The vice-presidential nomination of Sarah Palin has led to all kinds of interesting conversations in the media. And while many of those conversations raise plenty of pertinent questions, I've been struck by the underlying assumptions about what makes a person a qualified leader.
Granted, "qualified" takes on a whole new kind of weight when we're talking about the presidency (or vice-presidency in Palin's case) but even as these conversations trickle down into bus stop chats and water cooler debates, the operating understanding of leadership has a distinctly male bent to it. We want to know if Palin is decisive. If she's tough. If she can battle corruption and stand up to our enemies. We assume that these are all givens when it comes to making someone a leader. But are they the only qualities that count?
Those of us who have been in leadership positions for more than a half an hour know that the biggest challenge is often proving that we can lead like men, that we can be decisive and tough and wage battle for the sake of our cause.
I did a little Googling on leadership, and it's stunning how often military and sports terms are used in discussions of leadership - strategy, tactics, game plans, coaching, etc. Those are all fine aspects of leadership. But they aren't the only way to lead. In fact, it seems to me that when women try to lead in such a way, it simply doesn't work.
So as I've watched Sarah Palin enter this man's world (like so few women before her) I have been thinking about women in leadership and what it means to lead as women. Do we have to be about strength and strategy or are their unique aspects of being a woman that can reframe the way we think about leadership? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.
I've got a few ideas about what that might look like. I'm sure there are plenty more - and I hope you'll add your thoughts in the comments section below! - but here are a few of the marks of distinctly female leadership. It is:
Collaborative: Most organizations are structured on a tier system - there are levels of management or coordination, each tier getting smaller the higher up the system it is. So eventually, you end up with one or two people who are in charge of the whole shebang. There might be a sense that everyone has input, but most people who operate in these kinds of structures know the real power is at the top. Women, however, tend to organize themselves into mutually dependent groups, each of which has a share in the outcome of the whole. Think about groups or organizations you know that are made up primarily of women - a small-business, a book group, a Bible study. It's often hard to say who the real leader is because the decision-making power is spread out across the whole organization. This structure makes room for new ideas, experimentation, creativity, and innovation because everyone involved feels a sense of ownership in the organization.