Post 1Read Chapter 2Chin, J. L. & Trimble, J. E. (2015)

Post 1
Read: Chapter 2
Chin, J. L. & Trimble, J. E. (2015). Diversity and
leadership. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Discussion: 1
1. Discuss the difference between global and diverse leadership.
2. Identify instances of multicultural incompetence that you
may have observed in the leadership within different
organizations.
Post 2
Read: Chapter 3
Chin, J. L. & Trimble, J. E. (2015). Diversity and leadership.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Discussion: 2
1. How do race, ethnicity, and gender of a leader influence the
exercise of leadership?
2. Distinguish between paternalistic and maternalistic styles of
leadership; what cultural factors would have to be in place for
one or the other styles to work effectively?
Post 3
Read: Chapter 4
Chin, J. L. & Trimble, J. E. (2015). Diversity and leadership.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Discussion: 3
1. What is leader identity and how does it interface with our
other social identities?
2. Some leaders walk a fine line between being openly visible
and quietly invisible about their identities. Discuss the
question: Do you bring all of yourself to work? Discuss why or

why not.
Assignment 1 – Case Study
A case study can be described as express a “problem that needs
to be addressed or… a story of success that has to be shared and
publicized…[and can be related to] a single individual, group or
any other entity but it can carry the power of representing facts
of a whole area” (fundsforngos, 2012, para. 1).
Identify a case study article associated with a diversity issues
within an organization or institution. You should identify an
article applicable to issues similar to your individual work
setting. If you are switching careers, it is recommended you
apply your course work to that specific setting. The assignment
should be divided into three sections: (a) research and identify
the article…providing a rationale as to why the article was
chosen, (b) the case study analysis, and (c) the application to
organizational leadership and recommendations/conclusions.
Background, data included in the article, and other information
related to the case should be provided in your assignment. Do
not present the solution to the problem within the case itself,
but provide your suggestions at the end of the case.
This paper should have a minimum of 5-7 current scholarly
references to support your findings and should be 8 - 10 pages
in length (not including cover page, Table of Contents, or
Reference Page).
Additional sources to assist with Assignment 1:
How to write a Case Study – A Guide for NGOs: (fundsforngos,

2012)
http://www.fundsforngos.org/guides/write-case-study-guide-
ngos-2 (Links to an external site.)
How to Analyze a Case Study (Pearson, 2010)
http://wps.prenhall.com/bp_laudon_essbus_7/48/12303/3149605
.cw/content/index.html (Links to an external site.)
Making a Business Case for Change Management (Prosci, n.d.)
https://www.prosci.com/change-management/thought-
leadership-library/making-a-business-case-for-change-
management (Links to an external site.)
Assignment 1 Rubric – 20 points
Content
10 points
Writing/Grammar
6 points
APA/Format
4 points
Total
20
1 Leadership for the 21st Century
Notable Quote: On 21st Century Leadership
“Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and
followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual
purposes” (Rost, 1991, p. 102).
“Besides practical needs, there are important reasons to examine
the impact of culture on leadership” (House, Javidan, Hanges, &
Dorfman, 2002, p. 3).
Vignette on “How to Become a Great Leader”
… But today’s crises never completely mirror yesterday’s, and
it would be better in the first place to build leaders who can
prevent crises before they arise. In my view, a great leader is
inspiring, uplifting, a uniter of differences, and someone who
brings out the best in human aspirations. I named this model
“the soul of leadership” and set out to see if leaders with a soul

could be trained. Knowing that business, politics, and the
military are not spiritual enterprises, I didn’t formulate the
training along “soft” or idealistic lines. Instead, I used a “hard”
criterion: what groups actually need. If you aspire to be a great
leader, the first requirement is that you look and listen so that
you can find out the true needs that a situation demands to be
fulfilled. (Chopra, 2013, p. 1)
Leadership today is more important than ever as the 21st
century brings about rapid and significant change in society and
our institutions and challenges the way in which we do business
and function in organizational settings. Our future will be
different from what our reality is today. Our skills and how we
practice them in the future are likely to be unknown to us today.
We need to prepare our citizens to serve as leaders during times
of uncertainty and equip them with skills that we may not even
know exist if they are to be relevant and effective as leaders.
What kind of leaders do we prepare and train our citizens to
become? The psychology of leadership should add to our
understanding of who become our leaders, what the process of
communication and exchange is between leaders and their
members, how leaders and members develop shared outcomes,
and what the nature of the organizations in which leadership
occurs is. Answers to these questions will, in turn, have
implications for how we select our leaders, how leaders access
leadership roles, and how leaders exercise leadership once in
these roles.
Schwartz (2010) talks about how humanity has entered three
great transformations. The first occurred when human beings
moved from a survival strategy of hunting and gathering to a
state of civilization based on agriculture. The second began
with the Industrial Revolution of the mid-20th century. We are
now on the cusp of the third Great Transformation—the
revolutionary advance of science and technology. This has also
been coined the Digital Age, a time in which the world about us
is changing rapidly because of advances in technology,
communication, and mobility. Schwartz summarizes how we are

seeing dramatic increases in life, new patterns of human
migration, a consortium of nations bound together by their
common need for lawful collaboration as well as groups able to
unleash terror and disruption to the rest of the world.
Changing Population Demographics: Multicultural Perspectives
While nations were presumably homogenous in the racial and
ethnic make-up of their populations during the 20th century,
researchers could construct profiles of national character and
identity. The United States has been no different in creating the
image of an American; although uniquely known as a “land of
immigrants,” it led the movement toward diversity. It is ironic
that its main symbol of the “American dream” as a “land of
equal opportunity” ignores its history of having nearly
obliterated its indigenous population, the American Indians,
enslaved the Black American population, and promoted a
melting pot myth based on the expectation of conformity by new
immigrants to a White and Westernized image of being
American. During the 19th century, the United States saw the
end to slavery but not to segregation based on race and gender.
Following WWII in the 20th century, the look inward within the
United States promoted racial and gender equality in the
workforce. With a growing non-White racial and ethnic
minority population, demands for attention to diversity
escalated. Predictions were that by the year 2050, shifting
population demographics would result in non-White
racial/ethnic groups becoming 50% of the U.S. population (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2013). Hence, an attention to diversity was
considered good business, quality services, and ethical practice.
Questions of equity and representation, typified by the Civil
Rights and Women’s movements of the 1960s, framed the
debate.
Now in the 21st century, diversity has given way to globalism.
The growth of multinational organizations mirrors the
increasing diversity of the U.S. population and communities—
challenging our notions of effective management strategies
while diverse individuals also seek and gain access to

leadership roles. We now see our world, our institutions, our
communities, and countries throughout the world facing
changing population demographics and becoming increasingly
more global and diverse. Many countries globally are now more
heterogeneous due to ease of migration, changing economic
conditions, and the growth of multinational organizations.
Ethnic minority groups in the United States and globally share a
common experience of oppression and discrimination; they
increasingly demand equality and access to society’s resources.
Women dare to challenge the masculinized social norm in
countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Although many
societies have evolved to promote greater gender equality,
gender access to “simple” things, such as an education or what a
woman wears, still gives rise to violence against women.
Malala Yousafzai, a 15-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl, was shot
in the head and neck in an assassination attempt by a Taliban
gunman while on a school bus in October 2012 because she was
campaigning for girls’ education (Ellis, 2013). Since the age of
11, using a pseudonym, she had been writing a blog for the
BBC. She has been hailed as an inspiration for her bravery, and
will receive the Tipperary International Peace Award. Other
women have been gang raped, burned with acid, or beaten for
daring to drive in the 21st century. The world now responds
with indignation, unlike earlier centuries where women were
burned at the stake like Joan of Arc for heresy at the age of 19
and the “witches” of Salem where no one dared to protest. In
these contexts, cultural norms and beliefs are so strong about
gender role expectations they have led to discrimination and
violence.
Countries face intergroup conflicts because of the historical
dominance of one or more groups. Civil wars, intergroup
tension, and violence arise because of religious, ethnic, or racial
differences. Power and privilege are associated with those from
dominant groups while prevailing culture norms
Changing Demographics and Ethnic Distributions

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2050, the U.S.
population will reach more than 600 million, about 47% larger
than in the year 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The primary
ethnic minority groups—namely, Latinas and Latinos, African
Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, Alaska
Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders—will
constitute over 50% of the population. About 57% of the
population younger than age 18 and 34% older than age 65 will
be ethnic minorities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The
demographic profile based on the 2010 census indicates that
during the past decade (2000), the growth rate of Latinos was
eight times faster than that of Whites. Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders also had a rapid growth rate in part because of
immigration from Southeast Asia and China. For Latinos,
increased immigration and high birth rates explain the
population increase. Projections for the year 2020 suggest that
Latinos will be the largest ethnic group, second only to White
Americans, and followed by African Americans.
Currently, Latinos and Latinas number 51 million persons,
about 16% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013),
and comprise a diversity of races and countries of origin (e.g.,
Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Colombia, Argentina). The largest
groups of Latinos and Latinas are Mexican Americans (63%);
next are Puerto Ricans (9%), followed by Cubans (4%).
Collective countries from Central America (8%) and South
Americans (6%) represent higher percentages than Puerto Rico
and Cuba though.
The estimates indicate that African Americans number about 35
million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Among them are
notable group differences in terms of socioeconomic levels,
urban or rural areas, and within-group cultural variation. Much
of the psychological treatment of African Americans has
focused on the relation of social conditions, such as poverty and
unemployment, to adverse health and mental health outcomes
(Rodríguez, Allen, Frongillo, & Chandra, 1999). However, a
growing number of African American scholars have

demonstrated the need for more examination of cultural
strengths such as communalism (Mattis & Jagers, 2001),
spirituality, and an interpersonal orientation (emphasis on group
over individual) (Randolph & Banks, 1993).
Asian Americans number 14,674,252 and Pacific Islanders and
Native Hawaiians number 540,013 in the United States (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2013). There are 32 different cultural groups
with distinct ethnic or national identities and different religions,
histories, languages, and traditions that are included within the
category of Asian American. The most numerous Asian groups
in the United States are Filipinos, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese,
Vietnamese, and Asian Indians. As with other immigrants,
Asian immigrants have migrated to the United States for
political and economic reasons and face the stresses of
acculturation, racism, and language barriers.
On the basis of the 2010 census, the U.S. Census Bureau (2013)
declared that 2,932,248 citizens are American Indians and
Alaska Natives—an 18% difference from the 2000 census, when
the figure was 2,475,956. The 2010 count represents less than
one tenth of 1% of the total U.S. population of 308,745,538. On
the basis of the 1960 census, the Census Bureau reported that
552,000 residents of the United States were American Indians
(in 1960, the Census Bureau did not include an Alaska Native
category, so this figure may be an undercount). Thus, between
1960 and 2010, the American Indian population apparently grew
by over 400%. This rapid population increase is staggering and
strains credulity, because such rates of increase are almost
unheard of in the field of demography. One explanation for the
increase may be that many more individuals chose to identify
with their American Indian heritage in 2010 than did so in 1960
and 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).
Considering the increasing ethnic and cultural diversity
occurring in the United States, attention should be given to the
growing Muslim population. According to a recent survey,
Muslims represent about 2% of the U.S. populations. A 2011
study conducted by the Pew Foundation found that the majority

of Muslims are African Americans, Arabs, and Asians and that
overall Muslims come from 77 different countries (Pew
Research Center, 2011). The U.S. Census Bureau does not
collect information on one’s religious affiliation or preferences;
hence, the census tallies on the Muslim populations are
estimates. Muslims are immigrant populations and thus their
cultural backgrounds contribute to the growing diversity in the
United States.
Although there is overlap with the Muslim population, there are
also growing numbers of immigrants from Arab speaking
countries. According to the Arab American Institute (AAI),
countries of origin for Arab Americans include 21 different
groups with distinct ethnic or national identities, histories,
languages, and traditions; these include the following: Egypt,
Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi
Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria. In 2008, there were
3,500,000 Arab Americans, accounting for 1.14% of the
American population. The largest subgroup is by far the
Lebanese Americans, with 501,907, nearly a third of the Arab
American population, followed by Egyptians and Syrians.
In the 2000 and 2010 census, individuals had the option of
marking more than one “race” category and so were able to
declare identification with more than one group. For example,
whereas less than 3% of the total U.S. population chose to do
so, more than 5,220,579 individuals who chose to mark multiple
categories marked “American Indian and Alaska Native” along
with one or more others. The “race alone or in combination”
count is much higher than the “race alone” counts of 2,932,248
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The discrepancy raises the
question about which count is more accurate or representative
of the “true” Indian population, 2,932,248 or 5,220,579.
Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders listed more “race
alone or in combination” (55.9%) than any other race group.
American Indians and Alaska Natives followed with 43.8%,
Asian were 15.3%, Black or African American were at 74%, and
White was at 3.2% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

People with mixed ethnic backgrounds present interesting ethnic
identity cases because they have at least two ethnic groups from
which to claim and negotiate an ethnic declaration. Based on
extensive interviews with people of mixed ethnic background,
the clinical psychologist Maria P. Root (1992) identified four
basic reasons why a multiethnic person would choose to identify
with a particular group regardless of how others may view them.
Root maintains that: “(1) One enhances his or her sense of
security by understanding a distinct part of his or her ethnic
heritage; (2) parental influences stimulated by the
encouragement of grandparents promote identity, thereby
granting permission to the offspring to make a choice; (3)
racism and prejudice associated with certain groups lead to
sharing experiences with family, thereby assisting the
individual to develop psychological skills and defenses to
protect himself or herself (the shared experiences help build
self-confidence and create the sense that one can cope with the
negative elements often associated with the group); and (4)
gender alignment between parents and children may exert
influence on ethnic and racial socialization particularly when
they have good relationships and are mutually held in esteem”
(p. 15). Use of the new multiracial item created contentious
debates and
Table 1.1 Management Environment Transitions From the 20th
Century to the 21st Century
20th Century
21st Century
1. High percentage of manufacturing industries
1. High percentage of service industries
2. Emphasis on functional expertise
2. Emphasis on management processes
3. Domestic market
3. Foreign markets & cultures
4. Legitimate authority in hierarchical organizational structure

4. Virtual team & network organizational structures
5. Clearly defined operating procedures
5. Fluid & reactive operating procedures
6. Well-defined industry boundaries
6. Ill-defined industry boundaries
7. Fairly constant market
7. Turbulent market
8. Bricks & mortar
8. Virtual offices
9. Communication slow & unreliable
9. Communication instantaneous & continuous
10. Technology growth emerging
10. Technology growth exponential
11. Many employees with similar responsibilities & skills
11. Many employees with unique responsibilities & skills
Source. From Harvey, M.G., & Buckley, M.R. (2002). Assessing
the “conventional wisdoms”of management for the 21st century
organization. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 368–378.
As both studies show, leadership for the 21st century means an
ability to lead in an increasing global and diverse society;
amidst rapid scientific and social change, in a sustainable
environment given climate change, population growth and
migration and natural resources; and within a digital age of
rapid information dissemination. Leaders must address
increased diversity in their institutions and communities,
increasing change, complexity, and interdependence. Leaders
will need to be flexible, continuous and lifelong learners, and
recognize differences in the values and assumptions held among
diverse groups. They will need to be collaborative, share
leadership, and learn collective styles of leadership. They will
need to be critical thinkers, global leaders, and adaptive in their
leadership styles. While this is new in many Western countries,
it has been noted to be indigenous in many “developing
countries” or non-Western countries.
There is a need for leadership and organizational theories that
transcend cultures to understand what works and what does not

work in different cultural settings (Triandis, 1993).
Furthermore, a focus on cross-cultural issues can help
researchers uncover new relationships by forcing investigators
to include a much broader range of variables often not
considered in contemporary leadership theories, such as the
importance of religion, ethnic background, history, and political
systems (Dorfman, 1996).
The importance of context in the 21st century leads us to
reexamine our concepts of leadership. We need to ask new
questions, create new paradigms, and identify new dimensions
to expand our thinking about how leadership is perceived,
enacted, and appraised. Paradigms need to be inclusive and
diverse to consider the perspectives of those not typically in the
positions of leadership, or defining the theories of leadership,
and of all members who participate, shape, and influence the
enactment of leadership within the broader social and
organizational contexts in which leadership is embedded.
Diversity leadership puts our focus on “who our leaders are”
and “what they bring” from their lived experiences and
dimensions of identity to the exercise of leadership.
We see global and diverse as related, but not interchangeable,
terms. Diverse leadership is defined as different and varied,
including the social identities of leaders as well as the types of
leadership related to group differences of citizens within
countries. Its use in psychology has often been associated with
issues of disparate power, privilege, and equity among different
groups within a country or culture. Subgroups within a country
or culture with less privilege and power, who are often in the
minority, share the common experience of oppression and
inequity as well as a common affinity as members of a social
group different from the mainstream or dominant group. Hence,
a diverse perspective involves looking at differences between
these social groups.
Global leadership, on the other hand, is defined as worldwide,
international, and intercultural; it includes cross-cultural
differences between societies and countries. While power,

privilege, and equity may apply, its use has been associated
with an examination of differences based on economic,
political, and cultural forces worldwide and across
governmental entities. A global perspective involves looking
beyond geographic boundaries of one’s country.
We move from defining leadership to examining the purpose of
leadership. Allen et al. (2010) define it to be as follows: (1)
Create a supportive environment where people can thrive, grow,
and live in peace with one another; (2) promote harmony with
nature and thereby provide sustainability for future generations;
(3) create communities of reciprocal care and shared
responsibility—one where every person matters and each
person’s welfare and dignity is respected and supported; the
senior author adds: (4) use a difference paradigm to promote
inclusiveness.Summary
Leadership today is more important than ever as the 21st
century brings about rapid and significant change in society and
our institutions and challenges the way in which we do business
and function in organizational settings. Changing population
demographics, both locally and globally, suggest that our
models of leadership and cadre of leaders need to be less
ethnocentric and more diverse if we are to be successful in
responding to these rapid changes and leadership needs. And
yet, researchers of leadership and their resultant models seldom
incorporate diversity into their formulations. Moreover, the
ranks of leadership remain narrow; despite the growing numbers
of women and racial and ethnic minority groups in the
workforce, they remain significantly underrepresented in the
ranks of leadership throughout most industry sectors. As we
witness global changes in world leadership and a shift to a
digital age that is postindustrial, redefining leadership to be
global and diverse is essential. This should lead the way to
identifying competencies and new paradigms for diversity
leadership.

2 Dimensions of Diversity
Notable Quote: On Being Extraordinary!
As one Asian American female leader who is an Army colonel
said, “As a minority, you have to do extraordinary things to get
to where you are; White men just have to be ordinary.”
On Being Female!
“As Deputy Commissioner and a lawyer, I worked with the mob.
You had to be tough. As a woman, if I was soft, I was seen as
weak; if I was tough, then I was a bitch. Men get away with it.”
(Asian American female leader)
Vignette: On Microaggression and Privilege
I was talking with a “prominent” White male at a cocktail
reception. We were joined by a second White male who
interrupts us, ignoring me to begin a conversation of his own.
Recognizing this slight, the “prominent” White male introduces
us. I soon leave this conversation to join another group. The
second White male again joins my conversation and is asked by
the other parties if he knows me. His response was: “Of course I
do, she knows [1st prominent White male].” I gained instant
credibility by my association with the first “prominent” White
male although I was totally marginalized by his interruption and
making me invisible in the first encounter. (Senior author,
Asian American female leader)
examined the changing contexts of today’s leadership and our
need to redefine leadership amidst the global and diverse
environment of the 21st century. The inclusion of diversity into
our understanding of leadership is central to this book using a
difference framework. In this chapter, we merge the concepts
and the literature in diversity and leadership. Attention to
diversity is about valuing differences and inclusion of all
groups. Attention to diversity, however, is not simply about
representation of diverse leaders in the ranks of leadership. It is
not simply about under-representation or affirmative action.
Attention to diversity means paradigm shifts in our theories of

leadership to be inclusive of all who may lead; it means
incorporating how dimensions of diversity shape our
understanding of leadership. It means attention to the perception
and expectations of diverse leaders by members and to the
interactive and reciprocal process between leaders and members
who shape access, exercise, and appraisal of leadership.
Ultimately, diversity leadership is about what diverse leaders
contribute to the exercise of leadership and about the diversity
of contexts and members in which their leadership is embedded.
Although leadership theories have evolved and reflect changing
social contexts, they remain silent on issues of equity, diversity,
and social justice. Diversity leadership is about how differences
and inclusion are reflected in the paradigms used to define
leadership and evaluate its effectiveness.
Culture and Ethnicity in Leadership
Having a paradigm of diversity leadership enables leaders to
develop culturally competent models for 21st century leadership
that are characterized by new social contexts, rapid
technological change, emerging global concerns, and changing
population demographics. Many studies have pointed to the
centrality of culture in affecting leader and follower behavior
(Gertsner & Day, 1994; Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges,
Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Triandis, 1995; Trompenaars
& Hampden-Turner, 1998); most of these studies examine cross-
cultural differences and variation across national origin and
cultures. There is often a presumption of cultural homogeneity
within countries and among its leaders and members. Many
leadership and cross-cultural studies are designed to eliminate
heterogeneity.
The study of cultural values (Hofstede, 2001) and cultural
variation in worldviews (Sowell, 1994; Sue, 1978) can provide
insight into the challenges leaders face in new and changing
contexts of contemporary times. This is what remains stable
across contexts and carries over into leadership contexts.
Worldviews are the overall perspectives from which one sees
and interprets the world. They include a collection of beliefs

or value orientations about life and the universe and give
meaning to life’s purposes. Cultures have been found to vary in
the patterns of relationships that are valued, encouraged, and
appropriated to construct daily social interactions (Triandis,
1995). Five dimensions of worldviews, as described below, have
been identified to define much of human activity, and in turn,
what leaders do:
· Human Nature—Are people basically evil or are they basically
good? Are they born with a Tabula Rasa or a mixture of good
and evil? This influences how leaders view what they must do
to lead. Do they need to prohibit or prevent the dark side from
emerging or do they simply need to guide it?
· Relationship of People to the Environment—Are people
subject to the forces of nature? Are life’s goals to be in
harmony with nature or to overcome the forces of nature? This
influences social rules and organization structures that define
such things as land ownership, property rights. What does
progress mean? Do leaders approach change with a “conquer
and destroy” mentality, or do they work on being in harmony
with nature?
· Nature of Human Activity—Is human activity defined by one’s
Being or Doing? This will influence how leaders motivate their
members? Do leaders base their solutions on who people are or
what people must do? Or is human activity focused on where
people are headed, such as Being-in-Becoming?
· Nature of Interpersonal Relationships—Are our social and
leadership relationships lineal (hierarchical) or collateral
(egalitarian) based? Are they individual or collective based?
This will influence whether leaders emphasize the individual or
group in defining incentives and whether they come from a
position of authority or peer in their communications.
· Time Sense—Do people run their lives based on the past,
present, or future? Do they respect history, live for the moment,
or worry about the future? Is their sense of time fluid or fixed?
This can influence how leaders schedule meetings, whether they
emphasize being on time for meetings, and how planning

occurs.
Different cultures and societies show different profiles in their
worldviews with distinct profiles between Western and Eastern
societies typically emerging; however, diversity remains among
subgroups and individuals. In particular, the dimension of
Individualism versus Collectivism has often aligned with
Democratic versus Communist political regimes and with
Western versus Eastern countries, respectively. Becoming
versus Doing has also distinguished Eastern versus Western
views of human activity; the notion of being includes that of
“staying with” or being attuned to oneself. An emphasis
on Being as a worldview is reflected as: “It’s enough to just ‘
be.’” It’s not necessary to accomplish great things in life to feel
your life has been worthwhile. An emphasis on Becoming as a
worldview is reflected as follows: “The main purpose for being
placed on this earth is for one’s own inner development.” An
emphasis on Doing as a worldview
Table 2.1 Reframing Current Theories of Leadership
Theory
Dilemma
Reframing for Diversity Leadership
Trait
Focuses on who leaders are. Has failed to identify a universal
set of traits that distinguishes leaders.
Ethnocentric; not inclusive; traits are based on those already in
positions of leadership and may be biased against those groups
who have had poor access to leadership roles.
Shift to leader identity intersecting with dimensions of social
identities
Situational
Focuses on where leaders do it. Application of directive and
supportive dimensions across different contexts/situations.
Fiedler’s leader-match contingency theory uses the Least
Preferred Coworker Measure, is potentially harmful in not
attending to unconscious biases associated with dimensions of
diversity, for example, race.

Adaptability of leaders across diverse contexts; bicultural and
cognitive flexibility as a function of acculturation
Leadership Style
Focuses on what leaders do. Transformational leadership has
become favored in …

Post 1Read Chapter 2Chin, J. L. & Trimble, J. E. (2015)

More Related Content

Similar to Post 1Read Chapter 2Chin, J. L. & Trimble, J. E. (2015) (20)

More from anhcrowley (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Post 1Read Chapter 2Chin, J. L. & Trimble, J. E. (2015)