Question:
Dear Sir: I think there is a male leadership crisis in the world today. What can we do to get more male leaders in our homes, communities,
schools, and churches?
Answer: Before I discuss the sociological implications and the
solutions to the male-leadership-in-crisis-syndrome, I must establish a
philosophical base. Last week, while composing at the computer the first article
in this series, I accidentally typed "Male leadership IS
Crisis," instead of "Male leadership IN Crisis."
Then I wondered: "Is there some truth to both of these statements?" As
I pondered that thought, I realized that there is truth to both statements.
First, because male leadership is IN crisis, inevitably, male leadership IS
crisis. That is many male cold leadership styles are causing agony and confusion
in the home, church and society. Secondly, male leadership IS crisis when it is
power based rather than influence based. Thirdly, male leadership IS crisis when
it is controlling rather than transforming. That is, too many male leaders are
contented with telling the family to drink water rather than teaching them the
benefits of water. Finally, male leadership IS crisis when it emphasizes
independence rather than interdependence. That is, too many men thrive to be
depended upon as providers, instructors, know-it-all-doers, rather than
facilitating an interactive dialogue and learning process. These are some of the
basic reasons why male leadership is IN crisis.
As articulated last week, some would have us believe that male leadership is
in crisis because there is an overwhelming increase of female leadership in the
society. This is not the case. It is so because because males have failed to
become team players with females. It has occurred because men sought
power over women rather than having power with them. Now that women also have
significant power, many men feel threatened. The crisis is becoming more
pronounced, in that fewer men are taking personal development, advanced
education, and spiritual values seriously, leaving those fields wide open to
women. The truth is that today there are not enough women in "high
places." We tend to forget that men exclusively held these high positions
in some societies for centuries. It is true that there are women today who would
be glad to see all the men disappear from leadership positions in society. That
concept would be as counter productive as when there were all male leaders. Our
goal should be to become a more integrated society–
|
"Some would have us believe that male leadership is
in crisis because there is an overwhelming increase of female leadership in the
society. This is not the case. It is so because because males have failed to
become team players with females. It has occurred because men sought
power over women rather than having power with them."
|
|
where a person would not be
judged by one’s gender but by one’s integrity of character, potential, and
ability.
LEADERSHIP STYLES
In the business arena, many giant firms are moving away from the traditional
management style that focused on control and manipulation by de-emphasizing the
hierarchal administrative structure and balancing it with a more personal,
humanistic style of management. In the 2000 edition of Educational
Administration Concepts and Practices, Fred Lunenburg and Allan C. Ornstein
help us understand the traditional styles of corporate leadership: (1) Democratic
leadership: Leaders encouraged group discussion and decision making.
Subordinates were informed about conditions affecting their jobs and were
encouraged to express their ideas and make suggestions. (2) Authoritarian
leadership: Leaders were very directive and allowed no participation in
decisions. They structured the complete work situation for their subordinates.
Leaders took full authority and assumed full responsibility from initiation to
task completion. (3) Laissez-faire leadership: Leaders gave complete
freedom to the group and left it up to subordinates to make individual decisions
on their own. Essentially, leaders provided no leadership.
These leadership styles have had very little to no effect on production.
Within these styles of leadership, males reigned supreme. However, corporate
leaders have learned that for survival, greater productivity, and personal job
satisfaction (which improves productivity), they need to remove the barriers and
become more inclusive. Thus, over the past decades new styles of leadership have
emerged. Fred Lunenburg and Allan C. Ornstein list them this way: (1)
Supportive leadership. A supportive leader is friendly, approachable, and
concerned with the needs, status, and well-being of subordinates. A supportive
leader treats subordinates as equals and frequently goes out of her way to make
the work environment more pleasant and enjoyable. (2.) Participative
leadership. A participative leader consults with subordinates concerning
work-related matters, solicits their opinions, and frequently attempts to use
subordinates' ideas in making decisions. (3) Achievement-oriented leadership.
An achievement-oriented leader sets challenging goals for subordinates,
emphasizes excellence in performance, and shows confidence in subordinates'
ability to achieve high standards of performance. (5) Transformational
leadership focuses on leaders who have exceptional impact on their
organizations. Transformational leaders motivate their subordinates to do more
than they originally expected to do by (a) raising followers' levels of
consciousness about the importance and value of designated outcomes and about
ways of reaching them; (b) by getting followers to transcend their own
self-interest for the sake of the team, organization, or larger polity; and (c)
by raising followers' need levels to the higher-order needs, such as self
actualization, or by expanding their portfolio of needs.
RELATIONSHIP TO FAMILY LIFE
What is the relevance of corporate leadership styles to home management?
First of all, the concept of the role of a man and woman in the marriage
relationship and the home is invariably transmitted into the larger society. Men
who believe that a woman should be controlled and manipulated in the home also
believe that she should be controlled and manipulated in the workplace. In the
corporate world, growth and productivity have become a greater reality through
gender inclusion and the removal of the power scale of inequity. Yet, within the
family structure, too many want to maintain the old-fashioned, stagnant formula
for family development and interaction. While corporations are moving towards
referring to their employees as "team players and followers,"
too many today are still wanting our women to "remember their places."
Perhaps this is causing a greater havoc on the home and family life. For in the
workplace, women are treated as equal partners and decision makers; but in home,
they are still treated as subordinates, cooks, and pot washers. Now that’s a
crisis! A key characteristic of the male leadership syndrome is the reluctance
to relinquish traditions that divide us. I challenge men to become
co-transformational
leaders with their wives in their homes.
David and Amy Olson in their book
"Empowering Couples" reports on a survey done
with more than one million couples from over fifteen countries. The survey
revealed that at least 93 percent of married couples are unhappy when
they have problems sharing leadership equally. This was stated as the number
one stumbling block to happiness in marriage. Why, then, do we refuse to
re-examine our approach to marriage relationships and our view of gender
equality? When we begin to solve this problem, we will be on the way to solving
the male leadership syndrome.
Barrington Brennen is
a marriage and family therapist and a board certified clinical psychotherapist
(USA). Email: question@soencouragemengt.org or call 242 327 1980.
