Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond Inclusion Through Female Empowered Leadership: Status and Strategy in Iceland

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many regions of the world have begun to recognize the value of female leadership. However, very few models have emerged through which female leadership situates itself into a society as viable and necessary. The purpose of this study is to highlight strategies characterized by an ethic of gender equality to construct female leadership as legitimate in the larger cultural context. We propose Iceland provides a model case with many gains towards gender equality. In this qualitative study, we use interview data to gain perspectives on leadership processes that promote an ethic of gender equality. The data illustrate a restructuring of status hierarchies that have historically maintained inequality, while highlighting historical events that have influenced interactional contexts of female leadership in Iceland. We outline and explain the overarching leadership strategy themes: (1) role modeling, (2) inclusive discussion culture, and (3) legislated equality. These three themes appear to give female leadership legitimacy, and we suggest such research will allow us, as a global community, to develop more valid theories of status interventions that promote ethics of equality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These two definitions refer to gender in different contexts, in defining gender equality we do not suggest a dichotomization of gender but rather a way to conceptualize equality when referring to the differences in rights afforded men and women.

  2. Status beliefs are at the center of how actors evaluate each other and behave towards one another [ 30].

  3. Refer to Fig. 1 for graph data of each countries Gender Gap Score, 2006 and 2020.

  4. Pirate parties customarily support civil rights, direct democracy, and or reform that allows for free sharing of information.

References

  1. Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16(4), 461–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumhardt, Alex. (2015). Women have always made waves here: Unearthing the history of Iceland's female sea workers. The Reykjavik Grapevine. 5 June.

  3. Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. Jr. 1972. Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review 241–255.

  4. Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Webster, M. (2014). Expectation states theory: Growth, opportunities and challenges. In Advances in group processes. Emerald Group Publishing Limited

  5. Bowles, H. R. (2012). Claiming authority: How women explain their ascent to top business leadership positions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cha, Y., & Thébaud, S. (2009). Labor markets, breadwinning, and beliefs: How economic context shapes men’s gender ideology. Gender & Society, 23(2), 215–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, D. K, & Karim, S. M. (2021). Does more equality for women mean less war? Rethinking sex and gender inequality and political violence. International Organization 1–31.

  8. Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Expectation states theory. Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in experimental social psychology, 40, 61–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The leadership quarterly, 14(6), 807–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. The developmental social psychology of gender, 12, 174.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ellerby, K. (2017). No shortcut to change: An unlikely path to a more gender equitable world. NYU Press.

  14. European Commission. (2020). Iceland Overview. 26 April. https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/strategy-2020-2024/europe-world/international-cooperation/iceland_en

  15. Evans, A. (2019). How cities erode gender inequality: A new theory and evidence from Cambodia. Gender & Society, 33(6), 961–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Farstad, G. R., & Stefansen, K. (2015). Involved fatherhood in the Nordic context: Dominant narratives, divergent approaches. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 10(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Holton, G. (2004). Robert K. Merton, 4 July 1910· 23 February 2003.

  18. Htun, M., & Laurel Weldon, S. (2012). The civic origins of progressive policy change: Combating violence against women in global perspective, 1975–2005. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 548–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jackson, R. M. (1998). Destined for equality: The inevitable rise of women’s status. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Johnson, C., Dowd, T. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kelley, C. P., Lt Col, U. S. A. F., Dobbs, J. M., PhD, J. L., & Lovaglia, M. (2017). Power and status: The building blocks of effective leadership. The Journal of Character & Leadership Development, 4(1), 1310.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1992). Connective leadership: Female leadership styles in the 21st-century workplace. Sociological perspectives, 35(1), 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mazur, A. G., McBride, D. E., & Hoard, S. (2016). Comparative strength of women’s movements over time: Conceptual, empirical, and theoretical innovations. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4(4), 652–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Merton, R. K. (1996). On social structure and science. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nystrom, A. (2020). What can the women of Iceland teach us about leadership? Real leaders. https://real-leaders.com/can-women-iceland-teach-us-leadership/

  26. Pascall, G. (2012). Gender equality in the welfare state? Berlin: Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Pearse, R., & Connell, R. (2016). Gender norms and the economy: Insights from social research. Feminist Economics, 22(1), 30–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rabionet, S. E. (2009). How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured interviews: An ongoing and continuous journey. The Qualitative Report, 14(3), 203–206.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rafnsdóttir, G. L., & Weigt, J. (2019). Addressing the horizontal gender division of labor: A case study of support and obstacles in a heavy industry plant in Iceland. Sex Roles, 80(1), 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Ridgeway, C. L. (2019). Status: Why is it everywhere? Why does it matter? Russell Sage Foundation.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2000). Limiting inequality through interaction: The end(s) of gender. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & society, 18(4), 510–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Risman, B. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 14(4), 429–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ryan, M. K., & Alexander Haslam, S. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of management review, 32(2), 549–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 340–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schneier, E. (1992). Icelandic women on the brink of power. Scandinavian studies, 64(3), 417–438.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sjoberg, L. (2013). Gendering global conflict: Toward a feminist theory of war. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sunderland, R. 2019. After the crash, Iceland's women lead the rescue. The Guardian. 21 February.

  41. Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. The Center of Gender Equality. 2017. Gender Equality in Iceland. The Center for Gender Equality Iceland. 1 March. www.gender.is

  43. Thorsdottir, T. K. (2014). Iceland: From feminist governance to gender-blind austerity? Gender, Sexuality, and Feminism, 1(2), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vongas, J. G., & Hajj, R. A. (2015). The evolution of empathy and women’s precarious leadership appointments. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wakefield, S. (2017). Transformative and feminist leadership for women’s rights. Oxfam America Research Backgrounder Series.

  46. Wolbrecht, C., & Campbell, D. E. (2007). Leading by example: Female members of parliament as political role models. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 921–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. World Economic Forum. (2017). This is why Iceland ranks first for gender equality. 1 Nov. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/why-iceland-ranks-first-gender-equality/

  48. Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Partial support for this research was provided by AFOSR grant # 21USCOR004. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Air Force Academy, United States Air Force or Department of Defense.

Funding

Funding was provided by AFSOR (AFOSR Grant # 21USCOR004).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioral Sciences & Leadership Department, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

    Amanda Metcalfe & Anastasia Hueffner

  2. United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

    Josephine M. Suss

Authors
  1. Amanda Metcalfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anastasia Hueffner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Josephine M. Suss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Metcalfe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no financial or non-financial interests to disclose. No conflicts of interest are known to exist for this submitted research. Partial support for this research was provided by AFOSR grant # 21USCOR004. No additional support from any other organization was received for the submitted work.

Informed Consent

Action Research Group Informed Consent forms were provided to each participant before interviews ensued.

Research Involving Human Participants

Ethics approval and consent to involve human participants was reviewed by a third-party research group (ARG) and in collaboration with the United States Air Force Academy’s IRB with the following determination: “Although this activity does meet the definition of research under 32 CFR 219.102(d), and the research does involve data about living human individuals, the researchers will not obtain said data by interacting directly with the individuals. Furthermore, the data the researchers will obtain will not be identifiable. Therefore, this activity does not constitute research with human subjects as defined in 32 CFR 219.102(d) and 32 CFR 219.102(f).”. Transcripts and subsequent coded data can be made available by the primary investigator, Amanda Metcalfe.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Figs. 1, 2 and Table 1

Fig. 1
figure 1

The Gender Gap Index quantifies the gaps between women and men in four key areas: health, education, economy, and politics

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Leadership themes

Full size image
Table 1 Interview questions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Metcalfe, A., Hueffner, A. & Suss, J.M. Beyond Inclusion Through Female Empowered Leadership: Status and Strategy in Iceland. Gend. Issues 39, 455–477 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09300-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09300-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation