I found it very interesting to read and watch about the emergence of the women’s suffrage movement and the development of leadership styles associated, or not, with different genders. The piece by Rosner focused primarily on data of the ways women lead, classifying it as ‘interactive leadership’ where there are “efforts to encourage participation and share power and information… [and] inclusion is at the core of interactive leadership” (Rosner 151). I am glad the Schein reading was paired with this, because, in my opinion, the Schein reading added a dimension that the Rosner reading lacked. Schein focused on how attention should be focused on “erasing the differences between the sexes … to provide opportunities for the most qualifies of either sex” (Schein 167). The point was that categorizing leadership styles by gender is not accurate, because leadership is not neatly gender divisible. Schein’s ideas work to have interactive leadership as a leadership style that can be used by any gender and the chosen style dependent on each unique situation.
During this past summer, I saw interactive leadership where I was working. Every Monday, our department would meet in the morning to give status updates on projects and clients we were working with. My manager used this time to either field new ideas or have others field new ideas about various projects/events/etc that were going on. I think it was a great example of interactive leadership, because everyone was encouraged to speak up, give advice, or give help to others so we would all accomplish our goals.
It seems like interactive leadership is a great way to go. However, I wonder how easily this can turn into groupthink. Is there a good amount of interactive leadership that would be ideal, as you described having weekly meetings?