Women leaders and women managers in the global community

There is no doubt about the universal importance of political leadership in virtually all societies and cultures. In the context of politics, leaders have the unequaled capacity to influence and shape the process of political structuration.

Source: www.managementfirst.com

Political leadership often has been used in the history of political thought as a substitute for, or synonym of, "political elite", "authority," "political management," or "position of head". It is closely intertwined with power. According to Heifetz and Sinder (1990), political leadership is conceived as an activity which consists of "(1) providing a vision or taking stands, and (2) interacting effectively when managing power and authority in order to generate sufficient organizational and political alignment to realize the leaders intentions". Although this is not the place to present an exhaustive list of definitions and conceptualizations of political leadership, Burns' (1978) definition is worth noting, The author defined political leadership as a reciprocal process of "mobilizing, by persons with certain motives and values, various economic political, and other resources, in a context of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers." Given the ambiguity of the concept and the multitude of conceptualization, as a construct political leadership is characterized by terminological uncertainty and conceptual confusion which is further confounded by the multidimensional nature of the political leadership phenomenon.

One critical aspect in political leadership is the politics of gender. Russell (1997) asked: "Women are flexing a lot of muscle in Washington, and the results are revolutionary: two justices on the Supreme Court, a powerful legislative agenda, and the first female secretary of state ever; so why can't women win more elections?" Other high-profile appointments such as that of Alexis Herman, a black woman and key White House staff member to Secretary of Labor, did not change the arithmetic of gender issues in politics. The number of women in the senate remains fixed at less than 10 percent; in the House, women picked up three seats, not enough to effect a shift in power. Obstacles to women's participation in politics continue to exist including the male model of politics, the nature of electoral systems, and the lack of party support.

Women leaders in the global community

According to one author (Blondel, 1987) less than 0.005 percent of the world's political leaders are women. However the number of women who hold the most senior positions of political leadership serving either as prime ministers or presidents of their countries has risen steadily since 1960 when Sirimavo Bandaranaike took office. Tracing the emergence of global women leaders from the 1960s to the 1990s, reveals the following chronology. Just two other women followed Bandaranaike in the 1960s - Indira Gandhi, who was elected prime minister of India in 1966, and Golda Meir, who became Israel's prime minister in 1969. Another four women assumed senior leadership positions of their countries in the 1970s: Isabel Peron in Argentina in 1974, Elizabeth Domitien in the General African Republic in 1978, and Portugal's Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo and Great Britain's Margaret Thatcher, both in 1979.

The 1980s brought eight additional women to power. In 1980, Iceland's Vigidis Finnbogadottir became the first woman in the world elected as a constitutional head of state. In the same year, Domenica's Eugenia Charles was elected as the first woman prime minister of a Caribbean country. In 1981, Norway elected Gro Harlem Brundtland as its first and youngest prime minister. In 1982, Yugoslavia's Milka Planinc became Eastern Europe's first woman prime minister. In 1984, the Netherlands-Antilles elected Maria Liberia-Peters as its first prime minister. Similarly, in 1986, the Philippines elected Corazon Aquino as the first woman president. In 1988, at the age of 35, Benazir Bhutto became Pakistan's elected prime minister, thus becoming the first woman to head a modern Islamic state. She lost a bid to regain office in 1997 when Pakistan's highest court ruled that her ousted government was corrupt. The Pakistani president accused Bhutto of driving Pakistan toward economic ruin, stealing billions and using police to squash a rival political movement.

Bhutto denied the accusations insisting that her government was dismissed in an attempt to consolidate power. Also in 1988, Aung Suu Kyi, Burma's dissident leader appeared on the political scene and became the determined voice of opposition to Burma's militant style of government. Under house arrest since 1989, Aung Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts to set the precedent of political change through political settlement, not violence.

In the 1990s, 13 women became presidents or prime ministers of their countries. Kazimicra Prunskiene became the first woman prime minister of Lithuania, Violetta Chamorro the president of Nicaragua, and Ireland's Mary Robinson and Haiti's Ertha Pascai-Trouillot each became their country's first woman president. In 1991, France's Edith Cresson and Bangladesh's Khaleda Zia each became their country's first prime minister. In 1992, Hanna Suchocka began her term as Poland's prime minister. In 1993, Kim Campbell became the prime minister of Canada and, thus, North America's first head of government. On the same day, Turkey elected Tansu Ciller its first female prime minister. The year 1994 brought Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga to power as prime minister of Sri Lanka and the only woman to follow another woman into office. In 1995 Switzerland elected Ruth Dreifuss as State Councilor, the highest elected political leadership position in that country. Finally, in 1997, Janet Jagan, at age 77, won the election as Guyana's first female president, succeeding, like many of the other global women leaders such as Corazon Aquino and Benazir Bhutto, her husband in office (based, in part, on Adler, 1996, pp. 135, 138).

Global leaders or global managers

The often quoted statement that leaders lead and managers manage, while simple and straightforward, fails to reveal the complexity of the distinctions that have been drawn between leadership and management. Zaleznik (1990) and Bennis (1993) proposed a number of dimensions along which leadership and management can be differentiated. For example, leadership is often viewed as process while management is equated with structure; leadership is based on interpersonal roles whereas management is position based; leaders are twice-born meaning that they grow by overcoming and mastering painful experiences and crises on the path of developing themselves as leaders. Managers, on the other hand, are once-born since their developmental paths are linear, focused on vertical advancement through the organizational hierarchy. Leaders produce significant change, develop long-term visions and embrace chaos and empowerment. Managers, on the other hand, produce orderly results, concentrate on the short run and thrive on order and control. Daft and Lengel (1998) suggested that management is ego based while leadership rests on the potential that becomes available when ego, like the rind of an orange, is peeled away. From a theoretical perspective, distinctions have been made between transactional and transformational leadership (i.e. Bass, 1985) to separate management from leadership, respectively.

It is against the tapestry of such concepts that the distinctions between women as political leaders and managers of the politics of nations are examined. Let me begin with a classic example to illustrate the differences. Eva and Isabel Perón, as rulers of Argentina, have been widely discussed in the scholarly and popular literature. Elsewhere (Klenke, 1996), I provided a description of Eva Perón as the nonpositional leader of Argentina who more than any other person, and certainly more than any other woman in the history of Latin America, has been the object of much speculation, controversy, admiration and hatred. Although much of her life was swallowed up in the political career of her husband, Juan Perón, Evita, as she was known politically, was Argentina's flamboyant and charismatic leader who immersed herself in all aspects of government. Although she never held a political appointment, her leadership and power were undisputed. Her activities in the Ministry of Labor, the Department of Public Health, the Ministry of Education and the Fundicación Eva Perón which she created to complement the social goals of the Perón government were her bases of political power which she increased continuously from 1948 until her death in 1952. At the apex of her political career, she controlled her own army of five million workers. Wherever Evita appeared, at speeches, rallies and demonstrations, she generated a huge followership.

By 1951, when there were rumors of Evita's candidacy to run as vice president on a Perón-Perón ticket, many Argentinians asserted that she ruled the country. In fact, after her death, Juan Peron lost his grip on Argentina, was overthrown by a military coup, and forced to flee the country. Yet, the myths that developed around her image and the cult of Evita remained as strong symbols of the past for years to come. As a nonpositional leader, Eva Perón confronts us with the enigma of power attributed to a woman in a patriarchal society, a society that devalues women in relation to men. Her leadership was a powerful challenge to the traditional belief in the inferiority of women and the authority and supremacy of men.

(to be continued...)

^ Back to Top