21st Century Leadership: Issues of Gender in the Male-Dominated Chef Industry. An Analysis on How Theory Informs Practice to Develop Solutions.
Gender is a prevailing topic today, of which leaders must address the associated challenges. The Pipeline theory suggests that women in male-dominated professions provokes more gender equality in the labour market (Schewitzer et al, 2011). Over the past 40 years, women’s employment rate has risen from 53% to 67% whilst men’s has fallen from 92% to 76% (ONS, 2013). It would therefore be understandable to see a rise of women in male-dominated professions.
The proportion of women in the chef industry is rising from 18.4% in 2015, 22.2% in 2016, to 23.5% in 2017 (ONS, 2017), which presents challenges for leaders and followers. These include prejudice against women in the industry, fuelled by both employees and the media; and the job design regarding motherhood. This essay will explore these topics, using predominantly Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory because, like the challenges, it focuses on both leaders and followers (Schyns & Day, 2010). The actions discussed will refer to the appropriate organisational leader; albeit the professional title may vary, for example: head chef, restaurant manager, restaurant owner.
Chef job descriptions common list: communication, leadership, numeracy, time-keeping, and organisational skills. Such competencies are not traditional ‘masculine’ characteristics (Bakan, 1966, cited in Hawkins, 1983), but managerial competencies, of which many studies have concluded little gender differentiation (Landau, 1996; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1992, 1995; Ragins, 1991, cited in Cavallo & Brienza, 2006); as well as unvarying levels of job satisfaction between men and women leaders (Carless, 1998; Ragins, 1991; Osborn & Vicars, 1976, cited in Cavallo & Brienza, 2006).
Additionally, Goleman (2012) and Walter et al. (2012) believe that the individual’s emotional intelligence is a greater determinant of leadership performance rather than gender, whilst Kanter (1977, p199, cited in Eagly & Johannesen, 2007) reported ‘there is as yet no research evidence that makes a case for sex differences in either leadership aptitude or style’. Therefore, it is assumed that both genders are sufficiently competent for the industry, in any position.
Firstly, leaders face the challenge of the industry’s incompatibility with motherhood. Kludt (2016) refers to ‘the restaurant industry’s motherhood trap’ before detailing anonymous case studies, with one female chef permanently replaced during maternity leave; another asked to justify her pay the day of announcing her pregnancy; another, before entering a start-up restaurant with two men, discovered a contractual clause stating that partner’s equity was contingent on active employment; if she was to fall pregnant, she would lose her share. This highlights toxic attitudes within the industry, as well as a possible barrier to entry for women.
A survey (Stocking, 2016) found that 22% of women considered combining work and family their biggest career challenge. Although not specific to chefs, it highlights the overall employment issue with motherhood. Chefs often work long shifts and weeks; a challenge for childcare (Quereshi, 2012). From an operational perspective, restaurants’ unique selling point is often the head chef. If they were unable to work particular shifts or take maternity leave, this could cause uncertainty amongst the staff and customers, hindering organisational performance. Leaders should align job design with employees’ needs. For example, sufficient training so the restaurant successfully runs in the absence of a head chef; as the many male-dominated roles are becoming increasingly more androgynous, so should the job design (Northouse, 2013).
Prejudice around women in the chef industry originates not only from employees within the industry itself, but also the media, the causes of which are two-fold. Firstly, the lack of female chef idols, contrary to men. For example, Marco Pierre White, Gordon Ramsay and Jamie Oliver, attained success in the industry, opened restaurants, hosted multiple television programmes and the latter two awarded OBE and MBE respectively (Cooke, 2015; Whittle, 2017; Cadwalladr, 2014). Successful female chefs are already promoting themselves to overthrow the industry stereotypes (Henderson, 2017; Olbrich, 2016; Quershi, 2012), however there is still preconception: the caveat of “female chef”, which Rosy Rong, rising chef, exclaims: ‘female chef. I’m just a chef!’ (Oblrich, 2016, p.1). Other than methods already adopted, there is weak influence over the mass media. However, leaders hold more influence on the judgements and opinions of employees, in particular their subordinates.
LMX theory focuses on the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2013), whereby leaders engage in differential relationships amongst followers (Liden et al, 2006). This creates an in-group and out-group, where in-group members are given greater responsibility, rewards and attention (Lunenburg, 2010) thus empowering them (Chen et al, 2007) and increasing productivity from greater motivation (Chen, Lam & Zhong, 2007).
Additional time and effort spent on their job is perceived by in-group members as worthwhile, as they are committed to the success of the organisation (Lunenburg, 2010) and receive privileges such as contact with superiors (Harris, Wheeler and Kacmar, 2009). In contrast, members of the out-group engage in a more contractual relationship, where followers fulfil the obligations set out by contract (Henderson et al, 2009) rather than participating in additional duties; a limitation of LMX theory.
Women in male-dominated industries can feel alienated (Stocking, 2016), akin out-group members when leaders form higher-quality relationships with followers of similar attributes (Murphy & Ensher, 1999). However, Peakon (2016) found that women are most motivated by organisational fit and strategy (see Appendix 1) and Pfeffer and Fong (2015, cited in Elias, 2008) state an important benefit towards job satisfaction is social relationships at work. Therefore, the divide created by the existence of such in-group and out-group could be detrimental to the female workforce motivation and commitment. It should be an aim of leaders to concentrate on the quality of the dyadic relationship between themselves and each subordinate, developing away from in-group and out-group dynamics, to include all members of the team.
Additionally, women could be disadvantaged when working to progress their career due to homosocial reproduction, where decision-makers have the tendency to maintain their group to the image of themselves, and scrutinize others’ performance (Kanter, 1977). Although tokens usually represent a minority of 15% or lower (Shore et al, 2011), tokenism effects may still occur. Depending on the individual, performance pressures and high visibility can motivate, a means to prove women’s worth in the industry, or the contrary, due to discomforts of such pressure (Shore et al, 2011; Peakon, 2016).
However, a study (Hewstone et al, 2006, cited in Shore et al, 2011) found that women in workplaces composed of 92% men feel no more visible or less job satisfaction than in workplaces of 73% men. The lack of changing perception of tokenism effects within a 19% male-dominance fall suggests that more women entering the chef industry may not cause significant change for alienation of women; placing greater importance on culture change, over recruitment targets to simply increase women in the industry.
A survey (Stocking, 2016) found that 38% of women found workplace culture their greatest career challenge. At the core of culture is understanding about appropriate ways individuals relate to one another to make the group comfortable, safe and productive (Schein, 2004). Industry evidence suggests the leadership challenges and issues predominantly emerge from workplace culture; so leaders should work to create an inclusive culture, resulting in greater organisational fit and commitment, thus motivation and job satisfaction (Northouse, 2013; Peakon, 2016).
Culture change is a long, complex process. By prioritizing culture, a dialogue can occur that allows subordinates to understand where the goals originated from (Lund, 2003; Wardley, 2006). Catalysing change within an organisation should involve members from all levels to ensure greatest success (Wardley, 2006). Leaders could identify the natural leaders amongst subordinates, recognized as charismatic leaders under transformational leadership, to support the process (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993).
Charisma allows leaders to vividly deliver their message to capture subordinates’ attention (Conger, 1989; Levitt, 1986; cited in Schein, 2004). This can be achieved by adopting relevant elements of the transformational leadership process, such as idealized influence and inspirational motivation (Bass and Avolio, 1994, cited in Miner, 2005), as well as adopting behaviours of individualized support and articulating a vision (Podsakoff et al, 1990). To further motivate, the leader can praise followers’ natural leadership skills and present the opportunity as a challenge, communicating high expectations of the selected followers; inspirational motivation under transformational leadership (Northouse, 2013). Additionally, commitment to change is greatened through feedback (Wardley, 2006).
Considering French and Raven’s (1959, cited in Elias, 2008) Power Taxonomy, the leader could exploit their legitimate positional power to influence subordinates’ judgement on female chefs (Elias, 2008). However, should a leader exert this power upon a subordinate, it could see a breakdown in social relationships and create distance, especially if role-making, the second stage of role-negotiation has occurred, whereby the leader and subordinate have previously entered negotiations about how expectations of roles are fulfilled (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kelley and Bisel, 2014).
Alternatively, if the leader is a highly skilled chef, they may be able to utilise personal power as a communication platform of reasoning to their subordinates (Kotter, 1990), which may influence opinions on women in the industry to reflect that of the leader, because they may be more informed and experienced (Mulder et al, 1986). Additionally, leaders could use referent power, gained through similarities and relationships within the in-group; a common compliance strategy employed by leaders to influence subordinates (Cialdini, 2009; Lunenburg, 2010).
Finally, leaders could use intellectual stimulation under transformational leadership to encourage assistance with change from individuals independently identifying the issue (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Northouse, 2013). However, this is most likely to influence a member of the out-group, and therefore may lack the effect of in-group members who have referent power.
The success in changing the workplace culture to provide equal opportunities for women is contingent on the quality of leadership (Schein, 2004) amongst other determinants such as ethnocentrism, whereby individuals give priority and value to their own beliefs, above those of other groups (Northouse, 2013). With the additional complication of resistance to change, (Hon, Bloom & Crant, 2014) leaders changing the culture and beliefs of subordinates is complex and should not be underestimated.
Social Identity theory, whereby individuals evaluate themselves based on membership to groups (Taifel et al, 2004), and Social Proof, the principle of determining what is correct by what others believe (Cialdini, 2009), means it becomes unattractive for members of the in-group to contend the status quo and risk detriment to their in-group relationships. Also, those in the out-group may wish their relationships to remain unchanged, abstain from social interaction and concentrate on the task at hand, like Clare Smyth, first female chef with three Michelin stars, reported (Quereshi, 2016); all of which could hinder the leaders’ process.
Another major consideration is the reaction and effects on the existing workforce. Murphy and Ensher (1999, cited in Lunenburg, 2010) state that usually, the perception of similarity is more important than demographic similarities amongst in-groups. Chef in-groups more often consist of demographic similarities, suggesting that men in the industry may be attracted due to its male-dominancy. Furthermore, ramification of dissimilarity in beliefs and expectations amongst a workforce could inhibit LMX group consensus and excellence (Hiller and Day, 2003, cited in Lunenburg, 2010).
However, it is common for individuals to leave an organization when some disagree on matters, resulting in a more homogenous workplace for those who remain (Schein, 2004) thus an easier workforce to build strong relationships with (Lunenburg, 2010). This also allows leaders to replace staff, which can be beneficial because a major source of culture change is values, assumptions and beliefs introduced by new members (Schein, 2004). This will also support the leader when revising employment practices and patterns of work to better suit a diverse workforce (Spencer and Prodmore, 1987) regarding specifically motherhood and equal opportunities.
Overall, there are many issues and leadership challenges regarding women in the male-dominated chef industry. Some, such as media prejudice are hard to influence, however others such as prejudice and job design are more auspicious. Leaders should focus on ramifications they can impact and rely on emerging leaders of their workforce for assistance to ensure effective adaptation to today’s workforce.
Bibliography
Cadwalladr, C. (2014). Jamie Oliver’s Foodtube: why he’s taking the food revolution online. [online] The Guardian. [Accessed 7 Dec. 2017].
Cavallo, K. and Brienza, D. (2006). ‘Emotional Competence and Leadership Excellence at Johnson & Johnson. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 2(1).
Chen, G., Kirkman, B., Kanfer, R., Allen, D. and Rosen, B. (2007). ‘A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), pp.331-346.
Chen, Z, Lam, W. and Zhong J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Pscyhology, 92(1), pp.202-212.
Cialdini, R. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 5.
Cooke, R. (2015). Marco Pierre White: My work was a painkiller – it wa where I hid. [online] The Guardian. [Accessed 10 Dec. 17].
Eagly, A. & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. (2007). Leadership style matters: the small, but important, style differences between male and female leaders. Handbook on Women Management. UK: Edward Elgar, pp.279-303.
Elias, S. (2008). Fifty years of influence in the workplace. Journal of Management History, 14(3), pp.267-283.
Goleman, D. (2012). Emotional intelligence and leadership. [online] [Accessed 31 Oct. 2017].
Graen, G. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multi-domain perspective’, The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2).
Harris, K., Wheeler, A. and Kacmar, K. (2009). ‘Leader–member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance’, The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), pp.371-382.
Hawkins, B. (1983). Agency and Communication: An Alternative to Masculinity and Femininity. pp.1-22.
Henderson, D., Liden, R., Glibkowski, B. and Chaudhry, A. (2009). ‘LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes’, The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), pp.517-534.
Henderson, E. (2017). Where are all the female chefs?. [online] The Independent. [Accessed 16 Oct. 2017]
Hon, A., Bloom, M. and Crant, M. (2014). ‘Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing creative performance’. Journal of Management, 40(3), pp.919-941.
Kanter, R. (1997). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kotter, J. (1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: Free Press, pp.3-76.
Liden, R., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. and Sparrowe, R. (2006). ‘Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and group performance’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), pp.723-746.
Lund, D. (2003). ‘Organisational culture and job satisfaction’. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18(3), pp.219-236.
Lunenburg, F. (2010). ‘Leader-member exchange theory: another perspective on the leadership process’. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 3(1).
Miner, J. (2005). Organisational Behaviour: Essential theories on motivation and leadership. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc., 1, pp.337-380.
Monaghan, A. (2017). UK gender pay gap narrows to lowest for 20 years – but is still 9.1%. The Guardian. [online] [Accessed 28 Nov. 17].
Mulder, M., De Jong, R., Koppelaar, L. and Verhage, J. (1986). ‘Power, situation, and leader’s effectiveness: an organizational field study’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), pp.566-570.
Murphy, S. and Ensher, E. (1999). ‘The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in the development of leader-member exchange quality’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29(7), 1371-1394.
Olbrich, S. (2016). Where are there so many female chefs? The Guardian. [online] [Accessed 28 Nov. 17].
ONS. (2017). Employment by occupation. [online] Office for National Statistics. [Accessed 31 Oct. 2017].
ONS. (2016). Overview of the UK population: February 2016. [online] Office for National Statistics. [Accessed 28 Nov. 17].
ONS. (2013). Full report – Women in the labour market. [online] Office for National Statistics. [Accessed 28 Nov. 17].
Peakon. (2016). ‘Understanding male and female motivation in the workplace’. Peakon Engagement Report. [online] [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., and Fetter, R. (1990). ‘Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors’. Leadership Quarterly, Bloomington: JAI Press Inc., 1(2), pp.107-142.
Qureshi, H. (2012). Clare Smyth: ‘Having a woman in the kitchen makes men behave’. The Guardian. [online] [Accessed 28 Nov. 17]
Schein, E. (2004). Organisational Culture and Leadership. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 3, pp.178-187; 223-335.
Schewitzer, L., Ng, E., Lyons, S. and Kuron, L. (2011). ‘Exploring the career pipeline: gender differences in pre-career expectations’. Industrial Relations, Laval University Industrial Relations Department, 66(3), pp.422-444.
Schyns, B. and Day, D. (2010) ‘Critique and review of leader-member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence’. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19 (1). pp.1-29.
Shamir, B., House, R., and Arthur, M. (1993). ‘The emotional effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory’. Organization Science. INFORMS, 4(4), pp.577-594.
Shore, L., Randel, A., Chung, B., Dean, M., Holcombe Ehrhart, K. and Singh, G. (2011). ‘Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research’. Journal of Management, 37(4), pp.1262-1289.
Spencer, A. and Prodmore, D. (1987). In a Man’s World. London: Tavistock Publications, pp.158-202.
Stocking, B. (2016). Male-dominated culture alienates talented women. [online] Financial Times. [Accessed 28 Nov. 17].
Tajfel, H., Turner, C., Jost, T., and Sidanius, J. (2004). Political Psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
Wardley, D. (2006). ‘How to…use culture as a catalyst for change’. People Management, 12(9), pp.42-43.
Walter, F., Humphrey, R., Cole, M. (2012). ‘Unleashing leadership potential: Toward an evidence-based management of emotional intelligence’. Organizational Dynamics, (41), pp212-219.
Whittle, N. (2017). ‘I’m a big guy. I know what to do’: Gordon Ramsay. [online] Financial Times. [Accessed 29 Nov. 17].
+447462439809