the military experience, we unprecedented discuss what may happen to organizations insistent on ignoring pace of changes in external realities. Third, we discuss innovative retechnological search in military, paramilitary, development, and other settings, and we find that genuine change must go beintense public yond legislation. Finally, military settings illustrate some important scrutiny, and challenges for management efincreasing diversity forts to identify the best candidates for leadership positions. We in the workforce all adopt the perspective of role congruity theory throughout (as disare trends that are cussed in Lesson 3; Eagly & Karau, having an impact on 2002). In addition, because serving in a combat role is one of the armed forces key experiences necessary to achieve senior leadership in the around the world. military, where possible we incorporate interview comments and insights from recent Canadian reports (and our own interviews) on Canadian women in combat.

Lesson 1: Definitions of Leadership: Images Meet Reality Globalization, the unprecedented pace of technological development, intense public scrutiny, and increasing diversity in the workforce all are trends that are having an impact on armed forces around the world. Authors now speak about battlefields being ill defined (e.g., Wojack, 2002), about soldiers being asked to be “international social

workers” while fighting more crucial battles in the heart of cities, all the while being expected to operate at an unprecedented operational tempo, with limited resources, and in a “politically correct fishbowl” (Gutmann, 2000). September 11, 2001, brought a war on terrorism that “involve[s] a landscape of military action that is completely unfamiliar” (Ignatieff, 2002, p. 5). On top of this, advanced technologies are having a significant impact on how war is waged that analysts term a “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA; Irwin, 2002, p. 53). In his popular book The World Is Flat, Friedman (2005) illustrates some of the transformative changes in the way the military now works due to the use of modern technology. He recounts one encounter watching a U.S. soldier in a recent tour of conflict zones in Iraq: [A] small pilotless aircraft with a highpower television camera was flying over an Iraqi village . . . feeding real-time intelligence images back to his laptop and this flat screen. This drone was actually being “flown” and manipulated by an expert . . . at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada. . . . Meanwhile, the video images it was beaming back were being watched simultaneously by . . . United States Central Command headquarters in Tampa, CentCom regional headquarters in Qatar. . . . The different analysts around the world were conducting an online chat about how to interpret what was going on and what to do about it . . .” (Friedman, 2005, p. 39) Given current realities, it seems reasonable to assume that soldiers rising to positions of leadership in the military of the future will require a distinctly different skill set than those of the past. If the military does not prepare for this reality now, it will be hard-pressed to find competent leaders in the years to come. Going beyond the obvious need for technological skills illustrated in the example above, other core competencies recognized in the Canadian armed forces now include integrity, courage, loyalty, Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Leadership Lessons from the Military

selflessness, and self-discipline. Additional necessary attributes recommended are dedication, knowledge, intellect, perseverance, decisiveness, judgment, and physical robustness. There is an emphasis on the necessity for leaders to inspire trust, to maintain high standards of professionalism, to exercise critical thinking that will challenge the status quo (Chief of Defence Staff, 2002), and to have the “ability to resist the stressful effects of ethical dilemmas . . . [and] . . . the need for increased emotional competency” (Lemieux, 2002, p. 35). A greater understanding of other cultures, as well as the development of a military attitude that combines the concept of soldier as “warrior” with soldier as “diplomat and scholar,” are necessary (Lemieux, 2002). Much will be expected of future leaders in the military. In terms of the role of women in the modern military, with the above leadership needs in mind, the military cannot afford to lose talented leaders, be they male or female. As Friedman (2005) points out, seeking the best in this context requires the recognition that “there is little premium anymore for strength. But there is an increased premium for pattern recognition and complex problem solving” (p. 288). As Davis and McKee (2002) succinctly commented concerning this issue, “Twenty-first century technologies are gender-neutral” (p. 21). However, despite the need for leadership definitions to begin matching current realities, narrow definitions from the past and the accepted attitude “that if women could not run, they could not lead” (Adams, 1984, p. 639) still prevail today. Even in the Canadian military (a military known for innovations in diversity; Gutmann, 2000; Wojack, 2002), the environment is still dominated by white males, and a traditional, hierarchical, and authoritarian culture prevails (Beitz & Hook, n.d.). Women typically are accorded less respect and support than their male counterparts, particularly in the combat arms, although Canada legislated the full integration of women in all units by 2001. Recent interviews with students at the Royal Military College (RMC) of Canada confirm that this type of thinking persists with Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

149

the next generation of male soldiers. Negative comments about women in the forces also dispel thoughts that younger generations will be more willing to accommodate diversity if left to their own accord. Comments such as the following were pervasive: “… the standards have been lowered so much for all these people that we are no longer a fighting force,” “I just don’t believe a woman could carry me out if I was wounded in battle,” or “The Israelis tried having women in their combat units and it didn’t work. Now it’s our turn to be ridiculed by other countries” (Minister’s Advisory Board, 2001). The glorification of the male warrior and notions that the Negative comments physical bar is being lowered for women prevail in both the Cana- about women in the dian and U.S. forces (Davis & forces also dispel McKee, 2002). Comments from an administrative inquiry into thoughts that the treatment of Canada’s first female infantry officer also illus- younger generations trate how difficult it is to change will be more willing these perceptions. Despite the fact that Capt. Perron was exto accommodate tremely competent, worked very diversity if left to hard, achieved first or second place on all her training phases, their own accord. did two tours with the United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia, and held the respect of those under her command, she was never fully accepted in the infantry by her peers (Minister’s Advisory Board, 2001). Given the ubiquitous nature of beliefs that woman cannot hold military leadership positions because of their lack of physical prowess, a few brief comments are in order. First, it should be noted that the U.S. and other militaries already make physical allowances based on age. Second, recent research suggests that women’s physical abilities are often underestimated (Wojack, 2002). For example, it was only after the passing of Title IX in the United States in 1972 (making it illegal for schools to spend less federal money on women’s sports than men’s) that women’s athletics and physical fitness began to make strides (e.g., with women improving

150


almost 24% over previous records in marathon running compared to men’s improvements of 3% since the law was passed). These comments do not deny differences in the physical abilities of men and women, but they do point out that these differences may at times be overstated and/or could be substantially mitigated by additional training for women before entering integrated basic training (Gutmann, 2000; Wojack, 2002). Given the wide range of physical ability among males, there can be as much heterogeneity within male and female samples as there are between them. Critics of narrow definitions of leadership based on physical ability also Some argue that the point to the fact that given new technologies, most lethal force no only reason for the longer involves hand-to-hand combat. Finally, in terms of physpersistent focus on ical capacity, women are stronger physical capacity is than men in some areas. For example, in terms of endurance, alto deliberately though men run faster than women up to 26 miles, beyond exclude women that, the situation is reversed (in tests up to 56 miles; Davis & from combat McKee, 2002). positions, which Some argue that the only reason for the persistent focus on typically are physical capacity is to deliberately exclude women from comrequired for bat positions, which typically are promotion to the required for promotion to the highest levels. In fact, some Rehighest levels. publican politicians in the United States are trying to impose new restrictions on the number of military jobs open to women to “protect” them from combat (Moniz & Stone, 2005). Given the changing nature of war, and the actual skills required for leadership roles in the modern military, such outdated definitions of leadership (i.e., based on physical prowess) are counterproductive. A closer examination of the skills required to progress through the ranks as a modern soldier, and of the environment in which he/she must function, is necessary. While the ability of women to do a given job is a paramount concern, it is also critical that women be

given the opportunity to demonstrate competence, as is demonstrated in the next case. Another illustration of where military definitions of leadership are not keeping pace with current environments relates to the nature of war and the increasing need for international peacekeepers. While it can be argued that “the ability to prepare or get ready to fight, skill in actual fighting, and the will to prevail in combat against a foe” (Hawkins, 2005, para. 1) will remain important in a few select units, future leaders will need many other skill sets to successfully navigate new realities. These skills must receive far more attention. A few years ago, experts from around the world were brought together in Sweden to a workshop titled “Mainstreaming Gender in Multilateral Peacekeeping Operations” (DeGroot, 1999). The United Nations was attempting to persuade member states to deploy more women. The goal of this workshop was not to improve gender representation, but to improve the chances of operational success! The military’s previous emphasis on physical strength assumed that strength would translate into success in operational performance. However, modern soldiers’ jobs are more complicated than presumed. Because peacekeeping often is violent, combat training is necessary; however, one must also be conciliatory and patient. The experts at the Swedish conference focused on the strategic advantage women bring to such missions due to their demonstrated capacity for controlled aggression (e.g., in contrast to some of the uncontrolled physical and sexual aggression against civilians that has plagued other U.N. peacekeeping missions dominated by male combat soldiers; DeGroot, 1999). Perhaps ironically, it appears that seeking the best leaders in the future may require raising the bar for male soldiers on certain skills more closely aligned with current realities (e.g., the ability to mediate, resolve conflicts, and exercise controlled aggression). Civilian police officers will tell you that if you are engaged in physical combat with a suspect, you already have lost control of a situation. There is also increasing recogniHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


tion that given the changing nature of war (e.g., lacking clear battle lines), all soldiers are now combat soldiers, and training must proceed accordingly. Aligning military hiring and training requirements with modern necessities will be a great challenge in the next decade. In the conference mentioned above, the United Nations had little success with its plea—few member states could provide enough trained women.

Implications for Business Civilian organizations can learn from the military example. The tendency for definitions of leadership to become “male normative” (i.e., based on areas where men dominate) is not unusual. Until recently, men have set workplace standards. Authors have noted the same tendency in other areas of male control. For example, in academia, some authors have cautioned against the tendency for reason and logical thought to become synonymous with masculinity (e.g., a women should be complimented if she “thinks like a man”). In discourse, the masculine is taken as the norm and the feminine as marking difference (Katila & Merilainen, 1999). Many authors have talked about how unfriendly corporate environments are to women. For example, Kingston (2005) refers to the “tribal rituals that exclude women” (e.g., private clubs, e-mail pornography, sexist jokes). Many businesses also require heroic acts of dedication such as hours served or extensive travel to prove one’s loyalty and enter the fast track to leadership. The challenges to women in navigating these environments have been discussed elsewhere (e.g., Hewlett & Luce, 2005; Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005), and popular press articles have increasingly focused on how these barriers compromise many women’s ability to move into positions of leadership (e.g., while maintaining primary family responsibilities; Morris, 2002; Sellers, 2003). For example, in an article written in Fortune magazine a few years ago called “Trophy Husbands” (Morris, 2002), we were reminded of the price to be paid for success Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

151

and how hard it is for women to break barriers into leadership without support from someone at home. Authors refer to “old assumptions” that are “cruelly out of date” about how to work, show commitment, or advance (Miller & Miller, 2005, p. 120), and about women having to “deform” themselves into “honorary men” to occupy positions of influence (Saul, 1993, p. 35). It is clear that modern business has done a poor job of assimilating and/or accommodating women into the fold. However, much like the military example above illustrates, perhaps it is time to ask what skills are required of the modern manager, and whether our definitions Women comprise of leadership are keeping pace? Contemporary writers argue almost half the that managers need to adopt new behaviors because of changes in workforce, and yet companies’ economic, demographic, and competitive environ- only approximately ments: “as workers become selfmanaging, managers are told to .02% of the CEOs in reorient themselves toward a new Fortune’s top 1,000 role of coordinating, facilitating, coaching, supporting, and nurtur- U.S. companies are ing their employees . . . we have to women. think about the manager as teacher, as mentor . . .” (Fondas, 1997, pp. 258–259). Interestingly, numerous authors have documented women’s established skills in the above regard (e.g., Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Rosener, 1990). Consequently, it would seem that women are well suited to move into positions of leadership in management. However, progress is slow. Women comprise almost half the workforce, and yet only approximately .02% of the CEOs in Fortune’s top 1,000 U.S. companies are women (17 out of 1,000; Catalyst, 2005). Over ten years ago, Schwartz (1992) spoke of “women as a business imperative.” To screen out women from top management undermines recruiting the very qualities supposedly needed for future success. The fact that women have been unable to assimilate to male models would now appear to be an advantage, as they have likely retained valuable skills that organizations currently need. It would appear that similar to

152


the military example, business organizations need to expand their definitions of effective leadership and begin seeking, recruiting, training, and promoting those with the skills most aligned with current realities. In fact, as we learned from the military example, many men may need to improve their performance and to develop the skills now being called for in the management literature (e.g., the ability to nurture, coach). Otherwise, as the case with military peacekeepers demonstrated, when the call comes for leaders with the requisite skill sets, management may be ill prepared.

In North America, civilians

Lesson 2: Society Will Force Change on Organizations That Resist Seeing New Realities

Societal expectations for the armed forces have changed dramatically in recent years. In the calling for a new United States, allegations of sexkind of leadership in ual misconduct have been reported in large numbers, beginthe military. Part of ning with the scandal at the Army’s mechanics training school this new definition at Aberdeen Proving Ground, includes a diverse Maryland (Titunik, 2000). Whereas in the past it might have military more been argued that “sexual aggression is an important component reflective of the of being an effective warrior,” this society it protects. is no longer acceptable in a civil society (Rosen, Bliese, Wright, & Gifford, 1999, p. 365). In Canada, high-profile scandals associated with Somalia and Bacovici (Bentley, n.d.); incidents of rape, abuse, and incompetent handling of such cases (O’Hara, 1998); and public outcry over hazing rituals in the Airborne Regiment (Winslow, 1999) have all spurred an unprecedented demand for transparency in the military (Bentley, n.d.). Recent scandals in the United States have only fueled this outcry. For example, the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility by U.S. forces dominated the press over the past few years (Miklaszewski & Jennings, 2004). In North America, civilians increasingly are calling for a new kind of leadership in the increasingly are

military. Part of this new definition includes a diverse military more reflective of the society it protects. Canada was the first country to fully integrate women into its armed forces on a regular basis. However, what is interesting about the Canadian example is that this integration was not by choice. It was forced upon the military by civilians. The Canadian military had been able to stave off calls for integration for years by citing concerns about operational effectiveness, among others (e.g., morale, cohesion). However, the military was reminded that they serve at the will of civilians. In 1989, a judgment by a Human Rights Tribunal directed the Canadian armed forces to immediately remove employment restrictions based on sex and gave the organization until 2001 to achieve gender integration in all units of the Regular and Reserve Forces: After nearly 20 years of subdued resistance to allowing women entry into the combat arms and claiming that it was to avoid compromising “combat effectiveness,” it seemed no one in the Department of National Defence could present significant proof to back up its claim. Thus, there could be no further hesitation in implementing full integration. (Ryan, 2004, p. 16) The U.S. military is not far behind, and women can occupy 93.5% of officer billets in the Navy (submarines and SEALS being exceptions) and enlisted women can serve in 95.1% of career fields (91 of 94 job classifications); 311 women now serve as pilots and 204 as Naval flight officers; about 211 women are also in training to fly combat aircraft. Women are now aboard combatant ships, thousands of enlisted women and officers are “serving at sea,” and ten Navy women now command ships (Navy Personnel Command, 2005; Wilson, 2005). Changes in the number of military positions open to women are being driven in a large part by a citizenry increasingly unwilling to accept that jobs are not open to all individuals (male or female) who are qualified, Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


competent, and able to perform them. Further, it was the Army itself who helped fend off the Republican proposal mentioned above (to scale back jobs open to women), because they would have had to close almost 22,000 slots to women, and this would have limited the service’s fighting capacity (Moniz & Stone, 2005). While the Army’s position is likely heavily influenced by the current U.S. war (requiring all the recruits of either sex), it also speaks to the integral role women are playing in the forces. Finally, in terms of policy changes, in Canada, the Minister’s Advisory Board (2001) recommended that the armed forces include items that evaluate an individual’s commitment to diversity as part of regular performance appraisals. The Board also suggested that the armed forces be sure that Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) be examined for “bias stemming from favoritism, sports association, cultural uniformity and other intangible and non-performance related factors” (Minister’s Advisory Board, 2001, Performance Appraisal Section). These examples illustrate the increasing recognition of the necessity to retain and promote qualified women (and others) in the military.

Implications for Business Civilian organizations may want to heed military examples of imposed change. The barriers faced by women in business are not so different from those discussed in the military (Fagenson, 1993). In a Fortune magazine article titled “How Corporate America Is Betraying Women” (Morris, 2005), the high costs of not voluntarily changing the status quo are clearly outlined. Women in North America are increasingly pursuing class-action lawsuits costing companies billions of dollars for failing to promote women at all levels of the organization and compensate them accordingly. Recently, Boeing was ordered to pay $72.5 million to settle such a class-action suit by its female employees; Morgan Stanley agreed to a settlement of $54 million; and the courts have ruled that a lawsuit charging Wal-Mart with discriminatory practices can go forward (Morris, 2005). Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

153

In recent years, the popular press has highlighted the need to address these issues in organizations. However, the tone of media articles in North America has become much more prescriptive as the financial costs to organizations of not doing so mount (Daniels, 2003). Companies are now being advised by their lawyers to assure that women are proportionately represented and compensated at all levels of the organization by setting clear targets for integration or risk suffering the consequences of failing to do so. To the extent that the military example is instructive, the days of North American business being able to stall change are numbered. Europe is Women in North already moving in this direction, and Norway recently passed legisAmerica are lation requiring boards of joint stock companies to be composed increasingly of 40% women (European Professional Women’s Network, 2005). pursuing classIn North America, some are also action lawsuits suggesting that women begin forcing change through their costing companies stock purchases (Kingston, 2005). Company leaders who do not set billions of dollars for clear targets for voluntarily intefailing to promote grating women proportionally at all levels of their organizations women at all levels risk being compelled to do so. As arguments surrounding of the organization women’s ability to lead at top levand compensate els arise, as they inevitably will, it is useful to remember that it was them accordingly. changing the laws surrounding investment in women’s sports that changed the physical ability of women, not the other way around (see the discussion above in Lesson 1), and Norway’s model for change includes clear provisions for training and development to prepare individuals for these roles (European Professional Women’s Network, 2005). Some particular business sectors in North America may also offer instructive models for change. For example, the entertainment industry has done better than most at representing women at its highest levels, and this industry underscores the importance of flexibility in the way business is structured to support change (e.g., a

154


focus on what gets done as opposed to how it gets done offers considerable advantages to women in moving into positions of leadership; Ensher, Murphy, & Sullivan, 2002). Calls for measures in business similar to those being adopted in the Canadian military (e.g., incorporating commitments to diversity into military performance appraisals) are arising elsewhere in the literature, and “best practices” from the performance appraisal literature should be given serious consideration in discussions about moving women into positions of leadership in civilian organizations (e.g., Hewlett & Luce, 2005; Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005). As Bakan (2004) points out …change itself has in The Corporation, business leaders would be well advised to rebeen far less member, not unlike military leaders in Canada were recently daunting than the forced to realize, they must reflect the values of society or risk losing fear of change. its support and being forced to change. Resistance is common when organizations or individuals perceive that they have a lot to lose from change (Eilam & Shamir, 2005). For this reason, resistance is to be expected. However, business may also be able to learn a lesson from the military in this regard. When significant changes in membership policies have occurred (whether or not done willingly), change itself has been far less daunting than the fear of change. The experiences of two designated groups in the armed forces in both countries are informative in this regard. In the United States, President Truman ordered racial integration of the U.S. military in 1948 (Wojack, 2002). In Canada, the ban on homosexuals in the military was lifted in 1992, and in 1996 samesex couples were accorded the same employment benefits as heterosexual couples (Belkin & McNichol, 2000). In both cases, the negative consequences that so many feared simply failed to materialize. In the case of racial integration, desegregation did not hurt combat readiness or undermine unit cohesion as threatened (similar to assumptions about women), and it actually led to improved performance on the part of

black U.S. soldiers (Wojack, 2002). Likewise, in Canada, fears that there would be increased sexual harassment, that “gay-bashing” would increase, and that soldiers would resign or refuse to work with homosexuals have all proven to be largely unfounded (Belkin & McNichol, 2000). Despite the recent gains mentioned above, minorities in the United States lag behind Caucasians in military promotion rates (e.g. Baldwin, 1996), and the small number of people taking advantage of same-sex couple benefits in the Canadian forces illustrates that there are still issues of acceptance (e.g., of the estimated 3.5% of service personnel who are homosexual, only 17 people had filed for same-sex benefits as of April 1999; Belkin & McNichol, 2000). The seeming lack of progress for women in civilian organizations despite legislation in both the United States (affirmative action) and Canada (employment equity) also is indicative of the fact that we need something beyond legislation to effect real change. These realizations lead to our next point—genuine change must go beyond legislation.

Lesson 3: Seeing Genuine Results Will Require Going Beyond Legislation The world of classical music . . . was until very recently the preserve of white men. Women . . . simply could not play like men. They didn’t have the strength, the aptitude, or the resilience for certain kinds of pieces. Their lips were different. Their lungs were less powerful. Their hands were smaller. . . . But . . . orchestra musicians began to organize themselves politically. . . . They wanted the audition process to be formalized. . . . Musicians were identified not by name but by number. Screens were erected between the committee and the auditioner. . . . And as these new rules were put in place around the country, an extraordinary thing happened: orchestras began to hire women. (Gladwell, 2005, pp. 248–250)1 Gender-stereotypic prescriptions regarding how men and women should beHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


have result in different evaluative reactions . . . depending on the performer’s sex. (Heilman & Chen, 2005ß, p. 431) While many aspects of the advancement of women have improved in the Canadian forces since 1989 when integration was first ordered, the Minister’s Advisory Board on Armed Forces (2001) found that there is still significant progress to be made and that past barriers continue to impact women currently moving up in the military. For example, the fact that in the past women were not allowed into combat roles has had a negative impact on some women’s career progress to date. Although a woman coming up the ranks today would not be denied this career option, those women who were denied it in the past can find it difficult to move up past a certain point. Without combat experience, it becomes difficult to garner the respect of your direct reports, particularly at higher levels, and this experience and training is difficult for an individual to go back and “pick up” once the opportunity has past.2 The Minister’s Advisory Board Report also indicated that other barriers continue to prevent women’s advancement. Some of the barriers identified include attitudes and behaviors toward women, high attrition rates, and lack of flexible career options. According to Ryan (2004): “After almost two decades of imposing gender integration onto the Canadian Forces, they are still facing many of the same problems and obstacles that existed when the initiative was first introduced” (p. 41). Although the Canadian Navy and Air Force have come through this adjustment with relative success, the Army is “still wrought with resistance, frivolity, and resentment” (Ryan, 2004, p. 27). The suggestion that the Navy and Air Force are more congenial elements for women also is a point being confirmed in our current interviews in the Canadian forces. Some argue that this is because the Army is one of the last institutions that breeds masculinity. We argue that legislation alone cannot change stereotypes and the impact they have on how soldiers are evaluated. Much of our decision making and behavior is based on Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

155

our unconscious associations, and these associations can be very different than our consciously stated values (e.g., Gladwell, 2005; Lightdale & Prentice, 1994). Sex-role stereotypes “refer to the belief that a set of traits and abilities is more likely to be found among one sex than the other” (Schein, 1978, p. 259). Sex-role stereotypes influence who is seen as most similar to our implicit definitions of leadership (selection issues), and Stereotypes affect they can affect how leaders are perceptions of evaluated and promoted. Many other authors have talked about competence, which the inherent “bind” women are in because of the conflicting stereoin turn affect types associated with being a performance leader (masculine) versus being a woman (feminine; e.g., Eagly, evaluation, access Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). Consequently, the military is a waterto training and shed for testing the influence of these beliefs on women. development, and Sex-role stereotypes and beopportunities for havior congruent with these stereotypes have been demonpromotion. strated to be key drivers of perceptions of competence in military environments, as the military officers’ role is highly stereotypically masculine (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). Violations of stereotypes that occur when women perform stereotypically male roles can result in questions about their competence and have a negative impact on performance appraisals (Yoder, Schleicher, & McDonald, 1998). Performance and behavior on the job tends to be evaluated based as much on stereotypes as individual characteristics and ability (Heilman & Chen, 2005; Kanter, 1977). Women in these roles find that there is an initial “credibility gap” that must be overcome, and many times this gap is too formidable an obstacle (Yoder et al., 1998). Capt. Perron’s experience mentioned in Lesson 1 (Canada’s first female infantry officer) is an example of this effect. Stereotypes affect perceptions of competence, which in turn affect performance evaluation, access to training and development, and opportunities for promotion.

156


As the quotes at the beginning of this section illustrate, sometimes even “objective criteria” can be significantly influenced by our expectations based on one’s sex. In their metaanalysis, Eagly et al. (1995) collected data based on questionnaire ratings of the extent to which different roles were congenial to each sex. They asked five questions about the extent to which women or men would be interested in each role and also whether they believed they would be competent to perform it. They found that military roles were judged to be highly agreeable for men, and all respondents rated military roles as requiring “less interpersonal ability and more task ability than other leader…perhaps what is ship roles” (Eagly et al., 1995, p. 136). Indeed, another study using most interesting an Israeli military sample found that both men and women who about presumed were high in masculinity (as measdifferences between ured by the Bem Sex-Role Inventory) saw themselves as most likely the sexes is that to succeed and also received higher ratings of success from peers than even large did those low in masculinity (Dimdifferences in male/ itrovsky, Singer, & Yinon, 1989). Given the studies discussed female behavior above, perhaps what is most interesting about presumed differ(e.g., on aggression) ences between the sexes is that even large differences in male/ can be created or female behavior (e.g., on aggreseliminated based on sion) can be created or eliminated based on gender roles and the gender roles and context of the behavior (Lightdale & Prentice, 1994). For examthe context of the ple, one study found that when behavior. people remained anonymous (freeing them from gender roles) in a simulated experiment requiring them to play an interactive video game dropping bombs, no gender differences were found with respect to the amount of aggressive behavior displayed (in fact, women dropped somewhat more bombs than men). However, when participants’ identities were obvious, men dropped significantly more bombs. These types of findings support Hyde’s (2005) recent statement that “gender differences can be created, erased, or re-

versed, depending on the context” (p. 589). Gender roles and context are powerful in determining behavior. In terms of leadership in particular, another study that evaluated sex stereotypes within a military context found that men were more likely than women to be seen as possessing the leadership and motivational qualities necessary for effective military performance (Boldry, Wood, & Kashy, 2001). The traits most frequently associated with success in the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets were “integrity, selfishness (reversed), tactfulness, dedication, physical fitness, leadership, respectfulness of authority, diligence, self-confidence, arrogance (reversed), and motivation” (p. 694). Despite no differences in actual performance (e.g., on GPA, physical training scores, military science grades), men and women in the Corps judged men to possess more leadership qualities than women. At the same time, women were rated higher than men on attributes of character such as being selfless, respectful of authority, lacking arrogance, and possessing integrity—many of the characteristics called for in new definitions of leadership mentioned earlier. This study also compared gender-integrated units versus nonintegrated units and found that perceptions of women in the integrated units tended to be more positive with respect to perceived motivational qualities. The authors concluded: Because men and women did not differ on objective measures of military performance, the sex-differentiated evaluations of cadets enrolled in training most plausibly reflect the influence of gender stereotypes rather than performance differences between the sexes. (Boldry et al., 2001, p. 689) In terms of predicting future performance, stereotypes are also operative. One experimental study investigated the effect of candidates’ sex on ratings of perceived traits and anticipated military performance (Mettrick & Cowan, 1996). The participants read scenarios of combat pilots that were either male or female and possessed individuating information or not. Overall, the findings of this Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


study showed that male pilots were rated higher in “combat toughness” than women. Men were rated higher in “trait hostility, killer instinct, requisite physical strength, and fearlessness,” even when individuating information was provided and participants were told that the female pilot had used violent force to kill 30 troops (Mettrick & Cowan, 1996, p. 116). Further, male pilots were more likely to be selected for the mission than female pilots. This study is important because it shows that even when clear information about individual candidates is provided, stereotypes are still active in assignment and/or evaluation decisions. Finally, there is empirical research suggesting that the sex type of the job interacts with the sex of the applicant to affect the hiring decision (Perry, Davis-Blake, & Kulik, 1994). In a recent meta-analysis of studies looking at simulated hiring decisions, it was found that raters discriminated against females and males when the jobs were male and female sex-typed, respectively (Davidson & Burke, 2000). As mentioned previously, even what may appear to be objective performance can be rated quite differently for men and women. Reports of women who have been driven from the military cite perceptions versus performance as the primary problem (e.g., Minister’s Advisory Board, 2001). Further, in Ryan’s (2005) interviews with male and female combat soldiers, she found that officers unanimously agreed with the fact that a person’s performance is strongly affected by the amount of support he or she receives from both peers and leaders. Thus, women who want to succeed in these masculine environments must not only perform effectively but must simultaneously overcome these biases and succeed at the additional task of gaining acceptance to hold these jobs. Studies have shown that in addition to stereotypes, another barrier to change is that the proportion of women in a group affects the appraisal of military performance (Pazy & Oron, 2001). Civilian organizations also support these findings. Using a large database prepared by the U.S. Employment Service (USES), Sackett, DuBois, and Noe (1991) found that, on average, women received Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

157

only slightly lower ratings than men. However, when the proportion of women in the group was small (less than 20%), women received significantly lower ratings. This difference in ratings occurred even when cognitive ability, psychomotor ability, education, and experience were statistically controlled. This same difference in ratings was not found when men were in the minority (i.e., when men made up less than 20%).

Implications for Business What can civilian organizations learn from military research and experiences? Sex-role stereotypes and behavior congruent with these stereotypes …even when clear have been demonstrated to be key drivers of perceptions of compeinformation about tence in military environments. We have known for some time that individual candidates the title of manager is not so difis provided, ferent and is still defined in male terms. Studies in the 1970s found stereotypes are still that an effective/good manager was consistently defined in mascu- active in assignment line terms by both male and feand/or evaluation male managers (Powell & Butterfield, 1979; Schein, 1973, 1975). decisions. These stereotyped definitions of the managerial role have been confirmed over time (e.g., Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989) and have been demonstrated across countries (e.g., Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996). Interestingly, although women may have changed their perceptions (e.g., Brenner et al.,1989), and research shows that they no longer define managerial jobs in strictly masculine terms, women are not leading most organizations. Perhaps what is most instructive for business from the military example is that conforming to these stereotypes actually places additional demands on female leaders. To the extent that companies have a “masculine” culture, it must be recognized that women will carry disproportionate workloads. For example, due to negative stereotypes about women’s problem-solving competence (Catalyst, 2005), different demands will be placed on female leaders in masculine environ-

158


ments, requiring them to spend considerably more time and effort “negotiating with subordinates and getting their buy-in . . . the role and demands of leadership may be far different and far more difficult for women in masculine fields than it is for their male counterparts” (Catalyst, 2005, p. 24). Although many of the same barriers are occurring in business as in the military, the difference in the civilian sector is that few are willing to openly acknowledge these realities. Academics in the area of human resources and organizational behavior also have been complicit in contributing to a masculine literature in business. For example, much attention has been Although many of paid to transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). the same barriers This model of leadership stresses personal charisma, acting as a role are occurring in model, and being individually considerate and intellectually stimubusiness as in the lating toward one’s employees. It is military, the positively associated with a wide range of individual and organizadifference in the tional outcomes (e.g., Barling, civilian sector is that Loughlin, & Kelloway, 2002; Bass, 1998), accounts for more than 50% few are willing to of all empirical leadership studies in the 1990s, and has been studied openly acknowledge more than all other leadership theories combined during this time these realities. (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). However, we do not typically discuss the fact that the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995), the primary instrument used to measure transformational leadership, was derived from male participants (i.e., senior male executives and U.S. Army colonels). What does it mean when we use this measure to study women in business? Transformational leadership may well be valid for women, and we certainly know that women are competent at this type of leadership (e.g., Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003), but why has there been so little focus on how sex-based stereotypes may interact with the components of this model (Arnold & Loughlin, 2004)?

Additional research is needed on women and leadership in the management literature, and with few exceptions (e.g., Rosener, 1990), this research simply has not been done. Further, empirical data demonstrates that equal behavior does not necessarily get equal results for both sexes in management. For example, Heilman and Chen (2005) recently found that the same citizenship behaviors on the part of men and women were interpreted differently by participants; gender stereotypes resulted in different evaluations depending on one’s sex. This leads us to question whether the same leadership behavior on the part of men and women will lead to equal probabilities of promotion. We must begin to ask these kinds of questions in mainstream management research. Given substantial biases against women in male-dominated environments, the military has demonstrated that even legislated change will be insufficient to bring about real and sustainable change without other kinds of organizational interventions. Human resource policies and practices can help though; women we have interviewed recently in the Canadian military are encouraged by the process now followed for promotion through the ranks (e.g., merit boards). They feel that these practices now make promotion expectations clear. Thus, policy changes are leading to improvements, despite the fact that very negative attitudes still exist toward women in certain masculine roles, such as combat (as evidenced by the quotations from Royal Military College cited previously). Business is no different, and genuine change will come only when management chooses to confront stereotypes head on. This has been done in other contexts. For example, Gladwell (2005) discusses interventions in policing, whereby officers were trained to explore their inherent stereotypes (i.e., rapid cognition) and to slow down the processes that lead to erroneous conclusions (e.g., regarding racial stereotypes). The author’s comments concerning the adoption of “blind auditions” in classical music (illustrated in the quote at the beginning of this section) are also prescriptive for business: Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


[B]y judging purely based on ability, orchestras now hire better musicians, and better musicians play better music. And how did we get better music? Not by rethinking the entire classical music enterprise or building new concert halls or pumping in millions of new dollars, but by paying attention to the tiniest detail, the first two seconds of the audition. (Gladwell, 2005, pp. 253–254) In a sense, business leaders must find ways to save themselves from themselves (in terms of automatic unconscious biases) if they are to seek out, choose, and promote the best future leaders from among their ranks. They must find the equivalent of “blind auditions”—through strictly competence-based standards and performance measures that are gender-blind. The will to confront stereotypes in management may be increasing. Report on Business recently ran an article about a very popular senior male advertising executive who was fired for making public remarks revealing his own stereotypes about women in advertising (Kingston, 2005). This article concludes that nothing will change until women have the collective will to demand change (e.g., going to the pension funds and demanding that female directors be on companies in which the fund holds stock). However, codes of silence must be broken, and biases must be openly acknowledged. Thereafter, a small win approach may be particularly useful (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000), whereby the smallest detail is attended to in assessing how systemic disadvantage can be created from beginning to end in a given situation. This requires not assimilating or accommodating women, but looking at how the environment itself is contributing to self-fulfilling prophecies.

Lesson 4: Seeing Beyond the Obvious; Seeking, Identifying, Promoting, and Keeping the Best Either way you’re ------! . . . Because if you look like a man and you behave like a man, you would think the guys would respect you more . . . But no, you’re Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

159

made fun of, they call you butch, bull dyke and they just make fun of you . . . (but) if they come in girly-girl, they certainly don’t stay in very long. (Quote from a Canadian female combat soldier, cited in Febbraro, 2003, p. 34) The armed forces promote leaders from within, and as such constitute an internal labor market with a hierarchical structure. The literature comparing promotion rates for men and women in military settings is particularly relevant to our discussion, and we will briefly summarize three relevant studies investigating promotions and early promotions of women in the Army, U.S. Navy, …business leaders and Air Force. The research quesmust find the tion driving these studies is: Do women get promoted at a rate equivalent of “blind equal to that of men in military settings? auditions”—through The first study used data from 1980 to 1993 and analyzed pro- strictly competencemotions of 123,000 officers in the based standards U.S. Army at the ranks of captain, major, lieutenant colonel, and and performance colonel (Baldwin, 1996). This measures that are study found that female and minority officers were promoted at gender-blind. lower rates than male majority officers in the Army’s middle officer ranks. The proportions of males and Caucasians increased with rank. This study also concluded that as long as women are excluded from combat positions, programs to increase women’s representation at the higher officer ranks are unlikely to succeed. Serving in a combat role is one of the key experiences necessary to become a senior leader in the military environment. The second study used data from 1984 to 1993 and analyzed 75,000 promotion decisions in the U.S. Navy (Baldwin, 1997). This study found that differences were most apparent at higher ranks, with men experiencing higher promotion rates than women at commander and captain levels, whereas male rates of promotion were practically identical to female rates at the level of lieutenant commander, and lower than female

160


rates at the lieutenant level. This study also looked at turnover rates for men and women. They found that after achieving lieutenant commander and commander level, women leave the Navy at much higher rates than do men. This attrition rate also has a negative impact on the representation of women at the higher ranks and provides fewer role models for younger women. A final study examined early promotion in the U.S. Air Force (Baldwin, 2000). In military settings, advancing to the highest levels is highly correlated with achieving early promotion (Baldwin, 2000). The study looked at the levels of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel from the best leadership 1975 to 1995. At the level of major, women surpassed the early promocandidates may tion rates of men; at the level of “blend,” particularly lieutenant colonel, the rates were not significantly different; and at the colonel level, women’s rates of in masculine promotion almost doubled those environments where of men. Nonetheless, despite the positive finding of higher rates of women typically are early promotion at some levels, women still represent a very small discouraged from percentage of total officers receivbeing openly ing early promotion. Further, as we saw in the Navy example above, assertive. women also leave the Air Force at substantially higher rates than do men. Between the ranks of lieutenant colonel and colonel, women turn over at almost twice the rate of men. These studies on promotion confirm the fact that women in military organizations are not promoted to the highest ranks at the same rate as men or retained therein. An obvious question is why? In addition to the stereotypes discussed above, are there other factors that could make highly qualified women harder to identify than highly qualified men? We now turn to two other human capital factors that may account for discrepancies in promotion through the ranks: personality factors and gaining access to highprofile job assignments. One study of U.S. Army members investigated the possibility that personality measures differentially predict successful job per-

formance for men and women (Saad & Sackett, 2002). This study found that differential prediction did occur in one-third of the cases, yet it was in the form of overprediction for females. Hence, there was no bias against women in the personality measures used to predict future performance. Another longitudinal study using a military sample looked at prediction of leadership performance and perceptions of leadership styles (Bradley, Nicol, Charbonneau, & Meyer, 2002). This study did not examine differential prediction between women and men, but it did investigate perceptions of transformational leadership as an outcome at the third measurement period. The results showed that of all the variables measured at Time 1, dominance, energy level, and internal control, predicted outcomes at Time 3. The authors suggest that dominance “may be among the most useful predictors for leader selection” (Bradley et al., 2002, p. 100). This insight is interesting. Although one obvious concern is that women who enact dominance as an influence strategy will be subject to more negative reactions than men (e.g., Copeland, Driskell, & Salas, 1995), particularly in a military environment (e.g., Herbert, 1998), what we do not know is the extent to which differences exist between felt attitudes and displayed behavior by women in this regard. To the extent that a discrepancy exists between possessing and displaying these personality characteristics, one interesting organizational intervention may be to identify women for future leadership positions based on attitudes. The most skilled women will be aware of the stereotypes to which they must conform, and hence will display enough masculine behavior to be considered competent while being careful to also display enough feminine behavior to avoid derogatory evaluations (based on social role theory discussed earlier). This solution also means the best leadership candidates may “blend,” particularly in masculine environments where women typically are discouraged from being openly assertive. In Febbraro’s (2003) interviews with women in the Canadian forces’ combat arms, she found that it was Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


imperative to be seen “as one of the boys, and of not sticking out” (p. 38) or appearing as a “bitch” (p. 28) by being openly assertive. Another predictor of promotion is challenging job assignments. If women have unequal access to challenging assignments in the military, they are less likely to be able to demonstrate their competence as leaders. Barriers to obtaining these challenging roles often are obvious because they focus on combat and submarine duty, areas overtly out of reach to women in the United States. Less obvious barriers to gaining access to challenging assignments due to sex-role stereotypes were discussed in Lesson 3. However, links between challenging assignments, promotion, and retention must be acknowledged. Any discussion about identifying women for leadership positions must ask not only how to get women promoted, but also whether they stay once promoted. Since women do not have the same opportunity as men to serve in U.S. sea duty, for example, they may not possess the human capital necessary for promotion to commander and captain and may simply recognize this limitation by quitting. In Canada, while the situation may change due to full integration, until recently the attrition of women has been more than twice that of men in maledominated areas of the armed forces such as combat arms and naval operational/ technical (Minister’s Advisory Board, 2001). Inevitably, access to challenging assignments, promotion, and retention rates are all inextricably linked to each other in determining the ultimate number of women who occupy upper-level leadership positions.

Implications for Business Although some in business have argued that women themselves make choices that exclude them from leadership (e.g., arguing that women may not push hard in their early 30s if they have children—the prime time for being identified as a future leader; Gersick & Kram, 2002), the review above also indicates that clear systemic factors may account for difficulties in seeking, training, and retaining the best women for leadership roles. Consequently, Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

161

several leadership-development initiatives could be implemented to ensure that more qualified and talented women rise to the top. For example, the military experience suggests that given the biases inherent in current systems, we may need to look at alternative ways to identify potential female leaders for challenging management assignments. Much like the importance of combat roles for military women, successful women at executive levels of leadership in business say they needed to actively seek out challenging and highly visible assignments in order to be promoted to the executive ranks (Ragins, Townsend, & Mattis, 1998). But as our previous The experience of discussion suggests, women who succeed typically learn to walk a women in the fine line, whereby they do not stand out as overly assertive or military suggests the masculine (e.g., by displaying open ambition). Because leaderpressing need to ship is defined in masculine broaden indicators terms, this balance also means they do not stand out as leaders. beyond displayed The experience of women in the military suggests the pressing behavior. need to broaden indicators beyond displayed behavior. In order to redefine leadership, civilian organizations must design a balanced scorecard approach to identifying and rewarding leadership attitudes and behaviors, one that focuses on both masculine and feminine traits. Human resource managers also must dig a bit deeper than displayed behavior to identify women as potential leaders (e.g., based on personality and attitudes in addition to displayed behavior). Given that the transformational leadership is deemed more congruent with both masculine and feminine stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001), one immediate research need is determining whether women who display such a style fare better in moving into leadership positions by virtue of violating fewer gender stereotypes (Arnold & Loughlin, 2004). Researchers in mainstream organizations need to begin thinking about these issues. Finally, once women have been promoted, they must be retained. While some

162


debate focuses on the validity of the trend, in recent years authors have noted the tendency for women in business to voice their dissatisfaction with mainstream organizations by leaving (e.g., Buttner & Moore, 1997; Hewlett & Luce, 2005; Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005). To the extent the military example is instructive, this attrition may be due to the simple recognition of limited management opportunities. One of the greatest challenges for business in the next decade will be developing the will to change such trends. As mentioned previously, numerous articles have documented what is necessary to do so (e.g., Buttner & Moore, 1997; Hewlett While leaders in the & Luce, 2005; Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005). past could operate with masculine command-andcontrol styles, future leaders are going to be required to be competent in skills that have previously

Conclusion: Seeking the Best Leaders They revolutionized the American officer corps by introducing, in the words of Richard Gabriel, “the habits, values, and practices of the business community” . . . the effect was to transform the professional officer into half bureaucrat, half executive. (Saul, 1993, p. 82)

been thought of as

The military certainly has learned from civilian organizations. Given some of the parallels between management and the modern military in terms of leadership needs, management also can learn from the North American armed forces. Organizations need an informed and proactive approach to be successful in attracting, promoting, and retaining qualified women into leadership positions. Definitions of leadership are not changing at the same pace as the environment. Definitions of leadership are more than just theoretical; they drive the attributes we seek in individuals who are deemed qualified to lead. If our definitions do not keep pace with changing demands, organizations will not have leaders with the requisite skills to function effectively. While leaders in

feminine.

the past could operate with masculine command-and-control styles, future leaders are going to be required to be competent in skills that have previously been thought of as feminine (e.g., as diplomat—even in male-dominated military environments, as discussed at the beginning of this article). Recent corporate scandals also point to the need for a new kind of leader in civilian environments. These lessons underscore why a proactive approach is the only way to achieve parity. For example, by virtue of their success in “coping” (i.e., not standing out as a target), the women with the most potential for leadership may also be the most difficult to spot because they have learned to carefully monitor their displays of masculine (leader-like) behavior in order to succeed. Consequently, when decisions about selection into leadership training programs are being made, we believe that more attention should be given to personalities and attitudes congruent with leadership. Hence, all management functions must seriously consider the metrics used in evaluating readiness for leadership and how training and development assignments are made. Further complicating the challenges faced by organizations, once women realize how difficult it is for them to achieve positive performance appraisals and promotion, many talented women who possess the most accurate perceptions (and have options to choose from) may leave. If private-sector organizations learn anything from military settings it should be that getting women promoted is only half the battle; retaining them is the other half. The fact that attrition rates for women increase the higher they ascend in the armed forces is a troubling sign of which civilian organizations need to take note. Proactive action is necessary in planning retention programs alongside promotion initiatives. A final observation from military settings that is instructive for civilian organizations is that sometimes policies must precede and, in fact, foster, acceptance of designated groups. Although change may not come quickly or painlessly, initial changes in official policies can be a key driver of equality in organizaHuman Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


tions. The Canadian armed forces have made more progress in terms of integrating women into their infantry ranks than any other developed nation (including the United States and Israel—the latter of which has mandatory military service for women as well as men but only uses women in combat situations during emergencies), and other nations cite Canada as an innovative organization and trend-setter in this regard (Gutmann, 2000; Wojack, 2002). Although tough lessons are being learned along the way in the Canadian military (e.g., in terms of token effects), only when women progress through the ranks and gain operational experience can they become equipped to assume senior leadership positions in the future. If civilian organizations are wise, they will learn from this lesson. As Pfeffer and Sutton (1999) pointed out some time ago, in terms of implementing any strategy in an organization, enlightened trial and error often “outperforms the planning of flawless intellects” (p. 97). Much can be learned only through firsthand experience, and this effort will require taking risks and being flexible in implementation.

Epilogue Interestingly, as old definitions of leadership in business are being questioned, new exclusions are arising. At a time when authors such as Friedman (2005) are pronouncing that the ideal future leader will excel at skills such as problem solving, Catalyst (a group devoted to moving women into positions of leadership) is finding that top male business leaders judge women to be less capable in this regard. In Catalyst’s recent study (2005), top male business leaders (85% of whom were within two reporting levels of CEO) deemed women inferior at problem solving. The prevailing attitude among male leaders was, “If she can’t solve problems, why should I follow her?” (Catalyst, 2005, p. 20; note that female managers thought the opposite—that females were better than males at problem solving). Do such statements sound familiar? It would seem that, according to many men, women are deficient at Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

163

whatever skills are currently required to move them into positions of leadership, whether it is “running” in the military or “problem solving” today in business. These assumptions create self-fulfilling prophecies. It is prudent to remind business leaders that erroneous assumptions have been made in larger society about women for years. Previous generations “knew” that women were the weaker vessels, morally, intellectually, and physically: “In the late 18th century, the female cranial capacity was supposed to be too small to hold a powerful brain. In the late 19th century, the exercise of a woman’s brain was said to shrivel her ovaries” (Hayes, 1999, p. It would appear that 114). It would appear that current current definitions definitions of leadership in business, and who is and is not capaof leadership in ble of fulfilling them, need some rethinking. To the extent we can business, and who learn from military examples, one might ask to what extent this re- is and is not capable liance on outdated male assumpof fulfilling them, tions, tribal rituals, entitlement, and the like has also played a role need some in recent corporate scandals (e.g., rethinking. Enron, WorldCom). We need new definitions of leadership in business. Society has changed, and what was acceptable at the beginning of the previous century is no longer acceptable to most citizens. The world is changing too quickly, and our need for capable leadership is too great to further delay recognizing that the best leaders come in both sexes. Change is never easy—it means that something is going to be different, and immediate reactions often are fearful. Transformational leadership at higher levels of organizations will be needed to set the vision and galvanize support for change. Fortunately, this leadership style reinforces both masculine and feminine qualities. Senior leaders need to craft a compelling vision of a future that includes women in all senior leadership roles, they need to set a high bar for both masculine and feminine behaviors in management, motivate others to stand behind this goal, and provide the creativity

164


and consideration necessary to alleviate fears and define leadership roles in new ways.

Acknowledgment This research was supported by a standard research grant from the Social Sciences and

Humanities Research Council of Canada. Portions of this research were also financially supported by the Leadership Institute of the Canadian Armed Forces, Government of Canada. This article was presented at the 2006 meeting of the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece.

CATHERINE LOUGHLIN is the Canada Research Chair in Management at the Sobey School of Business at Saint Mary’s University, where she is on the board of directors for the Centre for Leadership Excellence. She received her PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from Queen’s University and taught organizational behavior at Queen’s and the University of Toronto. Her research is published in journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Journal of Organizational Behaviour, and she reviews for journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology. She has consulted for the Government of Canada and private industry in management leadership training and occupational health. KARA A. ARNOLD is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Business Administration at Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Her research interests focus on the effect of leader behavior on employee well-being and women in leadership roles. She received her PhD in organizational behavior from Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario), her MBA from McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario), and her BA in psychology from the University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Ontario). She has presented her work at several national and international conferences and has been published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Leadership and Organization Development Journal.

NOTES 1. For references to this in the popular press and academic literature, see “All Ears” (1996) and Goldin and Rouse (2000). 2. This point is being corroborated in current interviews the authors are conducting with senior female soldiers in the Canadian military.

REFERENCES Adams, J. (1984). Follower attitudes toward women and judgments concerning performance by female and male leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 636–643. All ears. (1996, November 30). The Economist, 341, 89–90. Arnold, K. A., & Loughlin, C. (2004). Female transformational leaders: New directions for research. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, New Orleans, LA. Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation. New York: Penguin.

Baldwin, J. N. (1996). The promotion record of the United States Army: Glass ceilings in the officers corps. Public Administration Review, 56, 199–206. Baldwin, J. N. (1997). Equal promotion opportunity in the United States Navy. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 25, 187–209. Baldwin, J. N. (2000). Early promotion of women and minorities in the United States Air Force. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 28, 109–130. Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 488–496. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Beitz, C. A., & Hook, J. R. (n.d.). The culture of military Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Leadership Lessons from the Military organizations: A participant-observer case study of cultural diversity. Retrieved April 29, 2002, from http://www.pamij.com/beitz.html Belkin, A., & McNichol, J. (2000). Effects of the 1992 lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces: Appraising the evidence. Retrieved April 29, 2002, from http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/CanadaPub1.htm Bentley, L. L. W. (n.d.). The debrief the leaders project (officers). Office of the Special Advisor to the Chief of Defence Staff for Professional Development. Retrieved August 13, 2001, from http://www.dnd.ca/ hr/pd/pdf/DebriefLeaders_e.PDF Boldry, J., Wood, W., & Kashy, D. A. (2001). Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 689–705. Bradley, J. P., Nicol, A. A. M., Charbonneau, D., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Personality correlates of leadership development in Canadian Forces Officers candidates. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34, 92–103. Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662–669. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Buttner, H., & Moore, D. (1997, January). Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: Self reported motivations and correlates with success. Journal of Small Business Management, pp. 1–34. Catalyst. (2005). Women “take care,” men “take charge”: Stereotyping of U.S. business leaders exposed. New York: Author. Chief of Defence Staff. (2002). Annual report 2001–2002—Leadership and professional development. Retrieved February 17, 2003, from http:// www.cds.forces.gc.ca/pubs/anrpt2020/ leadership_e.asp Copeland, C. L., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1995). Gender reactions to dominance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 53–68. Daniels, C. (2003, July 7). Women vs. Wal-Mart. Fortune [online version]. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ fortune_archive/2003/07/21/346130/index.htm Davidson, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A metaanalytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225–248.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Davis, K., & McKee, B. (2002, October 25–27). The warrior framework under fire: Challenging traditional debates surrounding the role of women in the military, today and tomorrow. Paper presented at the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. DeGroot, G. J. (1999, July 25). Women as peacekeepers. Toronto Star. Online archives accessed January 23, 2007, from http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/427820491 Department of Defense. (2004, September). Active duty military personnel by rank/grade total and women only. Washington, DC: Author. Dimitrovsky, L., Singer, J., & Yinon, Y. (1989). Masculine and feminine traits and their relation to suitedness for and success in training for traditionally masculine and feminine army functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 839–847. Eagly, A. E., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 5, 781–797. Eagly, A. E., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A metaanalysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. Eagly, A. E., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. Eagly, A. E., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145. Eilam, G., & Shamir, B. (2005). Organizational change and self-concept theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 399–421. Ensher, E. A., Murphy, S. E., & Sullivan, S. E. (2002). Reel women: Lessons from female TV executives on managing work and real life. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 106–121. European Professional Women’s Network. (2005). Increasing women representation in corporate boards: Norway shows the way. Retrieved January 20, 2006, from http://www.parispwn.net/tht_corporate/p_tht_corp_norway_boards.html Fagenson, E. A. (1993). Diversity in management: Introduction and the importance of women in management. In E. A. Fagenson (Ed.), Women in management: Trends, issues and challenges in managerial diversity (Vol. 4, pp. 3–15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Febbraro, A. (2003). Women, leadership and gender integration in the Canadian combat arms: A quali-

165

166

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2007 tative study. Toronto: Defence R&D Canada (December) #TR 2003-170. Fondas, N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings. Academy of Management Review, 22, 257–282. Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gersick, C., & Kram, K. (2002). High achieving women at midlife: An exploratory study. Journal of management Inquiry, 11, 104–127. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of ‘blind’ auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90, 715–741. Gutmann, S. (2000). The kinder, gentler military: Can America’s gender-neutral fighting force still win wars? New York: Scribner. Hawkins, C. F. (2005). Toward a theory of military leadership. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://www.militaryconflict.org/leader.htm Hayes, A. (1999, Winter/Spring). New presence of women leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 112–121. Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431–441. Herbert, M. S. (1998). Camouflage isn’t only for combat: Gender, sexuality, and women in the military. New York: New York University Press. Hewlett, S., & Luce, C. (2005, March). Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping talented women on the road to success. Harvard Business Review, pp. 43–54. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. Ignatieff, M. (2002). Ethics and the new war. Canadian Military Journal [electronic format], Winter 2, 5–9. Irwin, B.-G. S. (2002). A multi-purpose capability and advanced technology. Canadian Military Journal [electronic format], Winter 2, 53–60. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Katila, S., & Merilainen, S. (1999). A serious re-

searcher or just another nice girl?: Doing gender in a male dominated scientific community. Gender, Work and Organization, 6, 163–173. Kingston, A. (2005, December). Why women can’t get ahead. Report on Business, pp. 57–71. Lemieux, B.-G. C. (2002, Spring). Articulating the vision of the Canadian Officer Corps of 2020: Understanding the leadership and ethical challenges. Canadian Military Journal, pp. 31–36. Lightdale, J. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). Rethinking sex differences in aggression: Aggressive behavior in the absence of social roles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 34–44. Mainiero, L., & Sullivan, S. (2005). Kaleidoscope careers: An alternative explanation for the “opt-out” revolution. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 106–123. Mettrick, J., & Cowan, G. (1996). Gender stereotypes and predictions of performance: Women in air combat. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(5), 105–120. Meyerson, D. E., & Fletcher, J. K. (2000, JanuaryFebruary). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review, pp. 127–136. Miklaszewski, J., Gregory, D., & Jennings, A. (2004, May 17). Abuse scandal ‘terrible’ for U.S., Powell concedes. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.MSNBC.MSN.com/id/4855930/ Miller, J., & Miller, M. (2005, November 28). Get a life! Fortune, pp. 109–124. Minister’s Advisory Board. (2001). Minister’s Advisory Board on Canadian Forces Gender Integration and Employment Equity [electronic version]. Retrieved February 19, 2003, from http://www.forces.gc.ca/ site/reports/CanadianForcesGIEE/TOC-E.HTM Moniz, D., & Stone, A. (2005, May 19). Republicans replace women-in-combat plan. USA Today. Retrieved January 21, 2006, from http://militaryforums.net/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/9871064/m/2321 00935/p/1 Morris, B. (2002, September 27). Trophy husbands. Fortune [online version]. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2002/10/14/330033/index.htm Morris, B. (2005, January 10). How corporate America is betraying women. Fortune, pp. 64–74. Navy Personnel Command. (2005). Retrieved January 18, 2006, from http://www.npc.navy.mil/AboutUs/ BUPERS/WomensPolicy/stats.htm O’Hara, J. (1998). Rape in the military. MacLean’s, 111, 14.


Leadership Lessons from the Military Pazy, A., & Oron, I. (2001). Sex proportion and performance evaluation among high ranking military officers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 689–702. Perry, E. L., Davis-Blake, A., & Kulik, C. T. (1994). Explaining gender-based selection decisions: A synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches. Academy of Management Review, 19, 786–820. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (1999). Knowing what to do is not enough: Turning knowledge into action. Californian Management Review, 42, 83–108. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The ‘good manager’: Masculine or androgynous. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 395–403. Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gaps in the executive suite: CEO’s and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of Management Executive, 12(1), 28–42. Rosen, L. N., Bliese, P. D., Wright, K. A., & Gifford, R. K. (1999). Gender composition and group cohesion in U.S. Army units: A comparison across five studies. Armed Forces & Society, 25, 365–386. Rosener, J. B. (1990, November/December). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, pp. 119–125. Ryan, H. (2004). Managing the right to fight: Leadership in a mixed-gender military. Paper presented to the Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, Kingston, Ontario.

Saul, J. R. (1993). Voltaire’s bastards: The dictatorship of reason in the West. New York: Penguin. Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100. Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340–344. Schein, V. E. (1978). Sex role stereotyping, ability and performance: Prior research and new directions. Personnel Psychology, 31, 259–268. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager–think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41. Schwartz, F. N. (1992, March/April). Women as a business imperative. Harvard Business Review, pp. 105–113. Sellers, P. (2003). Power: Do women really want it? Fortune, 148, 80–100. Titunik, R. F. (2000). The first wave: Gender integration and military culture. Armed Forces & Society, 26, 229–257. Wilson, B. (2005). Women in combat: Why not? Retrieved January 8, 2006, from http:// userpages.aug.com/captbarb/combat.html

Ryan, H. (2005). Fair game: Combat effectiveness and the female soldier. Faculty of the Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Winslow, D. (1999). Rites of passage and group bonding in the Canadian Airborne. Armed Forces & Society, 25, 429–457.

Saad, S., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). Investigating differential prediction by gender in employment-oriented personality measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 667–674.

Wojack, A. N. (2002). Integrating women into the infantry. Military Review, Command and General Staff College. Retrieved March 27, 2003, from http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/ NovDec02/wojack.asp

Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Noe, A. W. (1991). Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group representation on male-female and white-black differences in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 263–267.


Yoder, J. D., Schleicher, T. L., & McDonald, T. W. (1998). Empowering token women leaders: The importance of organizationally legitimated credibility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 209–222.

167