Ethically Designed

The ethical underpinnings of my work in theorizing matriarchal leadership, prioritize and increase the economic value of maternal roles, women’s leadership, and the generative cycles and thinking patterns of a female species. A year and a half into a global pandemic, the tip of the social, emotional, and economic impacts of a patriarchal society emerged. Nearly 2 million women reported experiences of burnout, stress, and exhaustion from a labor imbalance in managing work, home, and family responsibilities (Burns, Huang, Krivkovich, Rambachan, Trkulja & Yee, 2021). Critical work around employee well-being is reflective of a culture, and within a patriarchal culture, “progress is rarely made on efforts that are undervalued” (p.17). Increasing the value of women and mothers, in cultural settings, increases the health and improves the balance of a diverse society.

Matriarchal leadership identifies the degree to which human flourishing exists within an organization. Its presence disrupts patriarchal norms within the home and the workplace, while also enhancing the presence and partnership of matriarchal women working and thriving within patriarchal systems and cultures. The myth of a “maternal role” in caregiving reveals how instruction and observation can inform anyone as to what works best in caring for other humans (Shrestha, Adachi, Petrini, & Shrestha, 2019). After all this time, it is now understood that time, committment, and full attention are the only differences between a maternal and paternal role. This disruption to normative ideals within patriarchal power systems paints a more accurate portrait of a generative maternal leadership not only proven beneficial in the home but translates as generative power within the workplace. The advantages of a partnership with matriarchal leadership within a patriarchal system host profound opportunities for increasing values of diversity, at the intersections of sex, gender, race, and class, as generative leadership takes all members into account for strategic organizational payoff (Coffey, 2005). 

Traditional models of fixed economic models and organizational flows present a social hurdle, as generative thinking disrupts the comfort and ease to which a few in power have set a pace for coasting. What was originally designed as rational and logical policies within the workplace were mostly created “based on masculine-based organizational cultures and structures” (De-Frank Cole & Tan, 2022, p.121). Matriarchal leadership would identify blocks and impediments to human flourishing that may prove a threat to those who benefit from unpaid labor, gender stereotypes, exclusion, and bias, causing unrest among some stakeholders. With matriarchal leadership hosting development for agency and self-efficacy, a degree of power shifts to that of the people, where exercising values that support thriving holds weight for change. 

A worldview of the term “matriarchy” is often defined through a patriarchal lens, as a similar power structure of authority over people, one where women, and not men, hold ultimate power. Matriarchy is an organized social system governed solely by women, where the definition of matriarchal exists as “the state of being an older, powerful woman in a family or group” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). In this sense, a woman who is free to govern her own sense of self, operating outside the influence of a patriarchal belief or system, engages in a matriarchal leadership.

While the focus of this project is to provide a lens of Appreciative Inquiry into the presence of oppression, inequality, and other counterproductive outcomes of patriarchal leadership (Bareket, Kahalon, Schnabel & Glick, 2018), my challenge is addressing white women regarding the systemic oppression our leadership upholds, the affiliations we participate in, and perpetuate. The language and visuals I use to paint a portrait of matriarchal leadership should be encouraging, but truthful; it must be realistic and also visionary.

The ethical underpinnings of my work in theorizing matriarchal leadership, serve in prioritizing and expanding the social, economic, environmental, and domestic value of maternal roles, women’s leadership, and the generative cycles that impart intelligence within a female species. The objective of creating matriarchal leadership theory is to exemplify the power of generative leadership that is in direct contrast, or complementary to, oppressive, fixed, patriarchal systems. I am also making a distinction between women’s and matriarchal leadership. Not all women leaders are matriarchal, possessing the capacity to counter patriarchal norms and labor in the co-creation of new, healthier, pathways for a diverse society to thrive. And not all men are patriarchal, fixed in believing sex is heirarchal, masculinity is default, or that to be a man is to be a leader.

Critical work around employee well-being is reflective of the culture, and within a patriarchal culture, “progress is rarely made on efforts that are undervalued” (Burns, Huang, Krivkovich, Rambachan, Trkulja & Yee, 2021, p.17). Increasing the value of maternal responsibility and femme leadership may also lower the value of patriarchal norms, creating space for the restoration of organizational health and social equity.

I intend to define a leadership style and process that stands on its own within a patriarchal system, while also working to advance the agency of all those within a home and a brand house. Where humans experience relational dead-ends, stagnancy, and toxicity, at work and in personal relationships, matriarchal leadership illuminates opportunities for transcendence. My hope is for women leaders to stand in a posture of self-authority, sending a clear message that she is paying close attention to what is going on around them. My hope is for men and women, entry-level or C-suite, to experience leadership that invites greater agency in their career trajectory; it is also for organizations to adopt more future-minded systems and human-centric processes that are intentionally designed to support human flourishing.

Melinda

...

Matriarchal Leadership Theory

Melinda Cadwallader knows Matriarchal Leadership

Nearly two decades ago I began wrestling with the phenomena of matriarchal leadership. A lived experience of solo parenting offered the opportunity to operate as head of the house and chief of well-being; with no patriarchy to submit to, no adherence to a hierarchy, and no masculine defaults to align with, I led our family unit as both mom and pop. Breaking these rigid gendered norms produced a grit that refined my character and strengthened my resilience for living out an organic and holistic leadership attuned to human flourishing. 

In my work with trades education, I was introduced to Kolb’s experiential learning model. Applying this process of moving information through a cycle of feeling, watching, thinking, and doing, baked sensemaking into the landscape of my leadership. Through this ‘experiential sensemaking’, I advanced beyond fear, frustration, loneliness, and hopelessness into greater dignity, clarity, self-respect, and autonomy. I changed my role from ‘single mother’ to ‘solo parent.’

As agency increased, so did my vision and version of leadership. The invisible systems of anti-feminism that planted seeds of misogyny, began to weaken and fall away. Internalized patriarchy became compost for the burgeoning of a leadership balanced with love and logic - practicality and imagination. This yes, and… leadership bolstered my stability to stand on my own two feet even while operating under the leadership of patriarchal systems. 

I had found a thriving within the cancer of patriarchy.

When Leukemia came knocking at my child’s door, I left my career to provide full-time caretaking. While living in the hospital, I applied this same ‘experiential sensemaking’ to help me move beyond the spirals and cycles of grief. Personal leadership became a tool of survival and influenced the daily choices of a child attuned to her own measure of human flourishing.

Together, we discovered a thriving within the experience of cancer itself. 

Building upon my undergrad research, where I portrayed how women and mothers are impacted by limitations within patriarchal workplace culture, I took this capstone opportunity to begin theorizing and designing the infrastructure for a women’s leadership style that harnesses the dynamic power of communications attuned to human flourishing. 

 Applying the framework of the communicative constitution of an organization (McPhee, 2015), the four flows ‘ecosystem’ of communication initiates a membership to the leadership of self, exercises strategic intention, appreciates what works well, and embraces continuous adaptation and advancement. In this sense, ‘matriarchal’ is strategic for decentering patriarchy and recentering human dignity by increasing the value and agency of femme, or liberated, leadership.  

This project helped me form ‘the bones’ of matriarchal leadership by laying down the theory-building research necessary for a solid architecture capable of protecting what is truly at the heart of this theory: human flourishing. 

As words create worlds, and given this historical moment of great human suffering and deep societal ills - a leadership that is both protective and nurturing is just the prescription for establishing personal balance and restoring organizational health.

Attuned to human flourishing, Matriarchal Leadership takes its shape. 

What could that shape look like for you?

Melinda

Matriarchal Leadership Theory

Hospitality to Sexism is a Cancer of Community.

Two years ago, Idaho House of Representatives rejected a $6 million federal grant geared towards increasing access to early education and child-care. The grant would have benefitted the Idaho State Board of Education, allocating funds for child-care and early education for kids ages five and under. Idaho is a red state. "Trump Country." A "pro-life" county.

A lawmaker in opposition of the grant made a sexist rebuttal of the vote, stating, “I don’t think anybody does a better job than mothers in the home, and any bill that makes it easier or more convenient for mothers to come out of the home and let others raise their child, I don’t think that’s a good direction for us to be going, we are really hurting the family unit in the process.” So, the "family unit" is harmed when children have access to education, or is this (once again) patriarchy talking about controlling women?

While the public issue is about funding for education, the ethical issue is the sexist views and gender bias that has surfaced from state representatives, those responsible for approving education funding in the public arena. The “good” being protected shifted from education to that of defining roles within a “family unit”, causing outrage from the public who protect diverse perspectives and promote a commitment to ethical communication.

Can a community host an ability for diverse people to thrive when the leadership (legislators) are sexist? Yes, but sexism is a cancerous communication, and a healthy flourishing community does not tolerate its presence.

As a former single mother, my “family unit” represented me and my child. Every choice I made, as a parent, was in responsibility of protecting the independent sustainability of our family. The choice to homeschool was not an option, as solo parenting is not valued (read: funded) in this nation. But the opportunity to enroll my child in full-time kindergarten, and early education programs, gifted me the opportunity to reduce costs of childcare while my child engaged in mind-developing activities and I worked full-time in my trade, providing 100% of our family needs.

This state legislator's othering protects and promotes the “good” of the family unit, but from a standpoint of ethics rooted in religious ideology that defines a traditional, gender-normative depiction of “family unit” where mothers stay home with children. In this ideology, solo mothers are forced to carry shame in being outside the "norm." This narrow-minded opinion of a “family unit” is a narrative one may choose for themselves, but cannot force into public acceptance, legislated into law, or presented as "common sense”.

In Idaho, sexist communications surface as a result of slow progress and too little diversity, creating a monologue of false standards, competing narratives, and only reveal a leadership that is out of touch from the needs of an entire community. It is important for public dialogue to remain centered around the common ground of the “good” in question, to prevent unethical communication to deter the public from the matter at hand. In this case, the dialogue for education funding was publicly overrun by sexist ideology that has no business in the governance of public policy. When we refuse to face our dysfunctions, and acknowledge the harm they cause, we are actively participating and perpetuating them.

Many unifying values and uniting principles get lost within the othering of fundamentalist ideology and unethical communication. How can we stay alert to these dysfunctions of community and diseases of democracy? We must commit to active listening. We must grow increasingly capable of identifying the words, phrases, and communication practices that promote othering.

When we refuse to face our dysfunctions, and acknowledge the harm they cause, we are actively participating and perpetuating them.

Feminist theorists and cultural critics are devoted to this work. We listen with ears perked to the sounds of division. We look with eyes peeled for signs of supremacy. Our senses are well-rested and in-tune. We pay close attention to the quality of care over women, children, the marginalized, and the oppressed. What is "good" for a whole community must reside central to the intersections of a diverse people. And what is a community without the inclusion of *all within it? An exclusive cult.