Exploring Leadership Theory Biases

Exploring Leadership Theory Biases

Christine Doxey

Davenport University

Abstract

This report discusses the bias errors of research on leadership roles. A historical glimpse of research activity demonstrates bias errors. Past leadership, theories were based on empirical data that often excluded input from minorities and women. A literature review on the articles, "The synergistic leadership theory," by Beverly J. Irby, Genevieve Brown, Jo Ann Duffy, and Diane Trautman and "The White Standard: Racial Bias in Leader Categorization," by Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli and Katherine W. Phillips, offers support of this hypothesis. Comparison and contrast of the two articles offer insight of bias research of leadership traits in favor of white male characteristics.

Exploring Leadership Theory Biases

Introduction

When discussing the minority stereotype, the groups characteristics include women and all races outside the white male population. In the last decade, organizations recognize the value of a diverse workforce and its positive effect on the bottom line. Minorities are assuming leadership and executive positions (Warrell, 2013). To help prepare for these positions, individuals look to educational programs that emphasize the practical application of leadership theories to help develop skills needed to guide and influence people. However, empirical data to develop these theories were cultivated with an unconscious bias benefitting white males (Rosette, Leonardelli, & Phillips, 2008). Although more regulation and industry leaders support diversity, there are still biases controlling the workplace promotions. The first barrier to overcome is breaking the glass ceiling (Hastings, 2014).

The Glass Ceiling

The glass ceiling metaphor references an invisible barrier preventing someone from promotions and/or success due to biases towards; gender, age, nationality, religion, or disability. (Glass Ceiling, 2014). There has been a myriad of articles, books, and documentaries demonstrating that minorities are assuming more of the leadership positions in organizations.

It is true that organizations recognize the strength of a diverse boardroom allows different perspectives when addressing competitive factors (Jenner & Ferguson, 2014). However, Even though more laws, both nationally and internationally, are being enacted to support diversity in business, minorities in the boardrooms only represent an average of 8.3% to 12% among global businesses (Women in The BoardRoom: A Global Perspective, 2011). There is strong support for education in recognizing and altering bias behavior. Bias is an unreasonable distortion of judgment and falls under two main categories (Parker, 2014).

Cognitive bias. Cognitive bias is rule of thumb; simplification of information processing that may or may not be factual (i.e. seeing a baby dressed in blue and assuming the baby is a boy) (Issues of Bias, 2014).

Emotional bias. Represents a judgment or opinion based on a feeling instead of facts (i.e. girls are mothers, mothers are nurturing, I have a mom, I can fool my mom, a female in business can be fooled, don't let females lead because I can't trust her) .

So, if having a diverse leadership team in business leads to higher profits, why isn't there more minorities in those executive leadership roles? Many would argue it is because of the "Good ole' Boy" syndrome, due to bias behavior. While it is not acceptable, one can hardly blame it for happening. Most executive leaders studied leadership theories in college and universities (Chen, 2006). The very leadership theories they were learning, applying to case study reports, and taking this classroom experience to the boardroom were based on bias data, thus, skewing results. Historical leadership theories are viewed with skepticism, challenged by new theories offering alternatives based on less bias research.

The Synergistic Leadership Theory

In the article, "The Synergistic Leadership Theory," Irby et al finds that past theories do not reflect current practices and need revamping. Irby et al. offers an alternative theory with newer perspectives that reflects acceptable characteristics for determining organizational leaders.

explanation for the persistence of the glass ceiling keeping women from assuming leadership positions. (Weyer, 2007). Social role theory (historical assumption about roles assigned by gender, race, and religion (Social role theory, 2014) and expectation states theory (inequalities in a group based on social expectations of completing tasks (Crossman, 2014)(explicate diverse reasons for the emergence of these differences. However, both theories propose that gender differences will result in evaluation bias against women.

From childhood we learn that it is the male model

failure to include feminine presence or voice in the theory development found gender-biased language and the absence of females Irby et al.

strong assertion (4) Sexist language was present, as leader/manager was defined in male terms ("he," "his," "fine fellow").

that conceptualization of leadership theory was formulated through "a male lens" and was "subsequently applied to both males and females" Shakeshaft, C. and Nowell, I. (1984), "Research on theories, concepts, and models of organizational behavior: the influence of gender", Issues in Education, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 186-200.

The White Standard: Racial Bias in Leader Categorization

Traditionally, the glass ceiling was a concept applied to women and some minorities. It was very hard, if not impossible, for them to reach upper management positions. No matter how qualified