Read the case study found on pages below respond to all three of the questions located here.
You will write a 2-page response using these questions.
1) Should group members encourage women and minorities to speak early and often by inviting their participation? Do you think the active engagement of all members a group will affect its effectiveness?
2) Do you think that there are barriers to prohibit involvement of women and minorities in leadership roles of groups?
3) From a faith-based perspective what role should you play to ensure all people have an equal opportunity to serve in leadership roles?

(Roles & Leadership Case Study):
“Focus on Culture — Gender and Ethnic Bias in Leader Emergence”
Cornelia Dean (2005) was the New York Times science editor from 1997 to 2003. At a diner for the superstars of the scientific community, a colleague introduced Dean to one of America’s foremost neuroscientists without indicating her title. “Oh yes,” the self- important scientist muttered as he surveyed the room for someone more noteworthy to converse with than this apparent nobody. He then asked, “Who is the new science editor of the New York Times, that twerpy little girl in the short skirt?” Flabbergasted by this clueless inquiry. Dean responded, “That would be me”. Bias against women and ethnic minorities is a significant issue in the leadership emergence literature. The research on gender bias far more voluminous than it is on ethnic bias (Northhouse, 2013). Studies of gender bias in the workplace, where emerging leaders live their daily lives and engage in small group communication, provide mixed results. The issue of a glass ceiling, an invisible barrier of subtle discrimination that excluded women from top jobs in corporate and professional America, remains relevant. Only 23 women were CEOs of the 500 largest companies in the United States in 2014, and only five women headed one of the 50 largest companies. An additional 23 women were CEOs of the next 500 largest U.S. companies. That’s a total of 46 women (4.6%) and 954 men (95.4%) running our largest 1,000 corporations (“Women CEOs.” 2014). A mere 16.9 % of Fortune 500 corporate board seats were occupied by women in 2013, and only 14.6% of executive officers at these same companies were women (“Women in U.S. Management,” 2013). In politics, women in 2014 held only 20 (20%) of the 100 U.S. Senate seats, 78 of the 435 House seats (17.9%), 1,784 (24.2%) of state legislative seats, and 74 (22.5%) of Statewide elective executive office 2014”; Women in State Legislatures, “ 2014; “Women Serving in the 113th Congress 2013 -2015”). These figures represent very slow progress for women. That is the bad news. The encouraging news is that women are poised to make huge strides. Women are well positioned to advance in the information-based economy driven by the microchip. The new economy is based primarily on the knowledge and skills of the workers instead of seniority, and women are poised to take advantage of this trend (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Rosin, 2010). Consider the evidence of such a trend. Women in 2012 held more than half (51.5%) of all managerial and professional positions in the United States (“Women in the U.S. Management, “ 2013). This trend is very likely to continue, even to grow more robust in the immediate future because women are receiving more education than men in preparation for the developing job market. Women earn about 62%of associates degrees, 60% of all bachelor’s degrees, 60% of master’s degrees, and 52% of all doctoral degrees. Since 1982,women have earned 9 million more college degrees than men (Perry, 2013).Nevertheless, women still have difficulty becoming leaders. When individuals think of “leader” they typically think “male” (Koenig et al., 2011). Nevertheless, abundant research shows that women in many respects make better leaders than men (Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly, 2007). One study of 58,000 individuals revealed that women outranked men on 20 of 23 leadership skills. Another study of 2482 executive revealed that women again outranked men on 17 of 20 leadership skills (Sharpe, 2000). Finally, a study of 7,289 leaders shows that women outranked male leaders on 15 of 16 core leadership competencies (Zenger &Folkman, 2012). Despite research findings on the leadership effectiveness of women, in a variety of group settings, men are typically favored over women when leaders are selected and evaluated, even when no differences in actual leadership behavior occur (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Forsyth et al., 1997). Gender bias, although diminished in recent years, remains a barrier to the upward advancement of women into positions as upper-level leaders (McEldowney et al., 2009). Even when women do emerge as leaders, they suffer penalties. When women exercise leadership by being assertive, reactions are often negative, but if they behave in stereotypic ways by exhibiting a kind, gentle, empathetic approach, they are often seen as ineffectual and a poor leader (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Hoyt, 2010). The “Ban Bossy” campaign started in 2014 by Facebook CC Sheryl Sandberg aimed to combat this double standard by highlighting and trying to combat the strong tendency, even as early as elementary school, to label young girls “bossy” when they attempt to be leaders. As Sandberg explains, ‘We know that by middle school, more boys than girls want to lead, whether it’s the school project all the way to running for office, they don’t want to be disliked”(quoted by McFadden & Whitman, 2014). Female leaders are scrutinized more, especially when they take leadership positions that are usually held by men (Brescoll et al., 2011). Women are less liked and more personally disparaged than equivalently successful men. These penalties can negatively affect the careers of female leaders both in advancement and in recommendations for pay increases (Heilman et al., 2004). This is a good news/bad news record, but overall, the outlook for women in leadership positions, at least white women, is optimistic. The outlook for ethnic minorities in leadership positions is less optimistic. In 2012, there were only 24 people of color (Crosby et al., 2012). In 2013, women of color held a mere 3.2% of all board of directors’ seats in business. More than two-thirds of top companies had no women of color as directors (Clawson, 2013). People of color make up 25% of law school student enrollments, 20% of all associates in law firms, but only a measly 7% of all partners. Of all law firms employing associates, 16% have no associates who are people of color (“Legal Professions: Status of Women and Men,” 2014). The percentage of African Americans on Fortune 500 boards of directors is less than 8% (“Black Enterprise Publishes Exclusive Registry,” 2013). The situation for Hispanic American and Asian Americans is even worse (“Missing Pieces,” 2014). How do we combat gender and ethnicity bias in emergent leadership in groups? First, the 20 percent rule again comes into play. When women and minorities find themselves flying solo in groups, the chance that they will land in a leadership position is remote. As the number of women and ethnic minorities increases in a group to as much as 20% of the membership, however, the likelihood that a woman or minority will emerge as leader also increases because bias decreases (Shimanoff & Jenkins, 2003). When women and ethnic minorities are no longer perceived as tokens, but instead form a substantial portion of group membership and increasingly occupy top leadership positions, then competence will be judged less on gender and ethnic bias and more on actual performance (Karakowsky & Siegel, 1999). Second, if group members are allowed to mingle, interact, and work on a project before determining a leader, the decision is more likely to be made on the basis of individual performance rather than gender (or ethnicity, if we extrapolate the research findings). Small groups that met for 6 to 15 weeks on a project were as likely to name a woman as their leader as they were a man (Goktepe & Schneier, 1989). Allowing women and minorities to display their strengths increases their chances of emerging as group leaders. Third, engaging in task-relevant communication behavior is a key to emerging as leader of a small, task-oriented group (Hawkins, 1995). Task -relevant communication includes initiation and discussion of analysis of the group problem, establishment of decision criteria, generation of possible solutions to problems, evaluation of possible solutions, and establishment of group operating procedures. Task-oriented female group members are as likely to emerge as leaders of small task groups as are task-oriented male group members (Hawkins, 1995). This finding is bolstered by 2013 Gallup poll results that show 41% of respondents have no preference for either a male or female boss and 23% prefer a female boss, the highest percentage ever recorder in this annual survey that date back to 1953. Men were actually more accepting of female bosses than women (Newport & Wilke, 2013). Fourth, if women and minorities are among the first to speak in the group and they speak fairly frequently, their chances of emerging as leaders increase (Shimanoff & Jenkins, 2003). Speaking early and often without dominating discussion is perceived as assertive. Speaking early is more important for women and minorities than it is for men. Finally, women and ethnic minorities can advance their chances of becoming leaders in small groups by honing their communication skills and abilities. Developing competence in communication by using skills appropriately and effectively can go a long way toward combating gender and ethnic leadership bias (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).