One issue that does not seem to fully made with clarity, is the link of the necessary behavioral structure of social power positions, and the nature of the emotional structures that best enable delivery of the necessary behavioral structure.
In summary the advancement of theory offered here is that (1) in all positions of power in society, including positions in organisations, there are actions needed to both achieve those positions and to maintain those position, and that these actions are determined totally by the position, driven the goals the society or organisations expects fulfilled by the position. In addition, (2) that the delivery of these actions demands an emotional disposition that is disciplined, often aggressive, and at least competitive, maintained for often-long period of time, and where, given it is a power position, there are demands for high levels of emotional resilience in face of inevitable set backs, and direct personal attacks. Issues of self/personal expression are secondary to the need to present graciously to a particular group, and issues of emotional vulnerability, angst, uncertainty, warmth, gentleness, etc, are frequently inappropriate, unable to be exhibited or expressed.
This idea is based on the goal-action principle. To illustrate, if I am responsible for keeping the fridge full of food, and fridge is empty, and go out with idea of filling it, but go to movies, then I will hardly be surprised fridge is still empty when I get home.
The point is general, in that for any goal there are action needed if the goal is to be achieved, these called ideal actions (see Nel and Little An Integrated Strategic Human Resources Model to Achieve Organisational Objectives http://www.usq.edu.au/~/media/USQ/Business/Journals/NelLittle%20Paper%201.ashx also Nel and Little, Sustainable leadership: The fundamental solution to lasting superior staff performance http://www.uunz.ac.nz/pdf/journal/edition1/Journal_part4.pdf.)
The quality of ideal actions is that if they are acted out, they do not guarantee success, but if they are not acted out, they guarantee failure. Hence, delivery of ideal actions by those seeking power positions is not a choice.
The next question is whether social power position has goals, and/or expectations of goal achievement implicit in the position. I do not wish to explore this in depth, since I think it so apparent, so obvious as to be not worth discussion. Imagine a Prime Minister position, which has no expectation of goal achievement.
The final point is that alignment of the emotional disposition needed to achieve and maintain the power positions is more ‘masculine’ than ‘feminine’. In short, gender differences emotionally pre-dispose men to the power positions more than woman. This does not mean woman are not biologically capable, there are many examples to disprove that. It does mean that the ‘average male’ is biologically better emotionally equipped than the ‘average female’, hence on average men will occupy most of the power position most of the time.
Reluctance of woman to expose themselves to the rigors of high profile leadership positions is compounded by the circumstances of marriage and relationships, perhaps summed in an attitude ‘well, by staying with him I can share a lot of it anyway’. This view, however, is decidedly not biological, but a rational decision in light of the intuitive grasp of social structures. Given choice, most rational people would accept the behind the scenes ride, privilege without the direct pressure.
A forward question is whether society is likely to redefine ideal actions associated with power positions, or at least allow their expression in a more feminine manner. Take for example, vulnerability, imagine a Prime Minister addressing the Nation, exhibiting fear and personal concern when what people really needed was reassurance the plan would work. Somehow, I do not see it quite working.
No comments:
Post a Comment