Sarah Palin and Leadership

As most people know by now, Sarah Palin made the decision to step down from her position as governor of Alaska. This has, of course, triggered a media feeding-frenzy, as every expert tries to guess why she did it. Her stated reason was because she did not want to be a “lame duck” governor, just riding out her term spending tax-payer money while accomplishing little.

Of course, the speculation is that she’s positioning herself to make a run for president in 2012. And perhaps she is. It would be difficult to campaign for a national position while living and effectively governing in Alaska.

Politics aside, what I find so interesting is that no one is talking about whether what she is doing is simply a different, non-traditional, non-masculine way of doing things. Clearly, giving up power because it’s best for her state is non-traditional – when was the last time you heard of a man (or a woman trying to succeed using a traditionally masculine model of leadership) doing that? And if she’s stepping down so she can run for President, is that worse that the candidates (male and female) who retain their Senate seats while actively campaigning for a higher office? How effective are these individuals in the Senate when their main focus is their campaign?

Studies have repeatedly shown that women lead differently than men; that we are less concerned with “command and control” styles of leadership, and more interested in transformative leadership. Those same studies have also demonstrated that generally speaking, traditionally feminine styles of leadership are often more effective and contribute more to the bottom line.

Is it possible that Sarah Palin just has a different way of leading? And is her “different” way necessarily wrong? Or are we just not used to seeing it done that way?