“For a woman to be a good leader, she might have to act like a man”; An Exploration of Women’s Communication Struggles in the USAF Civil Service Jennica Semon Thesis Advisor: Dr. Sarah Steimel Thesis Council Chair: Dr. Anne Bialowas 1 April 2013 In the modern professional environment, the workforce as a whole is experiencing a great transition in terms of composition, and the military and federal service environments are certainly no exception to this change. For the first time the workforce is comprised of several different generations, it is becoming more and more ethnically diverse, and the numbers of working women are increasing daily. Williamson notes this upward trend as stemming from the late twentieth century, and further states that women in the workforce will continue to increase, By April 2006, women made up approximately 46.2 percent and men made up 53.8 percent of the labor force. In the same month, 59.1 percent of women age sixteen and older participated in the labor force; 56.4 were employed. Women are projected to make up 46.8 percent of the labor force by the year 2014. (Williamson, 2011, p.1). Furthermore, according to Fridkin, Kenney and Woodall (2009), the number of women holding and pursuing high elective office in the United States is no longer inconsequential. These facts confirm that women are entering the workforce and even pursuing the highest levels of leadership within organizations; however, their overall presence in senior leadership positions is not equally reflective of this rapid growth. This aspect of the evolving workforce is particularly interesting from a communications perspective, for it questions if the very basis of organizational success (communication) has been gendered over the years, and if so, how it (if any) is having a negative effect on female career progression. Additionally, it leads to question how communication, depending on the organization, structures expectations for women and leadership. Some industries, especially when examining their leadership positions, seem to be ‘lagging’ in terms of incorporating gender into their working populations. Take for example the United States Air Force (USAF), after nearly 70 years since its establishment in 1947, on Wednesday, March 28, 2012, the USAF finally confirmed the first ever female four-star general1 in its history. Also, interestingly enough, preceding General Janet C. Wolfenbarger’s assignment, the highest rank held by a woman in the USAF was Lieutenant General (3-star) Terry Gabreski, who was appointed this position only 7 years prior, on August 1, 2005. Both leadership positions are not only prestigious, but incredible and rare achievements for any service member, regardless of gender. Congruently, the Office of Personnel Management reports that women currently make up 31.1% of the entire Senior Executive Service (SES)2 population. The SES position classification system is partially intended to serve as the civilian equivalent to ranks of general officers in the USAF and other armed services, but also spans over 75 federal U.S. agencies. Therefore, it can be argued that the percentage of women holding SES positions in the USAF is significantly less than half of the working population. This fact is especially important to note for it leads to question if women in these types of working environments (such as the military), that are perceived to be dominated by masculinity, are at a disadvantage in terms of obtaining senior leadership positions; and if so, has the aspect of the dominance of masculinity within this work environment established a standardized expectation of communication? This lack of gender equivalence in senior leadership positions also leads to the question of whether leadership characteristics and behaviors associated with feminine leadership is partially to blame for its cause. In reality, characteristics associated with feminine leadership seem to be a retardant for obtaining leadership positions equal to the rate of men, or masculine tendencies of leadership. Alimo-Metcalfe (2004), Rosener (1990), and Sinclair (1998) concluded the following: 1 The rank of 4-star general, or full general, is the highest rank normally achievable in the U.S. Air Force. It ranks above lieutenant general (3-star general) and below General of the Air Force (5-star general). There have been 201 4-star generals in the history of the U.S. Air Force. 2 The Senior Executive Service (SES) is a position classification in the civil service of the United States federal government, somewhat analogous to the ranks of general or admiral in the U.S. armed forces. The preference has been identified of women for transformational leadership- in contrast to the more traditional male style of transactional leadership- characterized by interactive style, sharing power and information, using personal power, enhancing people’s self-worth, and making them feel part of the organization. (As cited in Ozkanli & White, p. 6) This aspect of this particular professional environment could be detrimental to the future of working women, regardless of the industry, as well as the organizations in which they work. Females under these conditions in the workplace are more likely to succumb to the communicative behaviors associated with masculine leadership, for this is the norm in this environment, and abandon the innovative means of leading that is often associated with their gender. According to Alimo-Metcalfe (2004), “the more senior women became in organizations, the less likely they were to demonstrate transformational leadership…therefore, women find themselves constrained in trying to forge an effective leadership style” (p. 6). This strategic mentality in terms of leadership is also problematic for females in the workforce, for its simple recognition by an individual woman could potentially evolve in discouragement to obtain senior leadership positions altogether. This factor not only leads to a demanding culture of strategic leadership but it also results in a sense of identity confusion in the working environment for women, which ultimately has a profound effect on the health of the organization as well. According to Bloomberg Businessweek (2010), “given current research, the best businesses of the future regardless of industry, will be those who truly embrace and incorporate diversity by hiring, developing, and promoting women to key leadership roles” (p. 1). For a workforce perceived as being dominated by masculinity, the importance of whether or not an organization dictates expectations of communication and leadership becomes detrimental for the organization’s longevity. This is especially important in regards to federal service for, while there is significant research pertaining to gendered expectations of communication and leadership for active duty military members, there is currently little, if any, research concerning the same subject but with regards to civil servants. As a young, female civil servant, the perceived culture of the work environment alone is an immediate restraint for gender equality and progression within leadership positions and therefore a personal interest in the subject exists as well. Furthermore, an organization of this caliber, size, and power will either fail because of its resistance to change in terms of gender equality in its workforce or it will deprive itself of its optimal development, efficiency, and success due to traditional and accepted terms of operation. Either outcome will have a profound effect on my career, thus it is an issue of great, personal importance. The recognition of the variation of acceptance of communication and leadership styles based on gender within the USAF is imperative for not only the general perception of the professional population of working females but for the population’s overall development within the workplace as well. By enhancing the recognition of these issues, increased awareness of these difficulties associated with communication and leadership within the workplace will aid in the resolve and complete understanding of them altogether. In other words, by recognizing the difficulties that pertain to communication and leadership that women experience in the workplace, progress towards understanding these gender issues and producing resolution to promote professional equality can ensue. In this paper, I begin by developing a theoretical set of expectations derived from gender and communication research, and continue by applying these components to the working and leadership climates within the USAF civil service. Next, I discuss the experimental interview protocol I designed to the address specific research questions I formulated, from my theoretical expectations and personal observations. Finally, I present my results and discuss the implications of my findings. Overall, I found that communication, by both males and females within this working environment, structures expectations for women and consequentially, these expectations are constraints for women in terms of communication, especially for those currently in, or striving to, obtain leadership positions. Literature Review The lack of an equal female presence to that of men in the USAF civil service leadership ranks leads communication researchers to question the very organizational nature and working climate of this professional culture, and how these aspects effect communication and the expectations of communication associated with gender. The incorporation of females in the federal workforce has brought to light issues of incompatibility in terms of leadership styles, message acceptance, and overall communication efficacy in this capacity. Therefore, this study focuses on the communicative behaviors, expectancies, and tendencies that are prevalent in feminine leadership and communication styles, and how these aspects of leadership and communication fare in this particular working environment, at the expense of women. First, the prevalence of and strongly inherited gender stereotypes that exist in the workplace have produced a female reluctance to disclose and an increased level of cautiousness in terms of the extent of disclosure. Second, perceptions of gender have dictated the ways in which females formulate discourse as well. Last, women leaders in the military environment also experience communication difficulties that threaten the very leadership styles that are associated with their gender, as well as gender identity confusion that surfaces as a result of the organizational climate. Gender Stereotypes Create Communication Deterrents As with any social structure, the general workplace is an environment equipped with a variety of individuals, and with this diversity, naturally a wide array of stereotypes is bound to exist, including those involving gender. According to Donelson, (1999), “Traditional gender stereotypes posit that men represent the ideal or norm against which women are judged. As such, women become the perpetual other, valued primarily in their relations to others, men in particular” (p. 43).Congruently, when examining a professional environment whose very foundation is grounded on a structure of tradition and formality, stereotypes of gender, in this atmosphere should be considered from the same perspective. As Kelly (1997) noted: “In the military, a male-dominated environment, considerable evidence exists suggesting women are subject to misogyny or a hatred of women” (p. 32). As Kelley previously asserted, the stereotypes that exist among genders have proven to be especially disadvantageous for professional working women desiring to attain leadership roles and fulfill these duties effectively. This aspect of the workplace also closes discourse for women by sparking insecurity in constructing discourse and communicating leadership. In an environment perceived to be dominated solely by masculinity, a female’s uncertainty and reluctance to communicate is a natural hindrance in terms of pursuing leadership positions or executing effective leadership. According to Eagly, et al. (2003), there is an ‘incongruity’ between leadership roles and female gender roles that produce a clash of perceptions between the roles of ‘women’ and leader’ (p. 572). Thus this notion may have a profound effect on the level of acceptance in which messages transmitted by females is received. These hardships and stereotypes are only heightened when considered within a context that is dominated solely by masculinity, such as the armed services. As Ridgeway & Correll (2004) found, when work is associated with a domain that is culturally defined as masculine, such as engineering or the military, but also management, the bias in favor of men is stronger. Therefore, in these settings, women seem to be subject to even more disadvantageous conditions in terms of communication and overall acceptance, than in other work environments. Russell et al. (1988) supplements this notion of male bias by further claiming that women are subject to different forms of acceptance due to their gender; they stated: “Subordinates respond differently to the same behavior depending on whether it is exhibited by a male or female leader (p.57).” Therefore, due to the prevalence of stereotypes associated with effective leadership and gender in general, this factor may determine how well messages and behaviors are accepted by workers when communicated by a female leader. However, it is important to first recognize that the professional military environment, particularly the civil service sector, is noticeable in terms of gender variance, due to the very nature of the United States Air Force’s work and overall mission. In other words, in the USAF civil service, gender variance is likely to be an even bigger factor, due to the gendered culture and general nature of business. As Ridgeway and Correll (2004) have found- Gender becomes especially salient in contexts where real or implied actors differ in sex category. This includes mixed-sex settings but also contexts in which individuals act alone but define themselves in contrast to an implied other of the opposite sex. Gender also becomes effectively salient in contexts that are gender typed in that the stereotypic traits and abilities of one gender or the other are culturally linked to the activities that are central to the context (p. 517). As Ridgeway and Correll (2004) have concluded, gender stereotypes and their prevalence are often products of a gender salient organization in which major decision makers vary in gender and their very existence may not necessarily coincide with the implied gender of the organization’s overall objective, or in this case, the mission. Therefore, in this case, an environment dominated by masculinity may produce expectancy for effective leadership, mission execution, and overall communication to be fulfilled in a masculine way or by that of a male. Overall, it has been found that, “there is considerable evidence that the extent to which gender, as a background identity, biases the performance and evaluation of contextually central behaviors depends on gender salience in the situation” (Deaux & LaFrance, 1998; Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999) (Retrieved from Ridgeway & Correll, 2004, p. 517). It is also fair to argue that the United States Air Force revolves around duties that are assumed to be performed by males; hence the title given to enlisted members, as well as civilian workers, of ‘warfighting airmen’. The term ‘airmen’ directly supports the Ridgeway and Correll (2004) findings and may partially explain the bias that exists concerning the climate of the United States Air Force workforce altogether. Although a small percentage, women are occupants of high level leadership and managerial positions, and thus are key players in determining mission requirements and strategic planning for executing missions. Yet, this assumption of the nature of work and how it is achieved, as well as the inconsistency of the gender of actual key players in fulfilling the mission, also contributes to the stereotypes that are formed in this setting and the hierarchy that is developed as well. Stereotypes especially in the workplace setting have a profound effect on expectancies. “…People transfer gender stereotypes to their expectations about men and women” (Fridkin et al., 2009, p. 55).Since women occupy these positions in such small numbers and their existence is not directly reflected in the assumption of the way the mission is effectively achieved, this belief of greater male status is only encouraged and women’s sense of self- assurance, or competence, is compromised. Insecurity in this sense plays a significant role in communicative behavior of female leaders and their acceptance in this environment. Ridgeway and Correll (2004) found that, Self-other competence expectations affect the extent to which men and women assert themselves, whether their ideas and points of view are heard, and whether they become influential in the context. Besides affecting participation and influence, self-other competence expectations, which are shaped by gender status beliefs, also bias evaluations of performance (p. 518). Therefore, it is of no surprise that women are less likely to fully disclose their opinions, thoughts, and ideas or confidently communicate their stance when presented in a situation that is gender salient; this is often the case in the USAF climate. When gender is effectively salient in such settings, the theory argues that beliefs about men’s greater status and competence implicitly shape the expectations that participants form for their own competence and performance in the setting compared to others in the context…Self-other competence expectations affect the likelihood that an individual will speak up with confidence in the setting or hesitate and wait for another to act (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004, p. 518). The reluctance of disclosure is an aspect of communication that may prove to become a difficulty in the workplace for professional women in this environment for, they are forced to embrace or overcome as a result of prevalent gender stereotypes in the workplace. Burleson, et al. (2006) further stated that women are even more likely to be reluctant in disclosure due to the gender biases that stereotypes promote. Men are simply more accepting of communicated messages that are delivered by those they relate to, are familiar with, and are similar to their communication styles and message formulation. According to Burleson, Liu, Liu, & Mortenson (2006), “An important corollary is that men and women are biased toward, and responsive to, the modes of enacting emotional support typically practiced in their own speech communities” (p.4). The selective acceptance of communication also leads to the concept of social exclusion that Heilman and Welle detail in their 2005 study; A series of recent studies revealed that many women in high-level positions in corporations and firms believe that social exclusion, not just over discrimination is a barrier to women’s career advancement. Examples of this less visible bias include a lack of mentoring, being ostracized from informal networks of communication, and an inhospitable culture (p. 24). Due to the stereotypes that are associated with gender in the workplace and the ways in which each gender tends to communicate, social exclusion is a great contributor to the communication difficulties among gender and is a major component that affects the likeliness of female career progression. Ridgeway and Correll (2004) supplement Heilman and Welle (2005) by further explaining this how gender stereotypes affect women’s communication and overall acceptance in the workplace. Ridgeway and Correll (2004) stated- In a social relational context, they bias the extent to which a woman, compared to a similar man, asserts herself in the situation, the attention she receives, her influence, the quality of her performances, the way she is evaluated, and her own and others’ inferences about her abilities at the tasks that are central to the context ( p. 519). Especially in a climate that is in fact, presumed as being dominated solely by masculinity, this social alienation dependent on gender seems expected, and is therefore reinforced by stereotypes. The gender salience in a particular working environment, paired with the assumed gender of the organization’s objective not only encourages gender bias in communication acceptance, but also dictates the gender monopolies of social circles and interactions, as all of the aforementioned researchers have concluded. This all of stems from the perceived and traditional gender stereotypes of women and therefore, directly affects the efficacy of their communication and leadership as a whole. Heilman (2001) stated: “Gender stereotypes are pervasive, widely shared, and have proved to be resistant to change” (p.659). These stereotypes lead people to view men as aggressive, forceful, and independent; whereas women are seen as kind, helpful, sympathetic, and passive (see Banaji et al. 1993; Diekman & Eagly 2000; Sczesny et al.- 2004) (Retrieved from Fridkin et al., 2009). Therefore, in a masculine working climate such as the USAF, women are subject to a plethora of stereotypes that not only affect their self-confidence in terms of competency and self-assertion, but their overall leadership efficacy due to the way leadership is perceived to be effectively executed. This also instills insecurity of social acceptance on several platforms, from message acceptance to social exclusion, and presents a very problematic and difficult working environment for those women in leadership positions. Unfortunately, the existence and promotion of presumed gender stereotypes in the workplace consequentially leads to inherent gender perceptions within the workforce as well. Gender Perceptions Demand Strategic Formulation of Discourse In addition to the profound gender biases and stereotypes that women are subject to in this professional environment, another issue involves the perceptions that are produced in this same capacity, and how these perceptions ultimately demand the strategic planning and formulation of communication and discourse from a female’s perspective. This aspect of gender in the workplace has essentially forced women to strategically develop messages to effectively communicate. Depending on the audience, the criterion in which a woman is perceived and critiqued in the professional realm has essentially dictated the ways in which she chooses to communicate and formulate discourse. In other words, due to gender perceptions that are associated with leadership efficacy, women in leadership or managerial positions must redesign and specifically develop messaging strategies according to the gender of their receiving audience. This aspect directly coincides with Eagly’s (2002) role incongruity theory which states: Men’s social roles-the culturally set of beliefs and expectations of how men should be-overlap with the domain of organizational leadership, but women’s do not…Women’s transgression of prescriptive norms by succeeding at male gender-typed work inspires negative reactions, largely in the form of social disapproval… women who succeeded at a male gender-typed job are penalized through negative evaluations of their personal traits. While they were seen as having the agentic qualities needed for successful performance, they were described as being downright interpersonally hostile; abrasive, pushy, manipulative, and generally unlikeable (as cited in Heilman & Welle, 2005, p. 27). Therefore, communication is not only a difficulty in the workplace for opposing sex interactions, but seems to be the same for same sex interactions as well. However, even strategic formulation and planning of messages, regardless of gender, can prove to be ineffective as well as Tannen (1990) describes, Probably worse of all for women, is they may be judged different even when they communicate with the same style as men. ‘In other words, talking in ways that are associated with women causes women to be judged negatively, but talking the same way does not have this effect on men. So, it is not simply the ways of talking that has effect so much as the people’s attitudes toward women and men (p. 20). This aspect of communicating leadership is not an issue for their male counterparts, due to the fact that the environment already leverages men to the advantage. In other words, in a masculine dominated work environment, the mission is not only perceived as being masculine but the managerial and leadership role is supposed as being this way as well. According to Miller (2006), “Leadership is continually being defined along the lines of ‘think manager, think male’ (p.). The working female, especially in a military setting, has been forced to adhere to expectations that have been associated with the gendered, masculine leadership role, thus improvised m and innovative communication tactics on the female’s behalf have become commonplace in order to achieve the objective effectively. Not only is strategic formulation of discourse in order in these types of environments, but women must also cope with the repercussions of an organization that is dictated by masculinity. According to Cassell and Walsh (1997), “Women tend to revert to coping strategies, intended to ‘manage the contradictions they face’ in exclusionary or male-dominated cultures…These gender management strategies moderate women’s behavior ‘in order to compensate for their femaleness in a male dominated organization” (p. 225). Due to the perceptions of how women should behave and communicate, when females are placed in leadership positions, they are forced to either betray the behavioral and communication expectancies associated with their gender to adhere to effective leadership means, or cope with the repercussions that are a result of their lack of feminine tendencies in communication from their peers, subordinates, and superiors. This aspect of the workplace is often negatively received according to several researchers, The status and competence implications of gender beliefs will implicitly bias coworkers’, subordinates’, and superiors’ perceptions of women managers’ competence and their legitimacy in the manager role compared to similar men. When a woman manager acts highly agentically or asserts directive authority, as the manager role often requires, these implicit biases lead others to react with resistance and hostility (Eagly&Karau, 2002; Heilman, Block, and Martell, 1995; Rudman & Kilianski, 2000). This taxing process of communicating leadership is a result of inherent perceptions of expected communicative behaviors of each gender within the organization. Thus, in an environment dominated by masculinity such as this, leadership is perceived and expected to act in a corresponding, masculine way. As Kelly (1992) described, if women do not adhere to this expectation of leadership and communicative behavior, it may be seen as ‘unnatural’ and ‘strange’ and therefore unaccepted by the organization. The masculine nature of the civil service work environment has produced an inherent ‘male standard’ that a woman is evaluated against in regards to leadership performance and efficacy. This puts women in leadership positions in a comprising situation; for they are essentially forced to strategically formulate discourse to adhere to these expectations and to be effective. Perceptions of gender have a profound effect on the ways in which women choose to lead in order to be perceived as effective by her organization and peers. The expectations of leadership in an environment dominated by masculinity, does not coincide with the communication behaviors that are associated with feminine communication and leadership, therefore these aspects of adaptation are prevalent. As Eagly and Carli (2007) found, women prefer to lead in a collaborative fashion that is opposite of the traditional norm usually associated with their male counterparts. A female’s tendency to execute ‘transformational leadership’ simply does not fit the mold of the traditional leadership styles that are deemed masculine. In transformational leadership the leader establishes themselves as a role model by gaining follower’s trust and confidence, stating future goals, planning how to achieve them to innovate and empower other, while unchallenged authority is generally identified with a masculine or transactional view of leadership (p.127). The perceptions of leadership efficacy in the civil service work environment, or any ‘masculine’ organization for that matter, leads female leaders to become innovative with their leadership tactics and overall communicative behavior. Not only does this climate demand strategy from female leaders in terms of communication, but it has also proven to demand adaptation of communication tendencies from these women as well. Transformational Leadership As it is previously addressed, gender stereotypes and perceptions of gender within the workplace have essentially constructed a standard and expectation for men and women to communicate, and therefore lead differently. With this factor in mind, it is quite apparent that females endure a wide array of hindrances in the pursuit of obtaining leadership positions and executing these responsibilities effectively. Stereotypes of gender and perceptions of how leadership should communicate and behave only add to the rings and hoops those women desiring to lead must jump through in order to adhere to the traditional expectations their organizations have. Yet, the evolving workforce naturally equates to changes in traditional processes and communicated direction, therefore the discouragement of transformational leadership that is associated with feminine leadership seems like a deterrent to this forward direction. As the diversity of the workforce continues to grow as does the dynamic of collaboration within the workplace and the efficient means of communicating direction and the way forward. In other words, as society progresses and accepts different aspects of the professional working climate, in order to effectively communicate the organization’s objective and manage workers, an equally transitioning and innovative form of power and leadership must be incorporated into daily practices as well. Therefore, the feminine style of leadership that has been coined ‘transformational’ should not be immediately dismissed, yet considered and incorporated in daily practice. With the changes in the workforce (differing generations, ethnicities, gender, etc.) how could these populations possibly be effectively led by the forces that are so used to guiding a fairly one-dimensional working class? In this way, it simply cannot be achieved to its maximum potential. Consequentially, this leads women to struggle with remaining true to the feminine tendencies of communicating and leading by implementing the transformational leadership style that is often attributed to women, or succumbing to the pressures of their working environments. Hearn & Parking (1986-7) stated: Some women have become leaders and instead of bringing a “softer” approach-based on supposedly inherent female characteristics of submissiveness, passivity, and caring- they have demonstrated that women can be competitive and assertive, in some cases trying to be more “male” than the males (p. 57). A female’s battle between choosing to implement an innovative style of leadership, such as the transformational style often attributed to women, and conforming to the traditional norms of her masculine counterparts when executing the most effective means of achieving the mission, is yet another difficulty that she must face in the workplace. By determining what characteristics to possess (associated with masculinity or femininity) when communicating direction, managing workers, and planning for future mission requirements, this essentially threatens a woman’s freedom of choice in terms of selecting a path to lead, by obligating her to compromise the norms of communication that are often associated with her gender. Not only does this aspect jeopardize the future of leadership, but it has a profound effect on the likeliness for future working women to pursue leadership positions. Inevitably, this aspect could prove to be potentially problematic for the civil service work environment as well, or any organization alike. Burke and Collins (2001) confirm this notion by stating the following: “Organizations that fail to promote females based on the mistaken belief they are not as effective in managing as males are not only harming women, but are potentially reducing the overall effectiveness of the organization” (p. 253). As cited earlier, transformational leadership is the way of the future and the way to efficiently run a business, regardless of the industry. In the case of the armed services and the civilian sector of this ‘industry’, women play a key role in the transition from the norms and traditional expectancies of leadership to the advancement of new and innovative means of leading the workforce. In other words, the incorporation of transformational leadership in this particular environment will require, at the least, women to equally possess senior leadership positions compared to that of their male counterparts. Altogether, the growing presence of women in the workforce and within high level leadership and managerial positions is a subject that has been examined from a variety of perspectives. A great majority of existing research suggests that gender interactions in the workplace are especially difficult due to both the societal factors and sociological aspects attributed to each gender. While other psychological research suggests that these difficulties are results of separate ways of thinking. However, very little of this research is specific to the military arena and even less so in regards to the civilian sector of this workforce, with regards to communication and leadership. Although, they are not technically active duty military, civil servants working for the armed services are still expected to adhere to the cultural expectations associated with the military, in terms of work and achieving the mission, core values, and standard protocol. Yet, these areas of study are not directly related to this specific population of the workforce. Most existing research must be generalized to pertain to this working populace and what is known from current research is this: gender stereotypes are even more prevalent in work environments that are dominated by masculinity; perceptions are more critical and disadvantageous to women aspiring to become leaders and managers in this professional environment; and there are specific gendered characteristics associated with the norms of traditional leadership in this environment that a female must struggle with to maintain true to the feminine tendencies of leadership and communication. However, these claims do not identify the root causes of women’s struggles to fully and equally incorporate in a workplace dominated by masculinity. All of the aforementioned arguments are simply contributors to the overarching problem of communication and leadership, in that they dictate the way in which a female communicates and leads in the workplace. First, the prevalence of stereotypes can instill self-competence insecurity, which may determine the extent a woman discloses her opinion and her level of assertion; both of which are communication issues. Second, the deeply engrained perceptions of women in this type of work environment can essentially force women to strategically craft messages and tactical discourse; hence another communication issue. Third and finally, women having to compromise characteristics of communication associated with their gender to be deemed effective and successful is also a communication issue. For having to sacrifice features of feminine leadership, or transformational leadership, is due to the demand to inherit masculine avenues of communicating in this particular environment. All things considered, the argument has been addressed from a variety of perspectives, yet the possible root causes of the core problem have yet to be identified. Research Questions  RQ1: How does communication structure the expectations for women in the USAF civil service? Justification: Considering the specificity of the industry and based on the generalizing of current research, communication is a major factor in terms of gender, communication, and leadership difficulties in the workplace, and even more so in an environment dominated solely by masculinity. Therefore the close examination and inquiry of how expectations of communication and leadership according to gender, are communicated to women in this capacity is central to this study.  RQ2: How is women’s communication constrained by these expectations? Justification: Gender stereotypes and perceptions of gender have essentially constructed the expectations of communication and leadership within the workplace. Therefore, these factors should be considered in comparison to the inequality of genders in senior leadership positions within the USAF civil service. Perhaps the answer to this inquiry will reveal the attributes of communication within this particular work environment that contribute to the restraint of women in leadership positions. Methods Due to the ethnographic and naturalistic basis of this study, the appropriate methodology centers around qualitative means and analysis, for the subject matter relies heavily on the assumptions of qualitative research altogether. Especially considering the broad nature of backgrounds each participant will come from in terms of professional expertise, flexibility is essential for an accurate account and record of their experiences and opinions. Therefore, in order to properly and most accurately retrieve responses to the proposed research questions, determinations of accuracy from informants within this context is most ideal for data collection. As Braun and Clark have argued, thematic analysis is ideal for data analysis in this case for it is flexible yet useful. Braun and Clark (2006) stated: “Through its theoretical freedom, thematic analysis provides a flexible and useful research tool, which can potentially provide a rich and detailed, yet complex account of data” (p. 5). Data gathered from the research participants spanned over a number of years and responses referred back to the particular interest or topics of this study. This aspect of the study was also ideal for thematic analysis for an abundance of information required ‘chunking’ or organization of the information in themes or trends. Braun and Clark (2006) said: “Thematic analysis is a method of identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. It minimally organizes and describes your data in rich detail” (p. 7). Additionally, as the researcher, I have recognized an explicit value in terms of importance of this study and have established categories of contextual interest based upon personal experiences and observations, rather than that of prior researchers. Lastly, the ultimate goal of this study is to uncover the various root causes of the difficulties of gender communication phenomenon within the USAF civil service environment by simply applying and conceptualizing the underlying assumptions of the presented previous research. This qualitative study focuses primarily on how societal, sociological, and psychological aspects of gender interaction collectively contribute to the overarching problem of communication among genders in the workplace. Further identifying how this issue has a profound effect on female leadership efficacy, career progression, and the likeliness of future women to pursue positions of senior leadership in this industry. Data collection was conducted via face-to face and telephone interviews with current females holding beginning leadership, supervisory, managerial, and senior leadership positions within the United States Air Force (USAF) civil service, as well as through observational research. Inquiry included both open ended questions and a small number of close ended strategies. Open ended inquiries aimed to gather the utmost honest and all-encompassing responses while some close ended questions were provided to gather general demographic information and agreement with current assumptions of various research fields other than communication. Participants were notified of the study’s overall purpose to encourage honesty and candidness in their responses and confidentiality was granted to those who requested it and was offered prior to questioning as well. Questions mainly included inquiries of personal experiences and observations as well as personal opinions and speculations for the future (see Interview Protocol, Appendix A). Participants were conveniently selected through networking avenues and through general knowledge of job responsibility and impact, grade (civilian rank), time in service, and the path taken to achieve this position. Additionally, participants were selected based on their likeliness of availability, career fields, breadth and depth of civilian service experience, and the researcher’s past experiences working and communicating with them. To ensure that responses were diverse and represented the largest, general sample possible, one participant from each of the following career fields was selected: Logistics, Engineering, Software, Personnel, Contracting, and Communications and Information Technology. Sample A total of 6 interviews were conducted with civil servant women possessing various levels of leadership, supervisory and management positions across differing career fields within the USAF. The conveniently selected sample consisted of 5 Caucasian women and 1 Asian- American woman, all ranging from 25 to approximately 55 years of age, with an average age of 43. Participant’s education levels ranged from bachelor’s degrees to master’s degree in addition to other professional certifications and professional military education. The following progressive list describes the participants, conveniently selected for this study: GS-12, Logistics Management Specialist/System Program Lead GS-12, Human Engineering Development System Software Engineer/Lead Developer GS-13, Enterprise Information Management and Support Flight Chief GS-14, Director of Staff GS-14, Acquisition Program Manager GS-15 (Member of the Senior Executive Service (SES)), Director of Contracting 5 of the 6 interviews were conducted face to face and voice recorded in either the participant’s closed door personal office, or an off-duty location. 1 interview was conducted via a personal telephone call and this interview was simply transcribed by hand. All interviewees were read aloud the statement of consent and reassured of confidentially of their responses and non-attribution. At this time, participants were again encouraged to provide as specific and as pertinent examples as they could from both their personal and professional experiences and observations. Each interview took approximately 35 to 65 minutes to complete; this factor was mainly dependent on the level of comfort the participant displayed with regards to the level and extent of disclosure during questioning. Body language and other forms of non-verbal communication was noted and analyzed as well while conducting the interviews. Analysis Data analysis was conducted in two different ways, but mainly involved thematic interpretation. First, considering the naturalistic purpose of this study, as well as, how heavily grounded it is on the behaviors, languages, definitions, attitudes, and feelings of the participants, thematic interpretation was utilized to begin deciphering the data. Responses from each participant were then ‘chunked’ together and organized into similar themes and concepts, in order to generalize female experiences and observations within this particular workforce. Second, observations of non-verbal communication and its effects on the submitted responses were incorporated into each theme. While inquiring on sensitive subjects or when asked to elaborate on potentially controversial or individually identifying information, body language, tone of voice, rate of speech, and overall demeanor was taken into account and analyzed as well. For example, when asked if women could potentially be perceived negatively when communicating authoritative, or masculine, leadership and direction; Participant 2 became visibly apprehensive, rearranged her posture and sat up straight, and hesitatingly proceeded, unlike before, to use very cautious phrasing and vocabulary. Findings Expectations of Communication are Dependent on Gender RQ1 asked female civil servants how communication within this work environment, structured the expectations for women. To answer this research question, participants were asked to describe from opinion, personal experiences and observations, how they believed and observed these expectations as being established and communicated to women. The analysis revealed three themes that illustrated how communication in the workplace has established expectations of gender. These themes included: (a) a women’s presence in the workforce is not welcomed therefore the masculine domain is reaffirmed (b) the general expectation is that some positions are more gender appropriate then others; and (c) social exclusion in the form of the ‘good ole boys’ network is alive and well. Women aren’t welcome; re-affirming the masculine domain. First, a primary theme that was directly or indirectly referenced in each of the interviews involved the fact that the growing prevalence of women in the workforce, particularly in leadership positions, was an aspect of the USAF that was not of the norm and therefore had a profound effect on gender interactions. A woman’s general presence in the workplace was communicated as ‘you don’t belong here’ and unwelcomed. Therefore, the expectation for women is being communicated to them before they even open their mouths, and the masculine domain is constantly re-affirmed through the expectations set for each gender, as well as the prevalence of gender stereotypes within in this culture. Whether the communicative or behavioral norm was driven by the culture of the workforce (the military) or the surrounding community (outside of the installation), expectations and stereotypes of women in the workforce were rooted from these arenas. It was further detailed that women in the USAF civil service are fighting perceptions of their social role by simply residing in the workforce, as well as in various different capacities then before. P1 describes in the following excerpt, how her role in the USAF was communicated to her from an early start of her civilian career: “I actually had a boss, and he actually said this to me, that women belong in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. He actually said that to me.” (P1:8) This particular comment reflects many of the participants’ personal experiences in terms of how they felt they were perceived, at one time or another, by their male superiors, counterparts, subordinates, or the general workforce. Therefore, some participants explained that the transition in terms of the composition of the workforce, served as partial explanation for why gender interaction difficulties in terms of communication, existed in civil service on essentially every working level. Due to the expectation for women to adhere to domestication and fill similar “nurturing” roles, those who defied these expectations were perceived as not of the norm and therefore did not deserve equal respect. The lack of respect for women was described as existing in many ways, from not being listened to or heard when speaking, delegating work, or giving instruction, to consistent condescending discourse from men and blatant defiance by ignoring instruction. P5 describes a conversation with a male co-worker of how her dedication to her job contradicted the expectations that were already set for her from a male’s perspective in the following excerpt: But another thing that I heard the other day, was umm… my boyfriend was getting upset with me because one night I stayed a half hour late and another night I stayed an hour late again and I’m up there facilitating these men and directing them of what we’re going to do and he was upset that I stayed late those couple days. And I mentioned it to one of the guys and he said, ‘Well you have to understand, for a man to stay at work, that’s absolutely fine. But if a woman’s not home by 5 p. m. it’s never ok’. I don’t know why there’s this double standard but it’s…prevalent. (P5:2). P5 continued to explain that she also found it difficult to relate, communicate, and socialize with her male co-workers for fear of unfair judgment and an increased loss of respect due to the fact that she did not fulfill the norm by reflecting the stereotype of women. The “double standard” that P5 mentioned was also similarly referenced by P6, in regards to the stereotypes that are associated with women with children in the workforce. She explains that women not only are subject to meeting these expectations and stereotypes, but they are often times used against her as well: Childless women (either married or unmarried) and women whose children are adults fare, in general, much better in terms of promotion opportunities than do mothers with children who have not graduated from high school. There is an unspoken stigma attached to women who put their children before their job, even (in some instances) with a female supervisor. For those mothers with children at home who are ambitious, I’ve seen them delegate taking sick children to the doctor to a spouse or friend in order not to miss an important meeting or a TDY3. They will miss sporting events, school conferences, and other important activities in order to be perceived as dedicated to the mission. I’ve not seen this stigma attached to males with school-aged children at home, even when they leave for a school conference. Rather, they seem to be lauded as “involved fathers.” (P6:3). Whether a female is meeting or resisting the expectations and stereotypes of gender, it seems from the participant’s responses that either choice has a significant effect on their communication and interactions with the opposite sex. If a woman chooses not to fulfill the role of domestication but is mainly career driven, she is perceived as defying the ‘norm’ and is not equally respected in the workplace. However, if a woman chooses to be fairly domesticated, her attention to her children and family is under constant watch and this choice could potentially be used as a liability when she wishes to advance her career. The women in this case may also experience difficulties when communicating and interacting with the opposite sex due to the lack of respect for women that may have resulted from the rejection of their presence in the 3 A yearly tour of duty (TDY) is equivalent to a business trip on the private sector. workplace altogether. Consequently, this choice is then perceived as violating the norms associated with leadership. P3 explains in the following excerpt that she personally experienced this ‘double standard’ aspect of gender expectation during her career, when she was pursuing her next promotion: Actually when I remembered you were coming today, it brought me back to when I was pregnant with my second child, and we had a position come vacant. And I had a GS-15 tell me that they weren’t going to temp promote me to the position because I was pregnant and um, about an hour later I was called into the Colonel’s office, he was afraid that I was going to file a complaint. He said, ‘Wh-wha-what he meant to say was that we knew you were going to be out on leave and …. (P4:3). Either situation proves potentially problematic for a working female and is heightened as she attains greater levels of leadership. Whether she is defying the norm by putting her career first and not choosing to focus on having a family, or attempting to have both, she is perceived as violating the norm in one capacity or another and thus she is bound to experience a plethora of difficulties when interacting or communicating with men in this work environment. Whether she finds it difficult to relate to her counterparts and therefore restricts herself from casually communicating with them or feels a lack of respect from others because of her lifestyle choices, either situation presents a unique circumstance for communication and leadership behavior for women in this professional environment. Either way, she is perceived as violating communicative and behavioral norms that have been established for her gender, and therefore is bound to experience difficulties communicating in this environment. There are gender appropriate positions. Second, another particular theme that proved to be especially interesting involved the presumption that females in this workforce, especially as leaders, fared better in some organizations or positions rather than others. While referencing her personal experiences, P2 claimed that she observed more women in leadership positions within the staffing, human resources, and other ‘support role’ and clerical type sections of the workforce rather than in engineering and other technical fields. P2 indirectly references this supposition by noting the dominant nature of her career field of electrical engineering in terms of gender composition. I don’t fit a lot of stereotypes and I also know that there aren’t a lot of women <lightly laughs>… or there’s just not a lot of women available, or that you don’t see too many, so my interests are clearly different then a lot of women or else they would be in the same area. (P2:4) Perhaps this factor could partially explain the resistant nature of P2’s responses or her viewpoint altogether. In other words, due to the fact that P2 recognizes that women in her field are the minority, she does not feel that a disconnect among gender in terms of communication exists, for she simply does not witness gender interaction in her field on a consistent basis. The lack of a female presence in both her senior leadership figures and female counterparts in the software engineering arena, may serve as explanation as to her mentality of the civil service work environment with regards to gender interactions. However, the simple recognition of females as being the minority in fields such as engineering may be argued as proof that the general assumption that women fare better in some career fields as opposed to others, exists. Furthermore, it could be argued that the ‘dual-deterrent’ of engineering being an occupation dominated by males and engineering positions in the military, which also carries a stigma of being dominated solely by masculinity, could result in many differing mindsets from this particular workforce, positive or negative. In the case of P2, it could be argued that this dual factor has resulted in a reverse effect, thus her complacent attitude and mindset has resulted in a type of liberal feminism where gender stereotypes are rejected or ignored. Yet, several other participants similarly alluded to the notion that females tended to fare better in some fields than others and therefore it may be easier or more difficult for some women to rise to leadership positions. For example, P4 commented that she believed the workforce was improving in terms of gender equality in obtaining leadership positions. However, she continued by stating that, even still, she would not want to be in the positions of some women, who did not possess the same staffing type role as she did, due to the constant disrespect and resistance they tended to receive, It’s mostly what I’ve just talked about. Just like the complaints and stuff that come across my desk; it’s just very much the blue collar…um… dominant, male-mentality, that sounds really derogatory, I’m sorry… I just don’t know how else to explain it. I mean it doesn’t impact me personally because the position I hold, but I’ve often said I would not go be a group director out in the production areas. (P4:2). P4 unknowingly confirms the assumption that women fare better in some positions rather than others with the above statement, by acknowledging that in her ‘white-collar’ environment she does not experience the type of disrespect that ‘blue-collar’ female leaders do in their work areas. She refers to supervisors and leaders on the aircraft shop floor in her comment and even mentions that she does not experience such difficulties as a staffing superior. Therefore she essentially claims that it may be more difficult for women in blatantly perceived male-dominate fields of work to become effective leaders or to simply obtain these positions to begin with. This aspect of the military environment from a civilian perspective is especially interesting, for it illustrates the deeper stratification of the workforce. In other words, the responses gathered from the participants revealed a deeper layer of this masculine dominated workforce that may be a topic of research to dissect at a specific level, according to career field. From personal experience, it is not uncommon to observe that most women occupy staffing type positions such as classification, personnel, and clerical roles. Furthermore, it is also not uncommon to verbally hear from workforce chatter that this is the expectation and perception of most in terms of where the majority of women are perceived to reside professionally, most likely to advance their careers quickly, and (unfortunately) where they are most suited. The ‘good ole boys’ system creates social exclusion. Third, the recurring aspect of the ‘good ole boy’ system was also illustrated by several of the participants, regardless of career field, in one way or another. This aspect revealed another stratification of the workforce in terms of interactions and communication among gender. P5 explains this component of the civil service work environment when describing the dynamic within her workspace, “I try not to take it too personally but definitely, there is a ‘good ole boy’ system, where they talk about the old days and think they should be making all the decisions” (P5:6). Again, as stated earlier, this aspect of the workforce can be attributed as one cause of the social exclusion that many of the participants recognized as existing in the workforce. P1 further elaborated on this component by explaining that this factor, the ‘good ole boy’ system, was also reasoning as to why many women weren’t offered the same mentoring, networking, and training opportunities as their male counterparts. “I think there are more opportunities for men because they kind of, they run in ‘packs’…” (P1:7) Similarly, P3 and P5 recognized this type of ‘good ole boy’ system or form of social exclusion as existing, from their experiences, more so from the military population then the general male workforce. For example, P3 possesses the one of highest civilian titles as a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES). However, although she may equate to a military general, she felt as if she was excluded from opportunities and some recognitions from her military equivalents and superiors. I see, very much a base, is run by the base, and the wing commanders are ‘gods’. I’ll be quite frank about that one. I see my role sometimes diminished because I’m a senior civilian, but the wing commander who is not the same grade or rank, is treated as a king or queen, based on their title. And even a general once said, ‘Well I have a special place in my heart for my wing commanders’. And I thought, well what about the rest of us? It was just one of those, where you realize that we’re treated differently… I’ll tell you until I moved to this base, in the past I’ve been offered housing on the base but I wasn’t afforded that opportunity here, as a civilian. So, in my mind, that reflected a lack of appreciation for civilian leadership. These are some of the things I’ve noticed, being in senior leadership. .. Well, case in point, and the new Chief of the AF, he had a meeting with all the wing commanders when he was doing the investigation on how our workforce felt harassed. So came back, he invited them all to D.C, and I thought, what about your senior civilian leaders? They’re going to have to go back and implement and go investigate their workforce to see if we’re complying, yet you didn’t invite us to your senior leaders meeting.(P3:5) This perspective from the highest level in USAF civilian leadership and from that of a woman was especially intriguing for it leads to question if civilian women working directly with or with the majority of military adds to the difficulties associated with communicative behavior and leadership among genders. Therefore, this finding was of the most profound and leads to question if the ‘dual deterrent’ referred to earlier would be applicable in this case as well. The ‘good ole’ boy system in this regard was especially interesting for it illustrated another aspect of the USAF civilian service that could potentially play a significant role in difficulties among gender in social interactions, communication, and leadership behaviors. Expectations constrain women’s communication RQ2then asked the same sample how expectations of gender constrain, women’s communication and leadership within this work environment. To answer this research question, participants were asked to describe from opinion, personal experiences and observations, how they believed and observed these limitations of women’s communication as existing within the workforce. The analysis revealed two themes that illustrated how these expectations have limited communication and leadership for women. These themes included: (a) women are held to a higher level of professionalism and, (b) authoritative women are perceived to be bitches. Women are held to a higher level of professionalism. First, similar to the recognition of a ‘double standard’ in terms of expectations, participants also discussed the fact that women were subject to more criticism and ridicule, and were ultimately held to a higher level of professionalism than that of their male counterparts. In other words, women were said to be expected to communicate in the most professional and proper manner, whereas men were not held to this expectation. In fact, in some cases, it was reported that the use of improper or inappropriate language by men was not given second thought while if women displayed the same type of behavior, it could be detrimental to their careers. An example of this expectation of professional behavior was the issue of cursing and how it was overlooked when male leaders used inappropriate language whereas if a woman were to engage in this type of behavior, she would be negatively perceived and this behavior was extremely unacceptable in a women’s case. This aspect was attributed to both the perception of a woman’s existence in the workforce as being ‘abnormal’ and the expectation and stereotype for females to: “’shut up and listen, be ‘soft-spoken’, submissive, and nurturing” (P1: 3-5). P5 describes her current experiences as a program lead (GS-12, beginning levels of supervision) in the following excerpt, and how standards of behavior seem to be heightened for her due to the fact that she is a woman: I feel like I’m held to the rules of professionalism much more strictly than the boys. I definitely, and I’ve seen this more than once and quite a few times in this job, but I’m expected to be much more professional than the guys. I don’t feel like I can joke with them or say certain things, so I’m much more guarded… I feel like there are some things that if they knew, they would assume very, very bad things about me and… I’ve had to make sure nobody knows in the workforce and it’s such a simple thing. Just little things, I know they would be so misconstrued. You have to hide that personal side as a female. (P5:6). P5 continues to explain that this expectation of heightened professionalism also has an effect on her general relationships with her higher leadership, co-workers and sub-ordinates, for she feels restricted on what is appropriate to share for fear of judgment, criticism, ridicule, and most importantly, loss of respect. This aspect alone is naturally detrimental to positive gender interactions and overall communication within this work environment, for the formation of natural, working, social relationships is compromised and therefore trust is difficult to achieve. In regards to this subject, the topic of ‘social exclusion’ was addressed and the participants were asked if this term related to the USAF civil service. With the exception of one, all the participants agreed that the term ‘social exclusion’ existed in this workforce in one way or another. P1 explained that she felt she was excluded from mentoring opportunities and other avenues of information and networking, for the men treated her quite differently as a woman then she had observed them treating the rest of the men in leadership positions in her organization. I hate to use this example but I’m going to anyway because this is how I see it. But all of our division chiefs are men in this organization, so when all of the men are together talking, there is a different tone, climate then when you interject a woman into, you know, all of a sudden when somebody drops the ‘f-bomb’ it’s like, “Oh, I’m sorry!”, you know where as if it were just the men, you wouldn’t get that. So, everyone knows we’re not supposed to do that but it’s like “Oh we’re among leadership, it’s ok now it’s just us guys” and you throw a woman in there and it changes everything. (P1:2). This statement vividly illustrates how professionalism is communicated differently among genders and naturally how the level of expectation, in terms of professionalism, varies among genders as well. These two components clearly explain the criteria in which a man and woman are judged against in terms of professionalism, and the playing field is clearly unleveled. Men in leadership positions, and the general workforce for that matter, are given the luxury of lackadaisical discourse with their counterparts while women are not. This lack of a casual component for women within interaction is important to note for it could prove to have an effect on women in leadership positions. Naturally, the strategic formulation of discourse is required for many women in this environment and therefore efforts in executing effective leadership may be perceived or received negatively; thus compromising the path to becoming an effective leader for women, but not for that of men. More importantly, this demand for strategic formulation of discourse is required of women for, if any slight disregard to the set standard of expectation is portrayed by a woman, this behavior or communication is immediately deemed a mistake. However, if the same behavior or form of communication is enacted by a man, it is then perceived as normative behavior. The example of cursing provided earlier is evidence of this unleveled playing field in terms of expectations of professionalism from men and women. The inability to casually communicate and interact with others, regardless of gender, within any working environment, is a deterrent for networking or the establishment of a comfortable working climate. Therefore, building relationships with your counterparts is essential for improvement; if a woman is unable to connect with all her counterparts equally, she is at a disadvantage in terms of advancing her career, motivating her workforce, as well as earning their respect. Although P2 did not agree that gender was an issue of significance in the USAF civil service, she did agree that good working relationships among senior leadership was important and a key to being an effective leader, Well, social interaction is very important, especially if you’re leading; you need to get to know your people and if you don’t quite mesh or you can’t communicate, then that really hinders your ability to lead then. (P2: 3). Similar to the expectations associated with gender, as well as the stereotypes that exist, the criteria in which a man and woman are judged against are fairly dependent on the expectations of their gender. Unfortunately, this often means that women are forced to be more guarded, think deeply of how to react to situations, how to speak, for fear of how they will be perceived. This ‘cautiousness’ is an aspect of female leadership that is a deterrent for women leaders that is not similarly reflected in that of males, as described by the participants. In other words, the critical nature under which women are judged for their communication and behavior results in, men being granted more opportunity in terms of social comfort and other networking avenues with other leadership; for they are not under the same scrutiny as women and therefore do not feel the need to be as ‘cautious’ in terms of communication and behavior. Naturally, they are more apt to secure casual relationships and connections with other leaders, a luxury that women leaders are not often immediately granted. Authoritative Women are ‘Bitches’. Second, another theme that surfaced in all six interviews pertained to the fact that women were often perceived as being “bitches” if they communicated or utilized leadership tactics that were authoritative or were similar to what their male counterparts were known to use and were deemed effective by the workforce. Stereotypes and expectations associated with gender were again noted as possible root causes for this negative perception, and this aspect of feminine and masculine leadership was also noted as being a ‘double standard’. Even P2, again not agreeing that gender was a significant issue of importance among leadership in the USAF civil service, stated that women were often perceived negatively if they were not meeting the expectations of a woman (or the stereotype attributed to females) or when they tried to emulate their male counterparts: Because, because of the stereotype that women are expected to be friendlier, for women to stand up and be a leader and say what needs to be said and be a little insensitive, she might be perceived as being unfriendly. Whereas, a guy, a man, who says what needs to be said, will be perceived as someone who gets the job done and is powerful…effective. So that’s the effect of the stereotype…but… I mean if females are going to be that leader, and this is the stereotype, that’s something they live with, they get over, and they don’t care obviously because they’re in that leadership position.(P2:4) The following excerpt submitted by P1 caveats P2’s statement by claiming that the stereotypes associated with becoming an effective leader in the USAF civil service serve as partial explanation as to why there are not many female leaders in this culture. For often times, women are essentially forced to abandon unique leadership tactics and adhere to those that are similar to that of their male counterparts: Umm… ok so look at the women in these positions, I’ve never seen them throw their head back and laugh, or crack a smile. I think that they try to emulate the men because they want to fit in or because that’s the path and that’s the most effective way to get to those positions. And that’s why I think that there aren’t a lot of women in those positions. But we have to have women in leadership positions to get involved and help make those decisions and then help promote other women as well. (P1: 7-8). Having to succumb to the perceptions of effective leadership in a culture driven by masculinity, negatively impacts women in leadership positions, not only in terms of how the workforce perceives her but also in terms of allowing differing leadership styles and tactics to infiltrate, and potentially innovate and improve, the surrounding work environment. P3 joins P1 in this stance, by admitting that this aspect of leadership does in fact exist, and it is difficult to undertake for some in the following excerpt: Women are considered the b word where men are considered strong and leaders. And sometimes it’s difficult when you’re the one up front, in disagreement, trying to get your point across and being seen as the mean person, or somebody with an attitude, where a man would be considered a good leader. I’ve witnessed that throughout my career… (P3:7). Interestingly enough, this factor was recognized very similarly by both the highest ranking female participant, a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES), as well as one of the lowest ranking participants, a GS-12 program lead (starting supervision/leadership position). Therefore, it can be concluded that women exemplifying leadership tactics and behaviors that are associated with successful, male leaders, are perceived negatively, ‘they’re bitches’. P5 confirms this notion by providing the following stereotype: We all know the stereotype that ‘When a man gets angry, people take them seriously; when a woman gets angry you think, Wow, she’s psycho’. And it’s a true stereotype. (P5:4). Interestingly enough, every participant mentioned this aspect of the leadership and working climate in the USAF civil service, that women exhibiting authoritative communication and behavior were perceived negatively. In a workforce climate perceived to be dominated by masculinity, women may tend to emulate communicative behaviors of their male counterparts when this behavior is socially accepted, lauded, or observed as being effective. Therefore, the ‘double standard’ is once more observed in this environment. For a man can effectively lead in an authoritative or distinct way, yet if a woman imitates these so-called masculine communication behaviors, she is perceived or stereotyped negatively. Discussion The purpose of this study was to assess the current professional climate of the USAF civil service from the perspective of current female senior leadership within this workforce, as well as developing female leaders striving to obtain senior leadership positions. Their experiences, opinions, and observances were collected to determine if communicative behaviors among men and women differed in this environment, and how aspects of this climate affected female communication and leadership, social interactions among gender, their perceived leadership efficacy, and motivation to pursue higher, or more senior, leadership positions. I interviewed six women and came to the following conclusions: (a) women often accept, or avoid acknowledgment of, the expectations that are set for them rather than address them (b) women also contribute to these implications of gendered expectations, (c) other aspects of the USAF civil service environment contribute to these expectations and communication constraints, and (d) women are still constrained today, by these expectations, in terms of communication and leadership. First, the data revealed that stereotypes of women were prevalent, and therefore women felt that they must accept the gendered terms of their existence in the workforce. In other words, many of the participants alluded to the fact that women in the civil service workforce must be able to remain resilient through unfair criticism and be cognizant of the stereotypes associated with them. Yet, they must strive to ignore them in order to lead effectively, be socially accepted in the workplace, and progress to higher positions, especially if a woman desired to advance her career in a timely manner. This aspect is especially interesting for, despite earlier responses, this admittance, whether directly or indirectly inferred, seemed to be of the most truthful responses given. Some participants were observed as being slightly uncomfortable while answering some questions than others; thus ‘politically correct’ answers were often submitted during ‘uncomfortable questioning’. Yet, when presented with questions pertaining to stereotypes attributed to women and how this affected leadership progression in this environment, the sense or tone of defeat and harsh realization seemed to consistently prevail. Even the most resistant of participants confirmed that gender stereotypes were in fact prevalent in this workforce and had quite an effect on one’s decision of whether or not to pursue leadership positions altogether. For instance, P2 continued by stating that this factor was something that all women must recognize and accept in order to obtain senior leadership positions. This finding directly coincides with previous research conducted by Cassell and Walsh (1997) which states that women in these types of environments tend to revert to coping strategies to succeed. More importantly, this study’s finding suggests that women in this work environment are aware of the social aspects they work against while in pursuit of their career goals, yet choose to ignore them in order to advance their careers. Another general conclusion gathered from the participants’ responses, suggested that women were not only subject to multiple forms of a ‘double standard’ from the expected parties in the workforce, but from their female counterparts as well. In fact, several of the participants stated they felt more criticized by their female counterparts and that the lack of female to female mentorship was an apparent issue for the female leadership force. This aspect of the study directly coincides with the findings of White and Ozkanli (2011) in terms of female to female support and acceptance in the workplace. Surprisingly, even the highest ranked civilian female leaders recognized this component of the civil service work environment within the USAF. Perhaps the recent incorporation of females into senior leadership positions and the beginning levels of supervision can be attributed to this ‘dog eat dog’ nature among professional females in this environment. However, the confirmation from current senior female leadership that the mindset was still in fact alive and well in the working environment does not reassure that the stigma is in fact changing. Therefore, this aspect bears quite the communicative significance in terms of current and future research. Furthermore, it is interesting to consider if this aspect of the professional workforce exists in all industries whether private or government, and if the masculine nature of the armed services amplifies this factor. It is interesting to examine the aspect of rejection of female leadership, as well as the lack of mentorship and support from one female to another as existing in an environment that has historically been perceived as a male workforce. One could argue or expect that women in this professional environment may be prone to be more supportive than the average female working in the private sector, who perhaps had not witnessed or been subject to drastic differences in gender among their leadership. However, it must be acknowledged that there is an understanding of why this critical nature exists. Perhaps, due to the limited number of females in leadership positions and the fairly new incorporation of females into the general workforce, has instilled a ‘killer instinct’ in females in this workforce. In other words, their mentality may be explained as existing for their competition is so specific and fairly limited, therefore more competitive; limited positions for females equals more competition. Whatever the cause, the female to female relationship in this regard is beneficial for communication and leadership research, for it further questions why this treatment exists among females in the workplace. This too is important for examination from the United States Air Force perspective for, the very culture of the organization may be an additional factor that contributes to this female to female treatment. In other words, does the masculine nature of the USAF civil service contribute to the criticality of female to female treatment, perception, and overall interaction? The third general conclusion suggests that the issue regarding communicative difficulties in the USAF civil service is multi-faceted. In other words, participants expressed frustrations regarding communication within the workplace among populations differing in professional background (experience) and military or civilian affiliation, as catalysts for challenging gender interactions and communication difficulties among sexes in the workplace. Therefore, the examination of communicative behaviors associated with leadership should be studied on various levels. The workforce as a whole is experiencing a drastic change in terms of composition and this factor is not limited to gender; age and generational differences in terms of communication, leadership tendencies, and social behaviors in this capacity should be equally studied. Furthermore, in this particular industry, professional experience, education, and other previous affiliations should be considered as possible factors of communication difficulties as well. For example, prior military members were mentioned as given preferential treatment in the selection of senior leadership positions. One may argue that this is to be expected in a workforce that is associated with the armed services and directly supports this organization, yet in the civilian hiring process, equality is stressed in terms of substituting education for experience. In other words, a degree (or other educational requirement) would ideally equate to a number of years in the service. However, this was not reported as the case from many of the participants. In fact, in some off topic discussions, it was stated that education at times was not as reputable as prior military service; rather it was looked down upon. This factor is especially interesting for it directly conflicts with what is communicated to the public and civilian workforce in terms of hiring practices, selection criteria, and leadership expectancies. Furthermore, the emphasis of furthering education is a major component that is communicated and reiterated to both the military and civilian populations as a requirement to obtain senior leadership positions in a timely matter. This disconnect in communicated expectations for career progression is important to recognize, for the standardization of communication, instruction, and direction from the top level to the workforce is a key fundamental of effective organizational leadership. Although it is common knowledge that education is a communicated requirement for civilians, the fact that the workforce witnesses and explains a difference in precedence between prior military experience and education fulfillments at the working level, is a concern of not only communicative importance, but for the USAF as an holistic organization as well. In regards to communication research, it is interesting how a message could be so emphasized and standardized across all echelons of the USAF, yet even though the message is delivered it is not received but rejected by target audiences. This recognition could prove to be detrimental to the very fundamentals of organizational communication for in this case; the culture of the workforce may play a part in terms of why the message is rejected. Last, the general conclusion collected from the data suggests that most women in senior leadership positions and females aspiring to obtain these leadership positions are still struggling in terms of communication. Whether with their counterparts, subordinates, or superiors, male or female; women witness other females experiencing, or personally experience, a plethora of difficulties associated with leadership and communicative behaviors when performing in the workplace. This is confirmed by the two top ranking females interviewed for this study in regards to the advice they provided for women wishing to progress to senior leadership positions within the USAF civil service. Both leaders stated that women had an initial choice to make, to focus on having a family or their career, and the possibility of having the best of both worlds was very slim and to be prepared for rejection, ridicule, and difficulties along the way. Both recommended having ‘thick skin’ and ‘letting nothing or no one stop you’. These comments indirectly refer to their previous statements of their experiences and observations and can be interpreted as suggested preparation for the road to come in regards to female career progression. This aspect of the study was confirmed by the youngest participant, a female entering into the beginning stages of supervision and leadership, when she stated the following, “I’ll get there… but I’m scared (P6:12). This aspect of the civilian workforce is especially important for the future of communication and leadership research, for the evolving nature of the workplace in general would require a close examination of such instances as this, in terms of deterrents and other possible obstacles for women and other minorities to properly progress their careers. Having to ignore social standards, perceptions, and succumb to expectations of communication and leadership behavior of a work environment is not a component of an evolving organization altogether. In other words, the fact that women in this work environment are succumbing to the normalcies of a workforce culture, rather than challenging them in order to implement change, may be argued as supporting a stagnant organization. Therefore, this aspect of the civil service within the USAF is important for communication and leadership research, for it may lead to further research of the like in other armed service civilian workforces as well as the private sector. Limitations As with all research, the findings should be digested with the limitations of the study in mind. Due to the restrictive timeframe, there were several limitations to this study. First and foremost, the sample was conveniently selected and therefore selection was dependent upon the participant’s availability, location, and professional background. Background was taken into special consideration, for it was believed to be beneficial to the quality of data and to the study as a whole if each participant was of differing professional backgrounds, age, level of leadership, and current physical location (current duty base). Therefore, the sample was pre-planned and recruiting efforts were executed accordingly. ‘Snow-ball’ recruitment was also utilized as part of the convenient sample, in order to obtain a wider variety of participants in terms of job experience, background, and rank. Although, this aspect of the research is limiting in terms of recruiting participants on the national scale for even snow balled recruits generally resided in the same major command (MAJCOM) and therefore were limited in terms of job diversity. The surrounding community to the military installation was also stated as being influential in terms of what communicative and social norms were established for each gender, and recruiting participants from varying geographic locations was not available for this study. With this factor in mind, it would have been especially beneficial for the research if each participant resided in several different geographic areas, both nationally and internationally. Second, the timeframe alone was very restrictive in terms of collecting the data. In other words, it would be suggested for future research of the like to include questions that addressed the deeper stratification of the civil service workplace. Research should be conducted by examining difficulties among genders in varying career fields and varying locations. Furthermore, questions addressing past experiences with gender and leadership altogether should be fully addressed and elaborated upon. It was discovered with some of the participants that past experiences with differing genders and varying leaders should be examined as well, in order to properly vector their level of social perception. I would also suggest for future researchers to administer a personality test, such as the Myers-Briggs assessment, prior to recruitment to assess the likeliness of a participant to observe social variances in the workplace or to what degree that they would be likely to disclose their observances. This factor of the study proved to be a limitation as well. Some participants were simply more comfortable or apt to disclose their true feelings, opinions, and experiences then others. In this case, a personality test would have proved to be quite helpful. Last, future research should incorporate the interviewing and testimonies of military leadership, as well as male leadership in the USAF civil service. This aspect would allow for comparison of male and female testimonies, as well as that of the military and civilian perspectives. Unfortunately, due to limited time and resources, this aspect of the study was not feasible. Conclusion By assessing the current climate of the USAF civil service, through face to face interviews of females currently working in this environment, measures to provide an environment more conducive for change will become more targeted and feasible, in terms of execution. Therefore, acknowledging the paradox that exists for women within the USAF civil service is the first step towards leveraging change in this organization. The expectations of women, that stem from gender stereotypes and perceptions, are communicated to them in the workforce, yet contradict their very presence in the work environment altogether. This ultimately presents a very problematic situation for working women in terms of communication and leadership. Consequently, this paradox has resulted in women choosing to change their styles of communication and leadership, and submit to the expectations, or defy the expectations, maintain their feminine tendencies and gamble the waters. Therefore, the value of this study lies in the importance of recognizing how expectations of women are communicated to them within the workforce and how these expectations ultimately affect their overall communication and leadership strategies within this environment. Transformational leadership is most commonly associated with feminine communication and leadership, and has been deemed the way forward for businesses to succeed, therefore any deterrents of this style’s incorporation into an evolving organization must be acknowledged in order to obtain its resolve and ensure the organization’s longevity. It is also imperative that these communication inconsistencies among genders are specifically identified and therefore resolved for; addressing any issue associated with communication and leadership is essential for organizational growth as a whole for the USAF civil service. In a workforce culture that is experiencing such a drastic transition in terms of gender composition, the acknowledgement of these aspects within the workforce becomes especially important to ensure equality among genders in the workforce, as well as to promote the efficiency and longevity of the organization altogether. References Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2004). Leadership: A masculine past, but a feminine future? In Gender and Excellence in the Making (pp. 161-168). Brussels: European Commission. Banaji, M. R., Hardin, C., & Rothman, A. J., (1993). Implicit stereotypes in person judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 272-281. Burleson, B. R. (2009a). Explaining recipient responses to supportive messages: Development and tests of a dual-process theory. In S.W. Smith & S.R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication (pp. 159-179). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R. (2009b). Understanding the outcomes of supportive communication: A dual-process approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 21-38. Burleson, B. R., Liu, M., Yan, L., &Mortenson, S. T. (2006). Chinese evaluations of emotional support skills, goals, and behaviors: An assessment of gender-related similarities and differences. Communication Research, 33(1), 38-63. Burleson, B. R., Hanasono, L. K., Bodie, G. D., Holmstrom, A. J., McCullough, J. D., Rack, J. J., & Rosier, J. (2011). Are gender differences in responses to supportive communication a matter of ability, motivation, or both? Reading patterns of situation effects through the lens of a dual-process theory. Communication Quarterly, 59(1), 37-60. Burleson, B.R., Hanasono, L.K., Bodie, G.D., Holmstrom, A.J., Rack, J. J., Rosier, J. G., & McCullough, J. D. (2009). Explaining gender differences in responses to supportive messages: Two tests of a dual-process approach. Sex Roles, 61, 265-280. Burke, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001).Gender differences in leadership styles and management skills. Women In Management Review, 5, 244-257. Cassell, C., & Walsh, S (1997). Organizational psychology: Research/practice organizational cultures, gender management strategies and women’s experience of work. Feminism & Psychology, 7(2), 224-230. Deux, K. & LaFrance, M. (1998).Gender. In The handbook of social psychology, edited by D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey. New York: McGraw-Hill Diekman, A.B., & Eagly, A.H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171-1188. Donelson, F. E. (1999). Women’s experiences: A psychological perspective. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Dyson, E. D., & Nataatmadia, I. (2005). Managing the modern workforce: Cultural diversity and its implications. Managing Modern Organizations Through Information Technology, 580-583. Eagly, A., & Carli, L. (2007) Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. Eagly, A. H., & Koenig, A. M. (2006). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for prosocial behavior. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 161-177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Eagly, A., & Sczesny, S. (2009). Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders: Have times changed? In M. Barretto, M.Ryan & M. Schmidt (Eds), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to inequality (pp. 21-48). Washington: American Psychological Association. Eagly, A., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & Van Engen, M. (2003) Transformational, transactional and laisse-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 19(4), 569-591. England, P. (1979). Women and occupational prestige: A case of vacuous sex equality. Signs, 5, 252-265. Fridkin, K., Kenney, P., & Woodall, G., (2009). Bad for men, better for women: The Impact of stereotypes during negative campaigns. Political Behavior, 31, 53-77. Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. Harragan, B. L. (1977). Games mother never taught you: Corporate gamesmanship for women. New York: Rawson Assoc. Hearn, J., & Parkin, P. W. (1986-87). Women, men, and leadership: A critical review of assumptions, practices, and change in the industrialized nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 16(3-4), 33-60. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674. Heilman, M. E., & Welle, B. (2005). Formal and informal discrimination against women at work: The role of gender stereotypes. Center for Public Leadership Working Paper Series, MIT. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, M. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10:237-52. Henning, M., & Jardim, A., (1977). The managerial woman. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press. Kelley, M. J. M., (1997). Gender differences and leadership: A study. Paper submitted to United States Air Force Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Lauzen, M. M., Dozier, D. M., & Horan, N. (2008). Constructing gender stereotypes through social roles in prime-time television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(2), 200-214. MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Butler, G. L., (2003). Gender differences in the communication values of mature adults. Communication Research Reports, 20, 191-199. MacGeorge, E. L., Gillihan, S. J., Samter, W., & Clark, R.A. (2003).Skill deficit or differential motivation? Accounting for sex differences in the provision of emotional support. Communication Research, 30, 272-303. Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R.A., (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, K. (2006). Introduction women in leadership and management: Progress thus far? In D. McTavish & K. Miller (Eds.), Women in leadership and management (pp. 1-10). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Moran, B. B. (1992). Gender differences in leadership. In Library Trends: Libraries and librarians: Meeting the leadership challenges of the 21st Century (pp. 475-491). Graduate School of Library and Information Science. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Moskowitz , G. B., Skurnik, I., & Galinsky, A. D. (1999). The history of dual-process notions, and the future of preconscious control. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 12-36). New York. NY: Guilford. O’Connor, P. & White, K. (2009, April). Universities-Change or continuity? Collegial/Managerialist? Gendered? Paper presented to the 6th Gender Equality in Higher Education Conference, Stockholm. Pfeffer, J. (1978). Organizational design. Arlington Heights, IL: AHM Publishing. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing. Pugh, M.D., & Wahrman, R. (1983). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men? American Journal of Sociology, 88:746-62. Ridgeway, C. L. & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations, Gender & Society, 510-531. Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999).The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25:191-216. Robbins, S. P. (1990) Organization theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rosener, J. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, 119-125. Rudman, L., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26:1315-28. Russell, J. E. A., Rush, M. C., & Herd, A. M. (1988). An exploration of women’s expectations of effective male and female leadership. Sex Roles, 18(5/6), 279-287. Scanzoni, J. (1982). Sexual bargaining: Power politics in the American marriage (2nded.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sczesny, S. J. B., Neff, F., & Schyns, B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison, Sex Roles, 41, 631-645. Sheppard, D. L. (1989). Organizations, power and sexuality: The image and self-image of women managers. In J. Hearn, D.L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sherrif, & G.Burrell (Eds.), The sexuality of organization (pp. 139-157). London: Sage. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T.L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10:80-83. Sinclair, A. (1998). Doing leadership differently. Carlton South: Melbourne University Press. Spencer, S. J, Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D.M. (1999). Under suspicion on inability: Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35:4- 28. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow. White, K., & Ozkanlı, O. (2011). A comparative study of perceptions of gender and leadership in Australian and Turkish universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 33(1), 3-16. Wood, J.T. (1993) Engendered relations: Interaction, caring, power, and responsibility in intimacy. In S. Duck (Ed.), Social context and relationships (pp. 26-54). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Appendices Appendix I: Consent form The purpose of this study is to assess the current climate of the civilian sector of the United States Air Force in terms of gender equality and interaction among senior leadership. Communication has been identified as a main issue of interaction conflict among genders in the workforce and may have some effect on the rates to which women progress to leadership positions in this arena. Furthermore, there have been a number of communicative behaviors associated with gendered leadership that may contribute to this dissonance as well. Factors such as gender stereotypes, perceptions and expectancies of gender, and leadership tendencies associated with gender are all components that are believed to contribute to the lack of equality among genders in obtaining high level leadership positions. If you agree to participate, a questionnaire will be distributed by the researcher. The questionnaire will include questions about your job, what you perceive of your working environment in terms of leadership and interaction, trends you have noticed over time, and your personal experiences. Please answer each question as thoroughly and honestly as you can. Your responses are essential to research and the development of this study. The interview will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. There is the risk that you may find some of the questions regarding your job and personal experiences as being sensitive. Please do not exclude any information that may be beneficial for the purposes of this study for your confidentiality will be honored if you desire. The benefit of this study to you will be your contribution to research. The records of this study will be kept private and destroyed at the end of this study. Your name and specific location will not be released in order to avoid possible correlation with your responses to your job responsibilities. General themes of your responses will be analyzed for the findings of this study and specificity will be avoided at all costs. In the event that a response is directly pertinent and/or imperative for the purposes of this study, all names, locations, and other specific information will be changed or omitted. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may skip any questions that you do not wish to answer. You may also choose to withdraw from questioning at any time. The researchers conducting this study are Jennica Semon and Dr. Sarah Steimel. Please feel free to ask any questions now. If you have questions later, you may contact Jennica Semon at semon.9@osu.edu or at (850) 428-0728. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact the IRB Chair at Weber State University, Theresa Stueland Kay at 801-626-6812 or by email at tkay@weber.edu. Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study. Your Signature ___________________________________ Date ________________________ Your Name (printed) ____________________________________________________________ In addition to agreeing to participate, I also consent to having the interview tape-recorded. Your Signature ___________________________________ Date _________________________ Signature of person obtaining consent ______________________________ Date _____________________ Printed name of person obtaining consent ______________________________ Date _____________________ Appendix II: Interview Protocol 1. Please state you position title and grade. 2. What is your ethnicity? 3. How long have you been in civil service? 4. Have you ever worked in the private sector? If yes, in what industry? 5. Have you ever worked for another federal agency, other than the USAF? 6. How would you describe the professional climate of the USAF civil service? How does this affect gender interactions? How does this affect leadership expectations from the workforce? 7. Do you think gender stereotypes are a part of this climate? In what way(s)? Could you provide an example(s)? 8. In terms of communication, what are your biggest hurdles when communicating to your male counterparts? 9. In your opinion, do you think civilian women equally progress to senior leadership positions compared to their male counterparts? 10. Do you notice that men and women lead and communicate differently? In what way? Could you provide an example/experience? 11. Do you think that perceptions of how the mission should be completed have an effect on how effective leadership should be executed? 12. Current research shows that women tend to use “transformational leadership” tactics as opposed to the traditional “transactional leadership” that is often associated with male leaders. I will read the definitions of each style and then please describe for me which strategy or which characteristics of each strategy seem to be more effective the in USAF civil service. Why do you believe this? Please provide any examples/experiences. (Definitions retrieved from Wikipedia.org) Transformational leadership: enhances the motivation, morale, and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include: being a role model as means of inspiration, promoting individual ownership of work, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers to enhance performance. Transactional leadership: is also known as managerial leadership, focuses on the role of supervision, organization, and group performance; style in which the leader promotes compliance of his followers through rewards and punishments. 13. Does the term ‘social exclusion’ pertain to the leadership climate in the USAF civil service? In what way(s)? Please explain. 14. Are you more or less inclined to disclose your opinion, thoughts, and ideas if your audience is mostly men? What if they are mostly women? Please explain. 15. Do you think you are ‘expected’ to speak, act, or lead in a certain way? Please explain. 16. In your opinion, what do you think is the biggest hurdle that women face in the USAF civil service? 17. What advice do you have for women in this workforce desiring to advance to senior leadership positions? Thank you for participating in this study.