Скачати 51.94 Kb.
Зміст1.Paradoxes of gender.
Type of differences
DIFFERENCES IN MANAGEMENT: DO MALE AND FEMALE HAVE DIFFERENT LEADERSHIP STYLE?
Puliaeva K. Differences in management: do male and female have different leadership style? In nowadays , there are many recent studies focusing on gender and leadership style. The way women and men act doesn’t give the whole picture, we have to allow that individual’s leadership style is heavily influenced by the situational context and how others perceive it .I affected not only the differences in male and female leadership style, but the reasons of gender segregation. The familiar data about women and men in economy , education, the media, law, medicine, and politics are the concrete manifestation of an underlying structure – the social institution of gender. The concepts of gender as an institution explains work patterns (Why do occupational gender segregation and stratification persist), family patterns(why is housework mostly women’s responsibilities), and symbolic cultural representation(why are they seen through men’s eyes). Despite the evidence that women and men are more similar than different, the institution of gender continues to create and maintain socially significant differences between women and men. What seems to relevant - gender differences - is a means, not an end. Gender is a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes, and gender is a primary way of signifying relationships of power.
‘Gender: do male and female have different leadership style? Are men more acceptable has been a particularly burning topic of debate in recent years. in position of authority because women ‘do power’ differently? To find out the differences in women and men leadership style, investigate the nature of these differences , show social aspects of gender segregation , to describe paradoxe of gender: why , when women can be found in substantial numbers in many occupations and professions, are there so few women in the position if authority in modern industrialized societies ? –that is a purpose of the article.
The pervasiveness of gender as a way of structuring social life demands the gender statuses be clearly differentiated. Varied talent ,sexual preferences, identities, personalities, interests, and way of interacting fragment the individual’s bodily and social experiences . Nonetheless, these are organized in Western cultures into two and only two socially and legally recognized gender statuses, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ .In the social construction of gender, it does not even matter men and women actually do; it does not even matter if they do exactly the same thing .the social institution of gender insist only that what they do is perceived as different.
If men and women are doing the same tasks , they are usually spatially segregated to maintain gender separation, and often the tasks are given different job titles as well, such as executive secretary and administrative assistant . If the differences between men and women begin to blur, society’s ‘sameness taboo’ goes into action. At the rock and roll dance at West Point in 4976, the year women were admitted to the prestigious military academy for the first time , the schools administration ‘were reportedly perturbed by the sight of mirror-image couples dancing in short hair and dress gray trousers’, and a rule was established that women cadets could dance at these events only if they wore skirts.
‘Men’ and ‘women’ are at once empty and overflowing categories . Empty because they no ultimate, transcendental meaning .overflowing because even when they appear to be fixed , they still contain within them alternative, denied, or suppressed definitions.
Nonetheless though individuals may be able to shift gender statuses , the gender boundaries have to hold , or the hold gendered social order will come crashing down .
Paradoxically, it is the social importance of gender statuses and thier external markers – clothing , mannerisms, and spatial segregation – that makes gender bending and gender crossing possible - or even necessary . The social viability of differentiated gender sratuses produse the need or desire to shift statuses.
If the gendered domestic division of labor seems currently impervious to change , even more paradoxical is the extent of gender segregation in paid work in modern industrialized economies. Anyone who takes even a cursory look around any place of work in industrialized countries can see that workers doing the same or similar job tend to be the same gender and racial ethnic group. In a work place in New York City – for instance , a handbag factory – a walk through the various departments might reveal that the owners and ,managers are white men; their secretaries and bookkeepers are white and Asian women; the oder takers and other processors African-American women .The work place as a whole seems integrated by race , ethnic group , and gender, but the individual jobs are markedly segregated according to the social characteristics.
Although modern industrialized workplaces have different segregation patterns,one type of sorting is endemic: Almost every work place in modern industrial societies is either gender-segregated or all one gender. One group of researchers studying the organization of work in over four hundred firms in California from 1959 to 1979 found that ‘men and women shared job assignment in organizations so rarely that we could usually be concern an apparent exception reflected coding or key-punch error
We were amazed at the pervasiveness of women’s concentration in organizational ghettos.
The organizations ranged in size , extent of bureaucracy , and mixture of occupations, yet in virtually all of them, women worked with women and men worked with men; 56 of them were totally segregated by gender.
In every day encounters , people present themselves the way they would like to be responded to- as powerful leaders , cooperative colleagues, deferential underlings. The way people dress , gesture, talk, act, and even show emotion produce social identities, consciously or unconsciously crafted for different arenas and a variety of occasions. Ritual behavior , such as bows and handshakes , and the rules of protocol – who goes through the door first , who sits where who calls whom by their first name - reproduce status hierarchy pr create status equality. Ordinary conversations become covert battlegrounds: who talks more , who interrupts, whose interests are discussed, who gets sustained attention short shift, all indicate who has the social upper hand. Whom one walks with or stands with – or puts space between- demonstrates affiliation, hostility, or respect, as does eye contact, touching, and other, and other form of ‘body politics’. These ‘face‘ productions are such delicate balances of power and differences that they can easily be disrupted by rudeness or embarrassment. In face-to-face interaction, accidental attributes , such as beauty or height, may add to social status, and obvious physical deformities often detract from it. You need to know the symbolic language of everyday social interraction to be able to tell who is boss and who is employee, who are friends and who is enemies. Signals can be manipulated to shore up or subvert the status quo, or they can be used deliberately in
open resistance or rebellion.
These status production are part of ‘doing gender’ (or of doing race , ethnicity, religion, or social class). In doing gender ‘men are also doing the dominance and women are doing difference. That is, in face-to-face interaction, what is being produced , reinforced, or resisted is the society’s whole system of social stratification. This system endows women and men, people of different racial ethnic groups and religions, and those with greater or lesser economic resources with different social worth. Everyday interaction reenacts status characteristics are seen as legitimately superior or inferior by the other situation. When people are evaluated highly, the others take what they have to say seriously, follow their suggestions, and defer to their judgment .Those who have low status in the eyes of the others are not listened to, their advice is ignored, and their bids for leadership are simply not acknowledged . Status superior are granted the benefit of the doubt if they make a mistake; status inferiors have to prove their competence over and over again.
The patterns of structure power and prestige in face-to-face interaction replicates the ranking of social characteristics in the larger society because people are seen not as individuals but as representatives of their race, religion, gender, education, occupation, and so on. If anyone in a group has the same social characteristics, then natural leaders and followers emerge; in a group of friends, there is usually one differ, the social characteristics have more salience than personal characteristics – the women who leads other women follows when men are present. The solo man does not dominate in a group of women , but he is listened to more than the solo woman is in a group of men.
Twenty-five years ago, Muriel F.Sieber bought a seat on the New the York Stock Exchange, first woman to be permitted to do so. In 1992, receiving an award for her accomplishments, she said bluntly that despite the numbers of women coming into high finance, the professions, and government, the arenas of power are still overwhelmingly dominated by men. In 1980 in the United States ,only two women were chief executive officers of large corporations , the Fortune 500.They were Katherin Graham , chief executive of the Washington Post Company, and Marion O. Sandler, co-chief executive of Golden West Financial Corporation, in Oak-land, California.5 The belief that upward mobility and leadership positions would automatically follow if women increased their numbers in the workplace greatly underestimated the social processes that get some people onto the fast track and systematically derail others. These processes are used by those at the top to ensure that those coming up will be as similar as possible to themselves so that their values and ideas about how thing should be done will be perpetuated. The markers of homogeneity are gender, race, religion, ethnicity, education, and social background. The few heterogeneous tokens who make it past the gatekeepers first must prove their similarity to the elite in outlook and behavior. The numbers at the bottom in any field have little relation to the numbers at the top, where power politics is played and social policies are shaped.
The gender segregation so evident in the modern work world is exacerbated at the top echelons of business, the professions, and politics by gendered concepts of authority and leadership potential. Women are seen as legitimate leaders only in areas considered of direct concern to women, usually health, education, and welfare. Women’s accomplishments in men’s fields tend to be invisible or denigrated by the men in the field, and so women rarely achieve the stature to be considered leaders in science or space, for example. The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration put twenty-five women pilots through rigorous physical and psychological testing from 1959 to 1961. Thirteen demonstrated exceptional suitability for space flight, but neither they nor seventeen women with advanced science degrees were chosen to be astronauts or space scientists, even though the Russians had sent Valentina Tereshkova into space in 1963.6 As Gloria Steinem said, recalling these invisible women almost twenty years later, women’s demonstrating they have the right stuff turns into the wrong stuff without the approval of the men in charge
Are men so much more acceptable in positions of authority because women do power differently? There tend to be two models of women’s leadership style: women are exactly like men, and women are different, but equally competent. How women or men act does not give the whole picture; women’s and men’s leadership styles are socially constructed in interaction and heavily influenced by the situational context and how other perceive them. If women in positions of authority tend to be more accessible, to grant more autonomy, but also to be more demanding of subordinates to perform well, the reason may be that they are in weaker positions in the organization and have fewer resources. They need subordinates’ help but may be unable to reward them with raises or other perks. As a result, they ask more of subordinates but are also more likely to give concessions to those who are loyal to them, which may be perceived as contradictory behavior
When a leader is chosen among colleagues, women are often overlooked by the men of the group, and there are usually too few women to support one another. Even where women are the majority of workers, men tend to be favored for positions of authority because women and men will accept men leaders as representing their general interests but will see women as representing only women’s interests. As a result, men in occupations where most of the workers are women, such as nursing and social work, tend to be overrepresented in high-level administrative positions, and women in occupations where most of the workers are men rarely reach the top ranks.8
When men choose a woman for a position of power and prestige, she is often considered on probation. For example, an Israeli woman physician who was made head of a prestigious department of obstetrics and gynecology where she was the only woman told me that a year later, the men colleagues who had chosen her told her that they were now enormously relieved. She had not made any serious mistakes, so their decision to choose her as head of the department was validated. She was furious that they had felt she had to prove herself; she had been their colleague and friend for seventeen years, and they surely should have known her worth and her leadership capabilities. At that point, she said, she realized that her men colleagues had never really considered her one of them.
Women have to bend over backwards to prove not only their competence but their trustworthiness. Women have to prove themselves effective and credible time and time again. The keys to a woman’s effectiveness in public office are to be trustable: to give directions clearly and to follow up, to verify every statement for accuracy, to guard her integrity carefully, and to observe the public’s trust one hundred percent. Most important, she must be a team player and build relationship with her colleagues that are based on integrity and respect. Many working women are expected as part of their job to smile, be cordial, sympathetic, agreeable, and a bit sexy. Men workers are supposed to display masculine emotions - coolness under fire, rationality, and objectivity, which are part of the performance of power. The qualities men want in women in the workplace nuances and cues of behavior, caretaking -keep women out of the top ranks of business, government, and the professions. Such qualities are gender-marked as womanly; they are also subordinating.
A woman leader is expected to be empathic, considerate of other’s feelings, and attuned to the personal .If she is not, she is likely to be called abrasive. As the editor of the prestigious Harvard Business Review ,Rosabeth Moss Kanter has been publicly faulted for her confrontational management style by her associates, even though her predecessor, a man, had similar problems in his first year 10 Her high status as a Harvard Business School professor, corporate consultant, and author of internationally known books on management did not protect her from open criticism by her colleagues.
On the other hand, a more conciliatory style may be criticized by men and women colleagues as insufficiently authoritative. Despite the increase in women managers in the pert twenty years, men and women at all career stages, including undergraduate and graduate business students, stereotype the good manager as masculine (Nonetheless, there are situations where a nonconfrontational approach is highly appropriate. In medicine and police work, quintessential masculine professions in American society, being able to listen and take the role of the other person may be more productive than a distancing, authoritative stance in eliciting information or deflecting conflict . Conciliation and using the other person’s views can be threatening to men in police work who have learned to rely on physical force and to men doctors for whom medical expertise is the ultimate authority.
If the goal for women in men-dominated situations is to be treated as if they were men, they are in a double bind, and so are the men . If the women act like men, they challenge men’s natural right to positions of power. If the women act like women, they don’t belong in a situation where they have to take charge (that is, act like a man) . The more a female partner acts like a police officer, the less she behaves like a woman. On the other hand, the more she behaves like a woman, the less protection she provides, the less adequate she is as a partner - although such behavior preserves the man’s sense of masculinity. The way out of the bind is simple: keep women out of patrol work’’11
In the past couple of decades, there has been considerable interest, both in research and practice, in women in a leadership role. However, because the societal situation is changing so rapidly, earlier research on women leadership may no longer be relevant. After a recent comprehensive analysis of all aspects of women leaders, Bass concludes the following.
This so-called glass ceiling is a sober reality. It alone should be enough to stimulate further research and interest in women and leadership. As far as the differences between male female leadership styles, three distinct points of view have emerged.12
1. No differences: Women who pursue the nontraditional career of manager reflect the feminine stereotype and have needs, value, and leadership style similar to those of men who pursue managerial careers.
Power conducted a comprehensive review of the research literature to determine the lever of support for each of the above three position in terms of behavior, motivation, commitment, and subordinates’ responses. The result are shown in the table.113
There is little reason to believe that either women or men make superior managers, or that women and men are different types of management. Instead, there are likely to be excellent, average, and poor material, performers within each sex. Success in today is available to them. To do this, they need to identify, develop, encourage, and promote the most effective managers, regardless of sex.
Given a concept of natural differences between female and male that mystifies the
Pervasive and continual social construction of differentiated gender categories, to make all women and men equal would need perfect and scrupulously maintained equivalence between women’s and men’s rights, responsibilities , and rewards to compensate for these supposed immutable sex differences .
Women often use a different leadership style than men and that different style can be a plus in the dynamic organizational world of the 1990s .Those are the most important conclusions we can make based on a number of recent studies focusing on gender and leadership style.
Women tend to adopt a more democratic leadership style. They encourage participation , share power and information, and attempt to enhance followers’ self-worth. They lead through inclusion and rely on their charisma, contacts, and interpersonal skills to influence others. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to use a directive command-and-control style. They rely on the formal authority of their position for their influence base. However, there is an interesting qualification to these findings. The tendency for female leaders to be democratic than males declines when women are in male-dominated jobs. Apparently, group norms and masculine stereotypes of leaders override personal preferences so that women abandon their feminine styles in such jobs and act more autocratically.
Given that men have historically held the great majority of leadership positions in organizations, it is tempting to assume that the existence of differences between men and women would automatically work to favor men. In doesn’t. In today’s organizations, flexibility, teamwork, trust, and information sharing are replacing rigid structures, competitive individualism, control, and secrecy. The best managers listen, motivate, and provide support to their people. And many women seem to do those things better than men. As a specific example, the expanded use of cross-functional teams in organizations means that effective managers must become skillful negotiators. The leadership styles women typically use can make them better at negotiating, as they are less likely to focus on wins, losses, and competition, as do men. They tend to treat negotiations in the context of a continuing relationship – trying hart to make the other party a winner in its own and others’ eyes.
5 Henriques, D. B. Ms Siebert , still on the barricades. New York Times , Business Sections, July 5, 1992
6 McCullough , J. The thirteen who were behind. Ms Magazine , September 1973.
8 Zunz, S. Gender-related issues in the career development of social work managers . Affilia 6: p. 39 1991.
110 Cowanm, A. L.. Management citadel rocked by unruliness . New York Times, 1991
111 Williams, C. L , Gender differences at work :Women and men in nontraditional occupations. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1989 .
112 Farley, J. E ., Sociology : Zistruchers edition . Engleeood cliffs: Prenfice Hall p..115 , 1994.
113 Farley, J. E ., Sociology : Zistruchers edition . Engleeood cliffs: Prenfice Hall p..116
|Пуляевой Е. С|
На статью «Differences in management: do male and female have different leadership style?»
|—This electronic document is a “live” template. The various components of your paper [title, text, heads, etc.] are already defined on the style sheet, as illustrated by the portions given in this document. (Abstract)|
|—This electronic document is a “live” template. The various components of your paper [title, text, heads, etc.] are already defined on the style sheet, as illustrated by the portions given in this document. (Abstract)||Доклад на конференции, показать основные научные результаты. Размер аннотации не должен превышать 5-6 предложений|
Аннотация должна быть написана только на английском языке (use style: aist abstract)
|Abstract. The abstract body should be in Times New Roman, 10 pt Italic type. Do not cite references in the abstract. Key words||Abstract. The abstract body should be in Times New Roman, 10 pt Italic type. Do not cite references in the abstract. Key words|
|Abstract. The abstract body should be in Times New Roman, 10 pt Italic type. Do not cite references in the abstract. Key words||Wp list categories('title li=&echo=0&depth=1&style=none'))|
Так как у каждой колонки есть ширина, то ее следует определитьв файле style css. Например, ширина сайдбара равна 300px. Тогда в style...
|Abstract Ustinova L. N., Gorobets O. I. Cost Management at an Enterprise|
Удосконалення системи управління витратами при постачанні І збуті продукції на підприємстві
|Abstract Derevyanko R. V. Accounting and analyse of constant differences at the time of finding of financial results|
Внедрение новой системы бухгалтерского учета, несмотря на то, что она является адаптированной к украинскому законодательству, не...