21 terms

LGBT Leadership

Coon [2001].
Title: Study of gay and lesbian leaders. Dissertation.

Postal mail survey of 50 self-identified LGBT leaders from mixed and LGBT workplaces. Used Kouzes & Posner's Leadership Practices Inventory [LPI]. Method: "qualitative research."

Did not draw a clear line between disclosure decisions and leadership development.
Andreas [2005].
Title: The interrelationship between being lesbian and its impact on community college leadership. Dissertation. Study of 5 lesbian community college administrators. Phenomonenological, used interviews.

Did not explore disclosure and leadership beyond noting that leader-follower dynamics could be colored by degree of acceptance of leader's sexual identity.
Mathes [2007].
Phenomenological investigation of the leadership experiences of 13 higher education leaders with concealable differences. 7 were LGB. Did not explore connection between disclosure and leadership.
Bullard [2013].
interviewed 6 LGB university presidents. Phenomenological study. Concluded "leaders were comfortable with who they were."
Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson [2010]. Intro.
Title: Toward an affirmative lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm.

Lit review of LGBT leadership. "There is almost nothing in the scholarly literature specifically regarding LGBT leadership issues."
Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson [2010].
Leadership theory has evolved in tandem with society, becoming less about the leader and more about leader-follower engagement.
Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson [2010]. Marginalization.
The study of the marginalization experience and its effects—both negative and positive—on the leadership of LGBT individuals may prove to be an extremely important and viable area of leadership study.
Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson [2010].
Dimensions of LGBT leadership model.
1. Sexual orientation. Notes that self-disclosure is a "distinct event in leadership that merits attention."
2. Gender orientation. LGBT as gender transgressors.
3. Situation.
Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson [2010].
Five research directions.
1. Under what conditions does LGBT leadership matter?
2. How does marginalization affect LGBT leadership?
3. Good vs. poor LGBT leadership - how do they differ?
4. What can LGBT leaders teach us about contemporary approaches to leadership effectiveness?
5. How can LGBT leaders be helped to learn?
Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson [2010].
Self-disclosure and leadership.
When self-disclosure occurs, it creates a distinct event in leadership that merits attention.
Yoder, 2001.
What is effective for men is not necessarily effective for women. What is effective for women depends on the context in which leadership is enacted.

Role congeniality.
Brown [1989].
Psychologist. Called for LGBT view of psychology to be central and not peripheral. North American psychology is inherently heterosexist. Argues that marginalization may increase effectiveness of LGBT leaders.
Yoder [2001].
Leadership occurs in a gendered context.

Concept of role congeniality:
Chin, 2007
Rebuke to APA's special leadership issue. Historically, "great man" theories of leadership were developed by drawing only from case histories of those already in positions of leadership, who were generally White men. As a result, successful leadership became associated with masculine traits.
Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson [2010].
Brown's 1988 paradigm on LGBT issues.
1) Marginalization.
2) Bicultural perspective: sexual minority and majority understanding.
3) Normative creativity. Need to invent our lives.
Fassinger & Arseneau [2007].
LGBT people all engage in gender transgression.
Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson [2010].
Affirmative model of LGBT leadership enactment: three factors.
1) Sexual orientation.
2) Gender orientation.
3) The situation, or group composition.

Leadership is enacted within a context, in this case stigmatization and marginalization.
Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson [2010].
Types of LGBT stigma.
1. Cultural or societal [Herek, 2007]. Heterosexist assumptions baked into society; LGBT invisible or evil.
2. Individual: enacted, felt, and internalized stigma. Eg hate crimes, insults.
3. Felt stigma [Herek, 2007]. Stigma directed at one person affects whole workplace. Minority stress leads to harm avoidance. Felt stigma also produces stereotype threat.
4. Self-stigma. Self-hatred, denial, etc.
Meyer & Wilson [2009].
Concept of minority stress.
Pfeffer [1992].
Title: Managing with power.

Makes the point that leaders live very intentional, calculated lives.
Kouzes & Posner [1997].
Coon used Kouzes & Posner's LPI [Leadership Practices Inventory] in his 2001 dissertation about LGB leaders.