Women Political Leaders and the Media

D. Campus

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780230285286
• eBook ISBN: 9781137295545
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political Campaigns & Elections
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book analyzes how the media covers women leaders and reinforces gendered evaluations of their candidacies and performance. It deals with current transformations in political communication that may change the nature and scope of leadership in contemporary democracies with implications for relations between female leaders, media and citizens.

1

Gender and Models of Leadership

Power: A male concept?

In her book Thinking about Leadership, Nannerl Keohane writes: “throughout history, leadership has been closely associated with masculinity. The king, the father, the boss, the lord are stereotypical images of leadership” (Keohane 2010, 121). As a matter of fact, the exercise of power and authority has always been seen as a man’s prerogative. Even if, as Solheim (2000, 4) observes, power is “neutral,” “the characteristics that power brings to mind are usually masculine, often tinged with psychosexual connotations: strength, force and authority over the others.”

Despite the persistent domination of a male image of power, in more recent times we have seen the emergence of a lively debate on gender differences in how men and women deal with power. According to James March and Thierry Weil: “The usual argument is that men are more likely than women to define relationships in terms of power, of who dominates whom—who wins, who loses. For men, it is said, being inclined to use power is more significant than using it. Women, it is said, are inclined to use power but not to claim it. Observed differences in ‘assertiveness’ are said to stem from the greater need of men to be publicly acknowledged as powerful rather than from any advantage explicit assertiveness provides in influencing the course of events” (2005, 73).

The association between men and power derives also from the fact that, historically, the power of men has been public and visible, whereas when women had power, it was mostly covert and informal. This is particularly true for the field of politics and government, where until the past century women exerted their political influence only as a result of private relationships, whether as wives or mistresses. The only exception to the rule was a small group of reigning queens who inherited the crown in the absence of male heirs (Stevens 2007, 119). In the common view, power and leadership have so become the exclusive domain of men. Even if in more recent years a growing number of women have broken the glass ceiling by becoming party leaders, prime ministers, and heads of state, the assumption “think power, think male” is still manifest in politics and in society.

The relationship between gender and leadership is mostly fed by a number of well-rooted stereotypes about men and women. In the next chapter of this book, I examine in detail such positive and negative stereotypes and their implications for the success of women leaders. Here the analysis is limited to some general observations. First of all, there are very basic and widespread stereotypes that attribute different psychological traits to the two sexes. In this regard, the common view is that men are ambitious, confident, dominant, and assertive; women are kind, helpful, warm, and gentle (Carli and Eagly 2007, 127). Given that, as discussed above, power and leadership have historically been in the hands of men, it is not surprising that the qualities attributed to leadership coincide with the aforementioned traits of masculinity. Moreover, women themselves have difficulty identifying with such a notion of leadership (Solheim 2000, 4). As Cantor and Bernay (1992, 37) observed in their seminal book on women in power, “When women try to put on the mantle of male-style power—force and strength, devoid of the feminine caring aspect—they frequently feel extremely uncomfortable. They sense that power is ‘not me.’ ”

This association between individual male personal traits and leadership might also be encouraged by the traditional approach to the study of leadership, which has long supported the belief that leadership is a matter of distinctive individual qualities. As a matter of fact, the psychology of leadership has long endorsed the view that leadership is based on the character of individual leaders: “In this way, leadership is seen to arise from a distinctive psychology that sets the mind and lives of great leaders apart from those of others—as superior, special, different” (Haslam et al. 2011, 1). It is the so-called Great Man model, which is “irredeemably masculine, heroic, individualist and normative in orientation and nature” (Grint 2010, 40). As Duerst-Lahti and Kelly (1995, 24) also observe, the Great Man model illustrates better than any other the masculine marking of the traditional theory of leadership. Even when, after the end of the Second World War and the era of great dictatorships, the fascination with charismatic leaders lessened, the approach of mainstream leadership studies remained that of explaining leadership with reference to the character and personality of individual leaders (Haslam et al. 2011, Chapter 1). The result was that this individualistic model of leadership, on the one hand, emphasized the link between male traits and leadership traits; on the other hand, it implicitly stated that those people lacking some fixed and specific leadership traits (say, women) could not be leaders.¹ This had notable and constraining consequences for those women who wanted to pursue a political career. If the dominant model implied that the male sex was more suited to leadership than the female one, then the only strategy available to women was to emphasize personal qualities that deviated from the female stereotypes (Haslam et al. 2011, 51). As illustrated in the next chapters, this has been the case of several “Iron Ladies,” that is to say, women political leaders who distanced themselves from the female sex and stressed their own character traits, usually very much in line with the masculine stereotype. Only in recent times have women politicians who aspire to leadership started thinking in terms of another strategy, changing the list of the distinctive qualities that qualify for leadership in order to make it compatible with the female sex.

If in politics the scarcity of women rulers has contributed to the persistence of a male model, it has to be underlined that leadership continues to be associated with masculinity also in those other spheres of human action, even where the number of women at the top has actually increased. In general, it is observed that organizational culture manifests an evident masculine perspective (Miller 2006, 6). In contrast to the limited literature and empirical research on female political leaders, management studies and organization theory have directed great attention to the nature of the relationship between gender and leadership, and therefore may offer insight also to those interested in the political field. In fact, those disciplines have developed a flourishing literature on the gendered perceptions of who can be regarded as a “successful top manager”: “A consistent finding is that the ‘successful leader’ is perceived to behave and act in ways associated with masculine traits . . . Therefore, the ‘think manager, think male’ phenomenon prevails in organization studies” (Collins and Singh 2006, 17).

Such findings seem consistent over time and across space. Some studies carried out in the 1970s revealed the existence of a notable relationship between sex-role stereotypes and the characteristics perceived as necessary for success in management. As a matter of fact, both male and female managers perceived that the traits associated with managerial success were more likely to be held by men than by women (Schein 1973, 1975). Subsequent comparative research, carried out in a number of countries and reviewed in Schein et al. (1996), has shown that the situation remains more or less the same for males, who continue to perceive the managerial position as requiring masculine characteristics. By contrast, among females, findings vary with the country: in the U.S., men and women are seen as equally likely to possess requisite management characteristics, while “think manager, think male” is still in place in Britain, Germany, China, and Japan (Schein and Mueller 1992; Schein et al. 1996). So the authors conclude that “despite the many historical, political and cultural differences that exist among these five countries, the view of women as less likely than men to possess requisite management characteristics is a commonly held belief among male management students worldwide” (Schein et al. 1996, 39).

In contrast to this well-established view, some studies applying a semantic approach to investigate the perception and conceptualization of leadership, and in particular the compatibility between women and leadership roles, offer more encouraging evidence. According to Koch et al. (2005), with respect to the pioneering studies of the 1980s, some changes have taken place in the concepts of woman and man in relation to leadership. In their study, the word “businesswoman” forms a cluster with those of “manager” and “leadership”; that is to say, the three concepts are seen as somehow linked. The authors stress that the concept of man has been replaced by that of businesswoman, while in the previous studies it was in the same cluster as manager and leadership. This finding points to the advancement toward separation of gender concepts and leadership-related concepts; in fact, the concepts of man and woman have both remained external to the cluster of leadership. Therefore, Koch et al. conclude that “societal gender roles seem to be changing in the direction of more representational and also more factual gender equality” (9). Since mental representations of concept and language have an important influence on behavior, no doubt the way leadership is conceived may become a major factor of change. In the end, what matters is formulated this way by Collins and Singh (2006, 27): “ ‘Think manager, think male’ needs to translated into think leader, think the best person possible: male or female.”

The female style of leadership

If these accounts on leadership and gender focus on the notion of leadership and on the controversy over whether women are more or less suitable to the exercise of power, another subsequent issue is how women and men use power. Do the two sexes share the same style of leadership, or do they differ noticeably? In this regard, it should be observed that “assumptions about gender differences in leadership styles and effectiveness are widespread, although the evidence for such assumptions is weaker than commonly supposed” (Kellerman and Rhodes 2007, 16). Empirical research in the field has advanced two alternative perspectives that may be regarded as a direct expression of the so-called equality-difference debate (Stevens 2007, 136). On the one hand, it is assumed that women have a style of leadership reflecting different skills and psychological predispositions; on the other hand, women and men are supposed to lead in the same way.

According to the first line of reasoning, the underlying belief is that gender exerts a huge impact on how people lead. This view may take two forms. March and Weil (2005, 75) illustrate the point: “In the first form, it is argued that there are inherent gender differences traceable to biology and that these differences are, in fact, more important than such things as economic position, etc. in explaining male-female differences in leadership . . . In the second form, it is argued that sexual differentiation is a fundamental feature of human existence (or the ideological interpretation of that experience) around which human organization is built.” Or, to use Solheim’s words, “beyond biological differences, some theorists point out that people themselves produce and construct differences (psychologically, socially and culturally) between men and women” (2000, 9). In this line of thinking, differences are created and can potentially be modified, but they are nevertheless very influential in determining human behavior.

Acknowledgment of gender differences does not mean all women in power share the same distinctive style of leadership. But as Keohane writes (2010, 128), “It is not implausible to claim that being a person of one sex or the other often has observable implications for how one uses power. The claim that sex (or gender) matters for leadership could be put in terms of probabilities: the chances that a woman will lead in a way we might characterize as notably feminine are greater than the probability that a male leader will behave in such a way.”

All this said, what are the distinctive features of the feminine style of leadership? The core of the difference argument revolves around the opposition between competition and collaboration. Men are supposed to “opt more willingly than women for strategies of competition and confrontation” and, “unlike women, are stimulated by a competitive situation” (March and Weil 2005, 62). Moreover, socialization and education play a major role: “While men are better prepared by their education for competitive strategies, women are better prepared for liaison strategy” (63). In general terms, Kellerman and Rhodes (2007, 16–17) synthesize the “conventional wisdom” in this way: “Female leaders are more participatory and interpersonally oriented than male leaders and are more likely to adopt empathetic, supportive, and collaborative approaches.”

To what extent is this view of the feminine style of leadership consistent with empirical evidence? For several authors, the difference between male and female leaders is very clear. It consists in the “female advantage,” as Hegelsen (1990) calls it,² and includes the tendency to share power and encourage participation and consensual decision-making. In her seminal article, Judy Rosener found that women could succeed “because of—not in spite of—certain characteristics generally considered to be feminine and inappropriate in leaders” (1990, 120). Basing her research on a survey sponsored by the International Women’s Forum and a number of interviews with some of the women respondents, Rosener advanced the argument that women actually lead in a different way and called this style “interactive leadership” in the sense that “women actively work to make their interactions with subordinates positive for everyone involved. More specifically, the women encourage participation, share power and information, enhance other people’s self-worth, and get others excited about their work” (120). Rosener’s insight has been further explored by several other studies. Stanford et al. (1995), for instance, developed a heuristic model of female leadership that they describe as follows: “This model characterizes a woman leader as one who prefers to operate from a reward or referent power base. She possesses a high degree of employee involvement that typically results in a team-based management approach. Additionally, this woman has entrepreneurial vision, which she is able to communicate effectively to her employees; this in turn serves as an extraordinary motivating force to achieve the organization’s mission. Lastly, this female leader fosters mutual trust and respect between herself and her employees” (15). Along the same lines, Alimo-Metcalfe (1995) has shown that female and male managers’ perceptions of the qualities required for leadership are very different from one another and consistent with the findings discussed above. In sum, management studies offer an extended literature that stresses the existence of a “gendered leadership style in which male managers are more likely to be autocratic and employ a command and control style of leadership, whereas women prefer to lead in ways that are consensual, empowering, encourage participation and team-work” (Collins and Singh 2006, 15).

Although substantially in line with such findings about the greater predisposition of women to use democratic and consensual strategies, some authors are more skeptical that gender plays a central role at the top level. They observe that differences between male and female leaders are fewer. Women who gain high-level authority tend to resemble their male counterparts (Nicolau-Smokoviti 2004). According to Vianello and Moore, “Position in hierarchy discriminates equally among women in the sense that those who are in a lower position appear to share the aforementioned characteristics (be more inclined to share power, try to promote consensus and participation, etc.) to a higher degree. In other words, high levels of authority are related to a competitive, directive and risky leadership in the case of women also” (2004, 184). The same argument is advanced by Peters and Kabacoff (2002); although in previous research they found a number of differences between the leadership style of men and women, such dissimilarities appeared notably reduced in a study focused only on leaders at the very top. At the top level, “executive women were seen to be as strategic and willing to take risks as men” (4). Therefore, the authors conclude that those are “the two big differences between the average female manager and those women who have broken through the glass ceiling” (5).

Other studies are even more radical in their rejection of the existence of substantial differences between men and women leaders. For instance, Oshagbemi and Gill (2003) found that women managers do not differ from their male colleagues in their directive, consultative, and participative leadership styles. Also, a number of studies reviewed by Collins and Singh (2006, 16) point to no large difference in leadership style and behavior. The acknowledgment of such a fact does not necessarily mean that all women in power act in a typically masculine way. It is true that, in the effort to adapt to a prevalently male environment, women leaders can behave like men; for instance, female leaders could approve of tough behavior more than ordinary women, as reported by Clift and Brazaitis (2000), who interviewed a group of leading female politicians on Thatcher’s decision to fight the Falklands war.³ However, according to other studies, it may well be that female and male leaders appear similar since both groups are equally inclined to a collaborative style (Collins and Singh 2006, 15). More generally, following the advocates of the no-difference approach, one may advance that in-group variability is the true determinant of styles of leadership, while gender appears to be a secondary factor.

In conclusion, although evidence does not unanimously support the difference thesis, if we look at the whole body of empirical research, the balance is in favor of the idea that women possess a somewhat distinctive leadership style, in the sense that they are more inclined to adopt more democratic decision-making and give more value to persuasion strategies. Also, the limited research focused on political contexts has confirmed that women politicians see themselves as different from their male colleagues in how they carry out their jobs. Available studies, however, focus on representatives in the British Parliament (Childs 2004); as for party leadership and higher executive offices, such as those of the prime minister or the president, the role requirements could partially shape leadership style. Therefore, the findings of the aforementioned research on leaders at the very top are likely to interpret female political leadership in a more plausible way. To explain why top-level women managers adopt behavior considered as typically masculine, such as taking risks and thinking strategically, Peters and Kabacoff (2002, 3) invoke two arguments: first, the role requirements for top-level positions imply a more limited range of behavior to be successful, and second, the selection process for these offices tends to identify people who are more like one another, whether men or women. These two lines of explanation may hold for political leadership as well. In politics, top positions certainly demand a degree of directive behavior because of the hierarchical structure of power and the many situations that require decisive action. Moreover, the selection process of political leaders is highly competitive, and only candidates (either men or women) who have a predisposition to compete may succeed. For all these reasons, even though the average female politician may display a very different approach to the job, we may expect the leadership styles of our female political rulers to be more similar to men’s.

Transformational leadership

In discussing the issue of female leadership, a special role is allocated to the notion of transformational leadership advanced by James MacGregor Burns in Leadership (1978) and subsequently developed in Transforming Leadership (2003). Transformational leaders are those able to communicate a vision to their followers, forcing them to rise above self-interest. MacGregor Burns writes: “Leaders take the initiative in mobilizing people for participation in the processes of change, encouraging a sense of collective identity and ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1. Gender and Models of Leadership
• 2. The Media and Representation of Leadership
• 3. Media Coverage of Women Leaders
• 4. The Double Bind
• 5. The Appearance of Power
• 6. The Family Factor
• 7. Conclusion: In Search of a New Style of Political Leadership
• Notes
• References
• Index