JAC Volume 14 Issue 1

For well over forty years, researchers in small group processes have studied the roles women play in work groups. We have learned about differences between female and male speech patterns, about the stereotypes that influence perceptions about male and female roles in small groups, and, specifically relevant for this study, about leadership emergence of females in small groups. This research in small groups has focused on oral interaction among group members where the group task is carried out primarily in speech. In this article, I examine female leadership emergence in small groups whose primary task is a written one. I show how perceptions of leadership in writing groups depend on both oral and written enactments and point out the relationship between the primary task, writing, and the role of the leader in collaborative writing groups.

Leadership emergence of women in small groups is fascinating--and troublesome: the small group becomes a microcosm of the larger society and the roles that men and women play out resemble those they play out in "real life." In society, women are often not recognized as leaders; often men assume or are assigned the role of leader arbitrarily as a function of their sex. This creates at least three problems in groups as well as in the society. First, the leadership of women may go unrecognized: they get little credit for that role. Second (and this is a consequence of the first problem), women may have little authority as leaders. Finally, the group, or society, may dysfunction because the real leader, in effect, cannot lead. These problems can create groups that do not perform well or, at least, not as well as they might.

I address these problems in this essay as I discuss three areas. First, I acquaint you with some of the research that has been conducted in gender and leadership in the literature of small group communication. Although the review in this article is by no means exhaustive, it does provide a basis for understanding the role of women in collaborative writing groups. Second, I present the findings of two research projects I conducted in which I examined women as emergent leaders in collaborative writing groups. Writing is a special type of task for a group, and while research in small group communication provides a framework for understanding how small groups work, it does not deal with the special exigencies of writing and the role that writing plays in group leadership. Third, I draw some implications for us who, as teachers, use groups in our writing classrooms. Teachers often assign roles to students in writing groups or allow students to assign roles at their initial meeting or early in the group process; one role is that of leader. What may be the implications for the group as well as for the students in that group when students are assigned to such roles rather than allowing a leader to emerge naturally? More importantly, what might be the consequences for female members of the groups if males are consistently assigned such roles?

Research in Small Group Communication

The complex picture created of women as emergent leaders in small groups is made even more complex because it occurs at the nexus of three concepts: leadership, gender, and small groups. I first discuss some ideas of leadership per se, then discuss some findings of women as emergent leaders. Even sorting out these two elements does not create a focused and coherent perspective on the issue of women and leadership. Although many studies in small group communication and social psychology have examined the differences between male and female leaders of small groups, I have chosen only those that are relevant to interpreting the findings in my own work.

Leadership, itself, has no one standard definition. Shaw states that although there are numerous definitions, "all have in common, explicitly or implicitly, the notion that leadership is an influence process which is directed toward goal achievement" (317). A leader is not the same as leadership: leadership is a process and a leader is a person. The distinction is crucial: in the same group, the leadership process can be carried out by more than one person. A single group may not have just one leader. A definition that I have accepted for leader, which seems to emerge from Shaw's definition of leadership, is suggested by Gouran and Geonetta: the person in the group who has most "influenced the group's overall progress toward achieving its objective" (49). Gouran and Geonetta also suggest that leadership is a perception of the group members, a view that I also accept and discuss later in this article.

Leadership has been studied from at least five different perspectives: the trait approach, style approach, situational approach, life-cycle approach, and functional approach (Cragan and Wright 201-02; Fisher and Ellis 226-48). The trait approach suggests that leaders are born with personal characteristics that make them leaders (Fisher and Ellis 226); they also may have acquired them environmentally (Napier and Gershenfeld 234). These traits are enacted by an individual across situations. The traits approach to the study of leadership is"unsatisfactory" because no universal set of traits seems to emerge for all leaders in all situations (Fisher and Ellis 227). The second is the style approach: how a leader leads. This approach identifies three styles of leadership: autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire. The third, the situational-contingency approach, states that who leads a group depends on a particular situation; different situations will call upon different people to lead (Lumsden and Lumsden 272). The situation may be related to the type of task (problem-solving, social, and so on), the membership of the group (group motivation, personalities, levels of expertise) and the leader (personality, commitment, competence) Thus, members of groups often look for different types of leaders depending on the situation in which they find themselves and the task they must accomplish. Within this situational context, Husband identified four types of behavioral patterns of leadership in which control was a major factor. Positional leaders and political leaders exert high control over subordinates. Administrative leaders encourage participation and also attended to the procedural matters of the group. Relational leaders encourage participation but also are very "person-centered." Husband noted that "environmental, contextual, and situational demands surrounding leadership activity certainly frame, if not determine, the direction and nature" of leadership (117). The life-cycle approach focuses on the relationship between leader and followers, and suggests that "a leader's role is determined by the maturity of the followers" (Lumsden and Lumsden 272). Groups with lower maturity need more directive leaders; groups with more maturity need less directive leaders. Finally, the functional approach, rather than emphasizing the person in the leadership role, emphasizes the roles that members play in the group; the leadership role is only one. Crable named four kinds of roles: "task roles, maintenance roles, organizational roles, and leadership roles" (110). Each role has certain functions that define it. For example, the group member who assumes a task role might be an initiator, a person who "focuses upon new ideas for the group": an information or opinion giver, a clarifier, a coordinator, or an evaluator (Crable 110-11). The leader can play any of the roles in the group. In general, the leader motivates the group to get the job done and performs the various roles as they are needed and when they are needed. In some ways, no one leader exists, but rather, a person (or perhaps several people) assumes certain roles or performs certain functions and is perceived as the leader by other members of the group.

Most current theories of leadership recognize that the leadership process is "one which involves constant interaction between situation and personality variables" (Wood 262). Thus, the notion of traits combines with the notion of task and purpose to posit a more flexible idea of leadership. The ideal leader of a task-oriented group must have the ability to guide the accomplishment of the task, must have very high "intellectual" and "organizational competence," and must have a moderately high degree of team spirit. The leader does not have to be particularly attractive interpersonally (Wood 269). The leader must attend to certain procedural needs, such as planning an agenda, handling "housekeeping" chores, and preparing for subsequent meeting; task needs, such as seeking and giving information, clarifying and elaborating on other members' ideas, and summarizing; and social and emotional needs, that is, attending to the "interpersonal relationships and the sense of well-being" of group members (Fisher and Ellis 235-37). If these behaviors are enacted by a particular group member and are perceived by the other members of the group, then they may ascribe the role of leader to that particular individual.

Fisher and Ellis described a three-stage model of leader emergence in small groups (242-44). When the group first meets, if it is a zero-history group, all members are strangers and all are equally capable of becoming the group's leader. As the group progresses, however, certain group members are eliminated from contention for the position either because they are not interested or because they fail to perform the communicative behaviors that would distinguish them as potential leaders. This stage is "usually pretty brief" (Fisher and Ellis 242). In the second stage, a further separation occurs: potential leaders become stronger and others become "lieutenants." Potential leaders continue to vie for the leadership position until all drop out but one, the leader. In the third stage, members coalesce or not around that leader and take on differing roles. There are variations also to this third stage: the leader may be deposed or two group members may share the leadership role (Fisher and Ellis 244).

In the best of all possible worlds, the idea that a leader emerges out of a particular situation, enacts certain personality characteristics in that situation, and performs certain roles that move the group toward successful completion of the task should eliminate the perception that men are "natural" leaders. However, this is not the case, or at least it is not clearly the case; long and firmly held cultural values that have little or nothing to do with a particular group influence our perceptions. In Yerby's study of the perception of women as leaders, she found that "more important that the nature of the task in determining the response which the group members are likely to accord female leaders are the attitudes of group members toward females in leadership roles and the sex composition of the group" (168). Groups comprised of two females and two males in which members had positive attitudes toward women were satisfied both with the leaders' commitment and with the group itself. She concludes that "gender itself is a potent enough 'message' to significantly influence the outcomes of a leadership situation" (168). A study by Wheeless and Berryman-Fink suggests a similar finding: that attitudes toward women in general affect attitudes toward them as managers and communicators. They also found that females have more positive attitudes towards women as managers than men.

The question of women as group leaders is even more confused and troublesome. I have already stated and the studies discussed suggest that leadership is a perception on the part of group members based upon certain traits and the situation of the group. These perceptions, again as suggested by some previously mentioned studies, are culturally influenced. A leader is a person who behaves in certain ways that culturally we have determined a leader should. Unfortunately, many women do not behave or are not perceived as leaders "largely because prevailing sex-role stereotypes label women as expressive, passive and nurturant and men as active, dominant, and goal oriented" (Bunyi and Andrews 247 citing Denmark). Bunyi and Andrews found that male subjects trained as leaders were identified as leaders 100% of the time by "naive subjects/group members. While this did not occur for trained female leaders, the researchers conclude that task-orientation more than gender influences who is perceived as leader. However, if a female is either trained to exhibit leadership characteristics or exhibits them without training, she may, in fact, be identified as a leader. Andrews concluded from her study that when self-esteem is "high, either sex is equally likely to be chosen as leader" (9) and Alderton and Jurma conclude that the gender of the leader is irrelevant as long as the person is demonstrating task-related activities. They call this the androgyny hypothesis (60).

The opposite side to this gender coin is the reaction of male group members to female leadership. In a fascinating study of the struggle between males and females for leadership in small groups, Bormann, Pratt, and Putnam describe three male responses to female ascendancy to group leader: the male would withdraw from the group, the male would feel that the loss of the struggle damaged his self-esteem, or the male would remain in the group in an "active and influential role," but not the role of leader (150-52). They link the ascendancy of a female leader to male sexual self-image, which they refer to as male potency, although they do "question to what extent [their] discoveries in this particular case study are reflected in other groups and other organizations in our society" (154). In the following pages I will use these perspectives on leadership to analyze two studies I conducted.

Emergent Female Leaders in Collaborative Writing Groups

I conducted two studies to examine collaborative writing groups. The first examined the writing process of four collaborative writing groups as they planned, drafted, and revised a proposal in a upper-level business writing class at Purdue University. Most of the students taking this course were junior or senior business majors. Although for my study I examined only the first stage of the project (defining the problem and writing the proposal), the whole group task was a five-week project that entailed each group member suggesting an organizational problem that the group could investigate, choosing a problem, and writing a proposal, a progress report, and a recommendation report related to the organizational problem. (For a further elaboration of this assignment, see Morgan et al.) I collected data by videotaping the meetings during which the groups planned and drafted their proposals; collecting all the written planning, drafts, and final versions of the proposals; administering pre- and post-study questionnaires to all group members; and interviewing selected group members after the end of the semester. The study of female leadership emergence happened coincidentally in this study: two of the four groups I examined comprised both male and female students. One group (Group A) was made up of three females (Jeannie, Dianne, and Patti) and one male (Robert); I call this group "A" because all group members were earning the grade of "A" in the class. The second (Group B) was made up of two females (Stacey and Melissa) and two males (Alan and Nick); members of this group were earning a "B" level. In both groups, women were emerging as leaders. These groups also wrote the proposals rated highest by independent graders; therefore, the groups led by the female students accomplished their tasks most successfully.

The second study was an effort to examine specifically the phenomenon of female leadership emergence and to confirm or refute what I had observed in the case studies. Because a phenomenon observed in a case study is ungeneralizable beyond that particular case study, I wanted to broaden my observation and draw conclusions from both studies that might have more generalizability. I conducted my second study about two years after completing the case study, this time at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The class, a sophomore-level technical communication class, enrolls mostly juniors and seniors, usually male engineering or computer science majors. In this second project, I created a questionnaire and distributed it to each student in seven technical communication classes taught by two different instructors over two semesters. The questionnaire asked students to respond to the following statements or questions: if the group had a leader, how that leader was chosen, what personal characteristics each group member enacted, what elements of the task each person performed, if they were satisfied with the product, if they would have preferred to work alone on the project, which group member they liked best, and which member they most enjoyed working with. I also asked them to rate the performance of each group member.

The actual group project in the second study was quite similar to the one the case study students had been engaged in: a five-week project in which students identified a problem in an organization and attempted to solve that problem. Collaboratively, they wrote several documents, typically a proposal, a progress report, and a final document (usually a report) of some length. I analyzed the responses of forty-seven males and thirty females in nineteen mixed-sex groups of the following types: five groups with equal numbers of male and female students; two groups with more females than males; and twelve groups with more males than females. In my analysis, I was looking for answers to several questions:

To what extent is a female student identified as a group leader? When a female is identified as the group leader by other group members, what role does she play in the planning and drafting of the written document? what is the attitude of other members of the group toward the female leader?

Results of the Case Study Research

The results of the case study research can be divided into three areas: leadership activities that emerged during planning the document; leadership activities that emerged during drafting the document; and perceptions of leadership.

Leadership Activities During Planning

Group A consisted of three females and one male (Robert). Two of the women (Dianne and Jeannie) were sorority sisters and knew each other socially outside the group. In the post-study questionnaires and the follow-up interviews, Dianne and Jeannie were sometimes perceived as co-leaders while at other times Dianne was considered the leader. In the follow-up interview during which I questioned Robert and Dianne, both named Dianne as the sole leader during proposal-writing.

Dianne and Jeannie dominated the planning activities of the group. During the planning activities, these women talked 88% of the time and their talkativeness was noted by Robert in the post-study questionnaire and during the follow-up interview. In the post-study questionnaire, he noted that "they weren't as shy" as Patti and he; in the interview he discussed the fact that, as sorority sisters, they felt more comfortable in the group. In addition to talkativeness, the two emerging leaders did procedural work. Jeannie took charge by assigning each group member tasks to be performed by the next group meeting. Dianne took notes during the meeting and showed initiative by interviewing people related to the organizational problem between meetings, even when she was not asked to do this.

Patti and Robert were never considered leaders of the group and, in fact, eliminated themselves quickly from contention for that position: each missed one of three meetings. In effect, Robert and Patti took themselves out of contention for that position through absence. Interestingly, Patti took on more responsibility as the project progressed. During the final days, according to Robert in the follow-up interview, Patti became more of a leader. Although outside the scope of my study which focused on proposal writing, this phenomenon makes sense: Patti was a good writer, a hardworking and serious student, and her abilities soon overcame her initial reluctance to get involved. However, she was never considered the leader of this group by any measures I have. Her emergence as leader may be an example of the life cycle theory of leadership, where leadership in a group changes with the motivation of the followers. Although very quiet in the group (together they accounted for only 11% of spoken comments during planning), Patti and Robert did make some contributions. For example, Patti actually suggested the problem the group chose to investigate and Robert, like Dianne, took some initiative and worked on the problem outside of the meeting.

Group B, whose proposal received the highest grade by the independent raters, was an ideal group in many ways because all members made important contributions to the group, guided by one member, Stacey, who exhibited certain leader-like traits. For example, all members participated in group discussion before drafting: Melissa contributed 34.5% of the time; Stacey, 26%; Nick, 20.5%; Alan 19%. Melissa's rate of participation was highest because she spent much of the meeting presenting the problem and, once the problem was presented, answering questions about it from other group members. Other rates of participation were similarly high because the group used a round-robin procedure to introduce problems for consideration by the group. All members spoke at length: Melissa spent over seven minutes presenting her problem; Stacey over five minutes, and Nick and Alan over four minutes each. Leadership during planning was shared because each member of this group also generated ideas. In fact, of the four groups that I examined in the original case study, it was the only one that came to the first meeting with all members fully prepared to present and discuss their organizational problems. Finally, Stacey takes notes during planning.

One group member, Stacey, began to emerge as leader after the proposal-writing sessions, but her hold on this role was not firm. In the post-study questionnaire, she was chosen as leader by only one group member, Nick; other group members perceived the group a "leaderless." A more accurate assessment is that, rather than leaderless, the group had several leaders and that the role of leader was shared as the needs of the group changed. In the follow-up interviews of Melissa and Nick, the shared nature of the leadership role was apparent from the rankings of member performance; Melissa gave Stacey, Nick and herself the highest ranking; Nick gave Stacey and Melissa the highest ranking. In both cases, Alan received the lowest ranking from these two members.

Leadership Activities While Drafting

A leader exerts influence over other members of the group. The role of writing as it relates to leadership shows conflicting and often contradictory perspectives. On the one hand, writing or recording may take the writer out of the mainstream of the conversation and relegate him or her to inscribing what others say. On the other hand, writing is a source of power, and the person who wields the pen may have enormous power in the group. Because writing is the major task of the groups I examined, I wanted to see what influence the emerging leader or leaders of a group had over the drafting activities of the proposal. To study the influence of the leader, I examined the drafting activities from the videotapes and also compared the handwritten drafts to the typed drafts. I also assigned words in the typed draft to group members according to this scheme:

words not spoken aloud but written in the draft I attributed to the member

writing the draft

words spoken aloud and written in the draft I attributed to the person

first speaking them

words spoken by two or more members simultaneously I attributed to both members

words written by two or more members I attributed to both

changes from draft to draft I attributed to the person who made the changes.

In addition, I counted the number of times each person composed orally.

In Group A, Dianne contributed more words to the draft than any other group member: 81.3%. Dianne's high percentage is explained partially because she wrote the draft. The evolution of her leadership can be seen by an analysis of her influence as the meetings progressed. During the second meeting, Dianne generated approximately 75% of the words for the proposal. During the third and final drafting meeting, she generated approximately 87%. Her increasing contributions to the draft signaled growing leadership, possibly as a result of confusion in the group during the third meeting. (See Morgan and Murray for a further exploration of this confusion.) In a time of group stress, increasing dominance by a leader sometimes occurs (Shaw 330-31; 339). Group A was under stress for two reasons: first, the group was confused as to the kind of document it was writing; because of this confusion, it could not rely on the examples in the textbook to model the document. Second, the group was running out of time; it had to complete the draft by the end of the meeting. Under these two conditions, Dianne became more dominant, often writing without input from other members.

The following is an illustration of Diane's increasing control over drafting text. The conversation occurred at the end of the third meeting as the groups composed the "Qualifications" segment of the proposal.

Dianne: Then, the last one is "Qualifications," right?

Jeannie: (Nods her head "yes.") What is [sic] the qualifications?

Dianne: We, as three university students who attend games, we believe we are qualified. Then we can say we are qualified.

Patti: To recommend

Dianne: Does "recommend" have two "c's"?

Jeannie: It doesn't have.

Dianne: "To recommend, to recommend"

Patti: ". . . that a new implementation of"

After this disjointed conversation, Dianne wrote this sentence showing the level of control she exercised over the content of this segment: "As [Name] University students and enthusiastic basketball supporters, we believe that we are qualified to recommend that a new procedure for the distribution of basketball tickets be implemented." Once she wrote it, Dianne never read this section back to the other group members.

Dianne's dominance in the group drafting was evident from an analysis of the other kinds of speaking, writing, and reading behaviors she used during drafting. During drafting, there were few periods of silence in this group. Mostly, the group composed aloud, in sentences or phrases, without the expectation that the constructed piece would be written as spoken. In a sense, the group member was "trying out" text on other group members. Although all group members were involved in composing aloud, Dianne contributed most to this activity with thirty-eight of sixty-six instances of composing aloud attributed to her. Dianne, the only member who physically wrote, often simultaneously spoke and wrote. Uually she tried to include other group members in this activity; however, in two instances, she wrote and whispered, an activity that did not include others. During drafting, the reading activity that distinguished this group was a curious combination of reading and writing between Dianne and Jeannie. Jeannie would read a sentence from the sample proposal in the textbook and Dianne would try to compose aloud a sentence similar to the one just read. Sometimes Dianne would read aloud the draft to hear what she had written, to solicit help, and to seek members' approval.

In Group B, whereas the planning activities suggest shared leadership, the drafting activities, although still collaborative, more clearly point to Stacey's emerging as the leader when leadership is a matter of influencing members toward accomplishing the group goal. Stacey articulated drafting procedures at the beginning of the second group: that the group members divide the task into sections and each person draft a section. (For a fuller explanation of how all groups in this study drafted, see Morgan.) She also asked guiding questions that helped the group analyze the problem, and she contributed 60% of the words to the draft. (Melissa contributed 19.8%, Nick 9.3% and Alan 2.4%.) During the meeting, Stacey often generated a sentence or part of a sentence; sometimes others added to it or modified it. For example, this is the exchange as Nick and Alan drafted the "schedule" segment of the proposal:

Stacey: Right. . . . Week four, we're going to collaborate [sic] our data.

Nick: (Mumble)

Stacey: Also, week two and three. Week three continue to research and come up with some other solutions, if necessary. That would be okay. Week three. So, week two you're researching and coming up with some problems. Maybe. Week three, you co ntinue to research and maybe make some changes in initial solution. Does that make sense?

Nick: If we can contact these people in the first week, then we're doing good.

Sometimes, however, the pattern was more collaborative. In this conversation, which occurred at the final meeting when the group writes a final version from a previously written draft, Stacey, Melissa, and Alan seemed equally involved:

Melissa: (reading from the draft) What does that say?

Alan: (reading from the draft) "programs to the daily"

Stacey: (reads draft silently)

Melissa: (reading from the draft) "accomplishes what we set out to do"

Stacey: (reading from the draft) "the daily interactions so that, in addition, we need to find a way to better organize the program so the daily interaction accomplishes what it set out to do."

Alan: (reading from the draft) "in addition"

Melissa: The events that we have planned, you know, accomplish the goal.

Stacey: The goal through

Melissa: (read silently from the draft)

Alan: (read silently from the draft)

Melissa: Could you say to better organize the program so it accomplishes what it set out to do? No.

Alan: (composing aloud) In addition, find ways to organize the program so that the objectives of the program are met effectively.

Stacey: That's better.

Alan: What did I say?

Stacey: Repeat that. In addition, we will find a way to better organize the program

Alan: To meet the desired objectives

Stacey: Yea. Find ways. It's plural.

Although all were involved, Stacey approved Alan's wording, evidence of her influence over the text. The other group members accepted her approval as a signal to stop generating text. When she typed the draft, Stacey made thirty-six changes to the draft, but these changes were minor, such as substituting phrases, capitalizing words, and correcting scribal errors from the handwritten draft.

Despite Stacey's influence, this draft was still quite a collaborative effort: eleven words in just one segment of the proposal I attributed to Alan and Nick, while Alan, Nick and Stacey jointly contributed three words. In addition, Alan and Nick sometimes contributed phrasing when Melissa and Stacey were stymied.

Conclusions from the Case Study

In both groups, women were the perceived emerging leaders. However, in Group A, that outcome seemed almost inevitable. Through a combination of circumstances, Robert was eliminated early from consideration as leader: not only was he a quiet person and the only male group member, but also he was in a group with two members of an already established group (the sorority). In addition, he was absent one of the three group meetings. All these circumstances created an insider-outsider effect which he was never able to overcome. One might interpret Robert's absence from the group on the second day as, in effect, an abdication of the leadership role which male group members may do in a group with dominant female members (Bormann, Pratt, and Putnam 150). Yet, this is only partially true; from the beginning Robert never competed for that role, so he was giving up nothing. He also stated in the post-study questionnaire that Dianne and Jeannie were co-leaders, and, in the follow-up interview, he named Dianne as the sole leader and noted the emergence of Patti late in the group process. In fact, it seems he had no trouble ascribing leadership to female group members.

In Group B, the issue of leadership is less clear-cut. On the post-study questionnaires, only Nick, a male group member, identified a leader, Stacey, a female group member. Other group members state the group is leaderless. The fact that Nick is willing to accord leader status to Stacey suggests that he is not bothered by having a women as a group leader. Alan, the other male in the group, received the lowest performance rating of any group member and is rated particularly low by Nick. It seems that Nick was also quite able to get beyond gender stereotypes. In the follow-up interview, Melissa gave Nick the highest rating (she also rates Stacey and herself at the highest level), suggesting that, although he was not the leader, he did not abdicate any responsibility, a tendency for males in female-dominated groups, and a possible explanation for Alan's behavior.

What is abundantly clear is the relationship between writing activities and leadership. Emerging leaders dominate the group's writing activities. If women are often perceived as "good" writers, and if they assume major writing responsibilities, they may be perceived as the group's leader.

Results of the Survey

My second study does not confirm the findings of the case study: that women who emerge as leaders are often recognized as such and that there seems to be an acceptance of them in that role. Instead, I found that often females are not considered the leaders even though they are actively involved in the writing task. Of the nineteen groups I surveyed, members of eight groups said the group had no leader; in one group, a male was a self-proclaimed leader; in one group, a female was a self-proclaimed leader; male students were named leaders in seven groups; and females were named leaders in two.

Conclusions from the Survey Project

I analyzed the responses from nineteen groups (a total of forty-seven males and thirty females) and from these I draw four conclusions about women and leadership in collaborative writing groups:

1. In a group where a female made significant contributions to writing and enacted characteristics usually attributed to a leader, but where a male also made a significant contribution, the male is invariably named the leader or the group is perceived as leaderless. Almost all the women in this study performed at a "B" or above level. Out of thirty females, the performance of only one, Kristen, was rated below a "B." Yet, they are just not seen as leaders unless they over-perform (see conclusion #3 below). The most significant pattern that emerges from the nineteen groups, that women are seldom identified as leaders if there is a male in the group who makes some significant contributions, happens again and again in the responses. For example, in a group where a male, Keith, was identified unanimously as the leader, Deborah played an apparently equal role. Both possessed topic-related skills and the best writing skills, explained ideas the best, gave helpful directions, spent time on the project, were able to influence others, and took charge. Only in "establishing procedures" did Keith outperform Deborah. They also seemed to work equally on the writing tasks. However, this was a three-male/one-female group, a profile that might make it very difficult for a female to be recognized as leader despite her skills and abilities. In addition, this group valued organizational skills, the very skills that Keith seemed to possess. Three students remarked that Keith organized the project and the group.

In another group (two-male/two-female) in which a male was named as leader, one female, Judith, was ranked highest by all her group members, was identified as having ten of ten leader-like characteristics, wrote, revised and typed the progress report, and wrote and typed the final report. But Brett, not Judith, was named leader by the two male students because "he provided direction, helped a lot in completing the task," and "got involved in organizing most of the rough draft." Judith herself identified him as leader although she did not write why she did so.

Students in eight groups stated that their groups had no leaders. In four of these groups, women played significant and even superior parts. In one group, Lynn was named as possessing seven of the ten characteristics that contribute to leadership and was actively involved in all aspects of writing. Two males also played significant roles, although they were not named as possessing as many leader-like characteristics as Lynn. In another, two women in a two-male/two-female group each contributed as much as one male and considerably more than the other. In another leaderless group, the only female, Michelle, was the most active member in writing the documents, yet other group members did not perceive her as leader. In addition, this particular female student also exhibited many of the characteristics of leadership(such as gave help directions and "took charge").

I am aware, of course, that another interpretation can be ascribed to the phenomenon that active women are not named leaders. The presence of one or more women in a group may tend to create a more cooperative rather than competitive climate. Work gets done because, instead of vying for leadership, members share it more equitably; no one becomes the single leader. The group then is perceived as leaderless because the women's leadership efforts are less obtrusive. When students are culturally conditioned to see leadership as instantiated in a male individual, and in a male individual who is charismatic, aggressive, or directing, it becomes difficult to "see" shared leaders or individuals who don't fit that image. When the role of leader is also assumed to be the winner in a competitive struggle, group members may not see as leaders those who don't compete but cooperate. Women don't "win" in this kind of combative scenario.

2. In order to be perceived as leaders, women have to "do it all." Women were identified by name as leaders in two out of nineteen groups. In one group, Kelli, the female identified as leader (by herself and a male student) alone wrote the two group documents. In addition, she was the only member named as exhibiting characteristics associated with leadership in every category. This student, however, was not happy in this group because, as she wrote in the survey response, she "did all the work." In the second female-led group, a woman, Anna, was named leader by a male student who said "she's good looking." By the measures on the questionnaire, this student was not a leader; in fact, no one led this group, which seemed to be adrift without any leader. None of the students was satisfied with his or her final project and all would have preferred to work alone. Apparently, no students accepted responsibility, no woman was willing to "do it all," and thus the group failed.

3. Although male group members do not have to be involved in the writing to be considered group leaders, writing is usually one of the tasks in which identified leaders participate. I looked at the "strongest" leaders in my groups-that is, those students who were named leaders by most of the members of their groups. (This category did not include any female members). In all but one of the cases I examined, the male leaders did engage in writing and revising both documents. The "strongest" male leader, in that he was unanimously named as leader, was not involved at all in the writing of one document and co-wrote the other document with a female group member. However, this lack of involvement in writing and at the same time being perceived as a leader might be an exception.

Leaders are usually held in esteem by other group members, and writing may have something to do with esteem in the group. Male or female active writers earned the esteem of other group members. Across groups (that is, whether the groups were female, male, or equal-sex groups or whether they were leaderless or had a leader identified), members who wrote were well liked and seen as enjoyable to work with. Judith, for example, whom I already identified as involved in writing, was named in both categories; she was well liked because she "worked hardest of other members: she was enjoyable to work with because she did her share, helped others, and had a "nice attitude." Michelle, an active writer, was also identified as a person who "had her work done on time." In that same group, the unanimously chosen leader, Ron, was an active writer and was enjoyable to work with because he was efficient and "easy to get along with." Finally, Lynn was mentioned because she was "good company" and "willing to exchange ideas." Male group members seemed just as likely to be mentioned in these two categories as females.

4. Male and not female students are likely to withdraw from group work. Ten male students, more than 20% of the total male population in these groups, and no female students "withdrew" from their groups. By withdrawing, I mean that a student's performance was rated at "C" or lower by the majority of the group respondents. So, withdrawal means sub-standard participation (as determined by other group members) not necessarily total absence from the group. Students are unlikely to absent themselves entirely from their groups, as a good portion of their final grades depends upon successful completion of this project. Additionally, this course also meets a university writing-intensive requirement which makes spaces in these classes particularly hard to get. Students are not willing to jeopardize graduating by dropping the course or failing it. Thus, withdrawal is passive-aggressive behavior.

Bormann, Pratt and Putnam note that one response to strong female presence in a small group is the withdrawal of male students from active participation in the group. Of the groups in which ten male students became less active participants, five had strong female members and moderately strong male members; four had strong females but also strong males; one had no strong group members at all. According to other group members, none of these males was significantly involved in writing: five did no writing at all; the remaining worked on either the progress report or the final document, but not both. Three of these did no work on the final draft, suggesting that they withdrew from the group early in the process. Only one male expected an "A" in the course, four expected "B's," four expected "C's" and one did not complete the questionnaire. Not one of these students was seen as either well-liked or enjoyable to work with by other group members.

In the context of Bormann, Pratt, and Putnam, male disengagement from active participation is not surprising. Although I have no direct evidence from my study to support this view, Bormann, Pratt, and Putnam's hypothesis that male sexual self-image is threatened by female leaders seems a reasonable interpretation of the male student behavior in my study: males became disengaged from groups with strong female group members whether or not they were called leaders. In fact, males rather than females withdrew from groups. Some of these males stated that they preferred working in groups and some that they preferred working alone, although not all students answered this question. One student, who liked working in the group, did no writing, was perceived to have no leader-like characteristics, and was the only member satisfied with the final document. Here is the student we all like to avoid: a person who gets the same grade as other students and does none of the work. One student, who preferred working alone, stated: "I am best when doing things my way or in agreement. Felt had to bow to get project completed." This student was a member of the group in which the "do it all" female was the leader.

Implications for Teaching

My studies show that even in a society that holds equality as a standard, women often have a difficult time being recognized as the leader of a collaborative writing group even when they take on the major writing tasks of that group. It's also clear that there is some devaluing of women in the group because of this tendency.

If we are going to use groups in our classes, as teachers we can offset that tendency. First, if we assign a leader to a group, we should be very careful whom we assign to that role. If we assign a male student, we may be feeding the notion that women can't lead. If we choose a woman just to choose a woman, we may be setting her up to fail or to take on an undue portion of the group's work without due authority, recognition, or rewards. If we allow leadership to emerge, as the teachers in my studies did, there may be a struggle for leadership between males and females (as well as between males and between females, of course). In that struggle, we should know that the likelihood that a women will perform the tasks of a leader is great, but the likelihood of her being called a leader is not.

To begin students thinking about the process of leadership emergence and also about the issues of workload, authority, and rewards, mid-way through the project, we might ask each group to reflect on its group's processes--that is, progress to completion, interpersonal relationships, and leadership attainment. Perhaps we might ask each group to identify the leader and state why that person is the leader, and then we, as teachers, appoint the person to the leader role that the group has identified or call for an election to leader. In this way, a leader is allowed to emerge, but then that emergent leader, through appointment or election, is given recognition and authority.

It is also important for us to make our students sensitive to their own biases by pointing out obvious characterizations that may cause the group to dysfunction or group members to feel uncomfortable. Although we don't know how the woman felt, the male student's comment about the female student being "good looking" is a clue that there was a physical attraction that may have been inappropriately enacted in that group which may have affected the functioning of the group.

Finally, although this seems to be a highly intellectualized response to what may not be a very intellectual problem, we might introduce our students to studies in small group behavior, not only as they relate to gender and leadership, but also as they deal with issues of control and self-esteem. If males do see the struggle for leadership as a struggle for sexual potency, then working in small groups is a powerful force in our classrooms. It goes beyond learning how to write or even how to relate to others. It has much to do with who we are and how we see ourselves, both as individuals and members of this world.¹

University of North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina

NOTES

Works Cited