|
"Why don't women rule the world? At the least, why don't we hold most of the top spots in all companies? Have we stopped ourselves from achieving our rightful positions of leadership and power, or have 'they'? Why is it newsworthy when a woman is the first mayor, police chief, or governor of some place? A woman runs for president and another woman is a vice-presidential nominee and these are "ground-breaking" events? That's just not right. These events shouldn't be ground-breaking--they should be normal and natural, 'how it's supposed to be.'"
Pink Leadership: 15 Life Lessons for  Leaders, by leadership expert and author Jeanne Gulbranson, begins by wondering "why" and moves swiftly to the reasons why it is not yet "how it's supposed to be" for women. After offering compelling reasons why women are uniquely qualified for leadership positions, Gulbranson introduces the leadership "devils" that may try to discourage, throw off course, or even sabotage a woman's leadership success. The Pyrite Devil, Chatter Devil, Precious Devil, and OCD Devil are presented and illustrated by real-life examples and stories that supply uncomplicated, practical techniques for killing, or at the least avoiding, the devils.
Gulbranson's entertaining presentation of leadership tips and techniques ensures an enjoyable experience while the readers are learning to develop or enhance their skills as leaders. Pink Leadership uses memorable anecdotes about real people that all women can relate to and learn from, and it encourages women to listen, watch, and develop their own Life Lessons.
Gulbranson declares, "If you choose to be a superior leader, either in business or in your community, then that's what you should be able to do." Pink Leadership: 15 Life Lessons for Leaders provides the insight and wisdom for women of all ages to do exactly that--achieve success and satisfaction in their decision to be leaders.
Pink Leadership may be purchased on www.amazon.com
Excerpt from Chapter 1: What Do You Want to Be
Why don't women rule the world? At the least, why don't we hold most of the top spots in all companies? Have we stopped ourselves from our rightful positions of leadership and power, or have "they"? Why is it newsworthy when a woman is the first mayor, police chief, or governor of some place? A woman runs for president and another woman is a vice-presidential nominee and these are "ground-breaking" events? That's just not right. These events shouldn't be ground-breaking--they should be normal and natural, "how it's supposed to be." But they're not. What--are we amazed that the lizard can talk? Who believes that a female world leader or corporate executive or political powerhouse is an anomaly? Does anyone out there think that women leaders are not "real" women--that they are not acting the way they are "supposed to"? If you believe this, identify yourself so that I can smack some sense into you.
How is it possible that leadership ability is gender-specific? Can it be that some people still believe any or all of the following assumptions?
The possession of a penis or a uterus grants or excludes leadership ability.
Do any anatomy books call out the "leadership spot" in genitalia in either sex? I know about the G-Spot1, but I've never heard of an "L-Spot."
Men are smarter than women.
Don't even go there! If this is true, just when would "smarter" have appeared in one sex or the other? When there was just a fertilized egg? Is it possible that "more intelligence" is carried on the Y chromosome? Not likely--or we would certainly have heard about that.
Men have more time to assume leadership positions while women are time-constrained by having children and raising families.
This assumption has some truth to it. Women do have more to do. They do bear children and still have (even in our enlightened "role-equality" era) more direct family responsibilities. Does this mean that men should be the leaders because they have more "bench time"? Because men don't (or can't) do as many different things as women, does that make them the best leadership candidates, or just the "available" ones? It sounds like the song, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." Is it possible that the rest of us are settling for less than the best leadership because we can't all work together to get through some interesting logistics of how to successfully combine disparate roles? What kind of sense does that make?Or is the challenge the fact that many women interrupt their education and/or careers to take time to raise families? This is another truth. And of course, when the women return to the work force, they get little or no credit for the on-the-job learning and application of all the skills they had to perfect and acquire while they were "just" raising kids. The fact that they have spent (possibly several) years as negotiators, delegators, strategists, planners, accounting managers, and in a plethora of other roles at home just doesn't seem to count. No credit--it's the bottom rung of the ladder for the returning-to-work women. That's just not right either.
Women don't want to be leaders.
This statement is seriously misinformed prejudice--an excuse born from bias. It's from the same keep-women-in-their-place attitude as, "Women don't want to vote, drive, own property, or serve in the military." Women have proven that these other prejudices are wrong. Women don't want to be leaders? That is craziness.
People don't want to follow a female leader.
There appears to be some truth to this one too. According to a 2008 article in the McClatchy newspapers: "Men and women agree that women are more honest, intelligent, compassionate, outgoing and creative, according to a survey out Monday. But men still get a significant edge as leaders and from both sexes. In a 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center, 69 percent of the over 2,000 people surveyed thought that men and women made equally strong leaders. But only 6 percent said women made better leaders while 21 percent said men did. Men and women held those views almost equally. 'You've got a public that on some level has a complex mix of views on this subject: admiring of women, admiring of traits that they associate with leadership, (but) not yet admiring of women in top leadership roles,' said Paul Taylor, the lead author of the report and the executive vice president at the research center. He said the researchers hadn't 'cracked the code' for the contradictory findings."
It's not so hard to crack that code. It's difficult for all of us--both women and men--to overcome 200+ years of American history and bias! When we don't really know what to expect, we shy away from it. We don't really know what to expect if the majority of our leadership is female--it's never happened. So, we naturally hold on to what we have now--whether it's wonderful or not. "It may be a three-legged, diseased dog, but it's my dog!"
Men have the inherent characteristics required for leadership and women do not. To test this assumption, let's look at the definition of leadership and determine how or if it applies to only men or only women. This is easier said than done.
1If you don't know what a G-Spot is-I'm not telling you. You need to look this up
....Chapter 1 continues... |
