Literature Review

The Manufacture of Power

            What part does gender play in our perception of authority? This is the question that researchers across disciplines seek to answer. Here I will analyze several texts to develop an understanding of the impact of gender, of both the "leader" and "subordinate," on authority.

            It is first important to note that there is a significant difference in the levels that women and men obtain and exercise authority. Rudman and Kilianski explain that:

            "The gender gap in authority reflects chronic power differences between men and  women. This disparity, prevalent throughout history and across and cultures, may stem     from traditional labor divisions, in which men and women have traditionally been  assigned occupational and domestic roles, respectively" (2000, p. 1315).

            Jacobson, Antonelli, Winning, and Opeil (1977) define authority as "to engage in behavior that can be described as active, assertive, and aggressive" (p. 366).  In this view, the exercise of authority is inherently masculine in nature, considering that these adjectives are typically associated with male behavior more frequently than with female behavior. The authors then make an important distinction between subordinates revering the individual in authority and the subordinates respecting the male in authority (Jacobson, Antonelli, Winning, & Opeil, 1977).

            The important distinction here is that although males traditionally occupy positions of authority more often than women, it does not mean that those subordinated to that authority necessarily like that figure. Instead, they are viewed as simply "doing their job." Females, however, who engage in the same sort of behavior are not likely to be viewed the same; she is viewed as cold, unfeeling, and void of femininity. Additionally, there are differences in how the authority figure is viewed depending on the sex of the subordinate. For example, if the female authority has a female subordinate, it is considered only a partial reversal of roles. However, if the female authority  has a male subordinate, she is viewed completely unfavorably as the situation is counter to traditional gender roles (Jacobson et al., 1977).

            Another interesting factor that Jacobson et al. considered in their discussion of authority figures was the responsibility of the involved parties. The authors found that women were more likely to be held accountable for the role reversal, and therefore negatively evaluated. The fact that a man has experienced a role reversal is not his fault for he did not deliberately place himself in a subordinate position and did not alter his behavior to be subservient. The female, on the other hand, actively sought out a position of authority and is therefore negatively evaluated in her role (Jacobson et al., 1977).

            It is important to understand the prescriptive nature of traditional gender roles--because men have traditionally occupied positions of power, it must continue to be that way. Female leaders are therefore viewed as "intruders" stepping on the toes of men by usurping their power and authority. Essentially, because female leaders are unfamiliar, they are threatening and even disliked (Rudman & Kilianski, 2000).

            The other scenario that Jacobson et al. examined was concerning the nonuse of authority. Rather than punish the subordinate, the authority figure expresses disapproval, but ultimately lets the offense go. This passive, softer approach is more congruent with traditionally feminine roles. As a result, male figures who fail to punish are viewed more harshly than female authority figures in the same situation. However, the authors point out a very specific way in which female authority figures are harmed by both exercising and not exercising authority:

            "On the other hand, since the subordinate has transgressed in some way, the authority         figures may be perceived as not doing his or her job if he or she fails to take action against the subordinate. If so, the negative evaluation might affect the female authority   figure more than the male because females are often considered unfit for positions of authority and their lack of positive action may serve to confirm the subject's suspicions in   that regard" (Jacobson et al., 1977, p. 371).  

            On the issue of nonuse of authority, they evaluated whether there was a difference in evaluation depending on the sex of the subordinate and the sex of the authority figure. The "friendlier" approach was viewed by most as being more effective when used against members of the opposite sex. Therefore when women treat other women leniently they are viewed negatively, but if women fail to treat me leniently they are viewed negatively. Ultimately, the passive approach is more expected to come from women, so they are evaluated negatively if they do not employ it against men, while these same actions are tolerated when committed by men (Jacobson et al., 1997).

            Their conclusions ultimately find that while men are evaluated based only on their behavior and the nature of that behavior, women are not. Instead, women are judged based on their behavior and that behavior is screened through a gendered lens to evaluate the acceptability of her actions.

            The other important aspect of the construction and maintenance of authority is the ability of authority figures and subordinates to communicate, and in what avenues. If an individual fears being overruled by an authority figure, they are less likely to trust their superior. In effect, lines of communication will be significantly restricted, showing  communication as a meter for measuring the level of trust and security. Additionally, the extent to which those in authority honor the ideas and acknowledges the concerns of subordinates will indicate the level of trust in the relationship (Aghion &Tirole, 1997).

            Communication, trust, and authority are inextricably linked. In order for an authority figure to obtain real power, it must be granted and consented to by those subordinated over which his or she has power. This process occurs when individuals collectively agree to respect the judgment of one individual to the point of guiding and supervising the others. The process by which they earn this respect depends on the levels of communication there are among the group (Seckmand & Couch, 1989).  

             Seckman and Couch find that the way that figures of authority use and participate in humor identifies their leadership style. The authors conceptualize jocularity and sarcasm as two distinct social acts that require analysis. It is explained that jocularity is the process of people laughing together. During this process, "social barriers, such as those of status, temporarily are lowered" (Seckman & Couch, 2000, p. 328).  In this view, jocularity indicates unity. Sarcasm, conversely, communicates "social distance." It indicates that someone needs to distance themselves from a certain activity, person, or activity. Although it is intended to create social distance, sarcasm requires a mutual understanding of the symbols that make language sarcastic (Seckman & Couch, 2000).

            Ultimately, it is concluded that there are differences in the perception of female and male authority figures based on their gender, their traditional roles, and the ways in which they exercise authority over subordinates. It is also relevant to note that there are different ways  in which authority figures acquire and maintain the trust of those they have power over. Additionally, the style of humor and communication manufactures relational differences among individuals.