Real-World Self-Leadership Case: “Leaning In” with Sheryl Sandberg

at
Categories
Tags

From self-observation and evaluation to positive mental imagery and practice, Sandberg was able to achieve a very high level of self-efficacy that empowered her to successfully build future successes atop of her past achievements. This self-efficacy and success has empowered her to serve as a leading voice that is inspiring other women to achieve similar accomplishments in their own lives and careers. In what ways is Sheryl Sandberg a self-leader? Specifically, how may self-leadership strategies have helped her to “lean in” during her career? How could self-leadership strategies help more women to “believe in themselves and their dreams”?

Real-World Self-Leadership Case

“Leaning In” with Sheryl Sandberg

A truly equal world would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes.

—Sheryl Sandberg

Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer at Facebook, has learned throughout her life and career to be an effective self-leader. Ranked sixteenth on the 2015 Forbes list of “America’s Self-Made Women” and eighth on the 2015 Forbes list of “Power Women,” Sandberg says she wasn’t always confident in her ability to succeed: “I remember my first day at Facebook, driving to this new job, this hard job, and not being sure I could do it. I think about all the moments when I just didn’t believe in myself: every test I was just about to fail, every job I wasn’t sure I could do.” Sandberg says that after seeing many women, including herself, quietly “lean back” and miss opportunities, she started to see a pattern and wanted to start talking about it.

In 2013, Sandberg published her first book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, in which she addresses this pattern. Women, Sandberg notes, are getting more college degrees and more graduate degrees and are entering the workforce in record numbers, yet in industry after industry, women hold only 15 to 20 percent of the top jobs. “Women are held back by many things,” she explains. “We’re held back by bias, by lack of flexibility, by lack of opportunity, but we also hold ourselves back: we don’t sit at the table, we don’t raise our hand, we don’t let our voices be loud enough.” Sandberg says she wrote the book for women of all ages, ranging from young women thinking about their futures to women who are out of the workforce and thinking about reentering to women who are volunteers and thinking about taking on greater leadership responsibilities. “I wrote this book to encourage women to believe in themselves and their dreams and to help men do their part to form a more equal world by making sure that all of us have opportunities based on our passions and interests, not just based on our gender,” she states.

Sandberg wrote Lean In to help start conversations in workplaces and in schools, to encourage people to think differently about gender. Belinda Luscombe, writing in Time magazine, has observed that Sandberg is off to a good start: “It’s probably not an overstatement to say Sandberg is embarking on the most ambitious mission to reboot feminism and reframe discussions of gender since the launch of Ms. magazine in 1971.” Changing the outcomes for women in the workplace will likely entail changing how all people think and behave, and more effective self-leadership among women may be an important tool in this process.

Sample Solution

distracted Duke, reacted in fear by offering to pardon all the rebels if they dispersed. Therefore, Bush’s view is convincing as Somerset enabled the rebellion to grow and was only compelled to intervene once the rebellion was obviously threatening; also supporting Manning’s (1979) assertion that “Somerset’s inept handling of the [1549 rebellions] brought about his downfall.” Indeed, the growth of the Cornish Rebellion in part inspired Kett’s Rebellion which occurred in the same year of 1549, proving that the state could not tolerate Somerset as leader if other rebellions had the confidence to develop. Kett’s Rebellion differed from the Cornish as it focused primarily on economic hardship, specifically the expansion of the enclosures. The enclosures meant that the gentry and local clergy men could expand small landholdings into larger farms and so took much away from the livelihood of the peasantry. Robert Kett himself was part of the gentry but felt so sympathetic to the peasantry that he had joined and even led the movement, making him a particular threat to the state. Kett’s rebellion resonated with far more than that seen in the Prayer Book rebellion in the same year; spreading the rebellion from Cornwall to East Anglia and gaining control of Norwich, the second largest city at the time. Somerset once again proved incompetent, sending a perfunctory commission to evaluate if the land was being taken at a disproportionate rate. Thus, Manning’s view is convincing as Somerset was clearly unable to differentiate between how serious Kett’s Rebellion was compared to the Cornish. Most significantly, Manning’s view is convincing because Somerset’s ineptitude created the opportunity for Dudley to exhibit his own competence by crushing Kett’s rebellion. Dudley then used this as his basis to overthrow Somerset as prince regent. Therefore, Somerset’s regency can indeed be labelled a ‘crisis’ for the Duke enabled England to grow into a state of severe conflict which directly threatened the state and eventually led to the overthrow of the prince regent himself.

In contrast, the Lord Presidency of the Duke of Northumberland (1550-1553) dealt with the issues formed under Somerset, resulting in an era of relative peace that cannot be deemed a crisis; beginning with the Duke’s need to resolve foreign affairs. Unlike Somerset, Northumberland recognised that even remaining in a deadlock with Scotland and France was not sustainable for England and that the Duke needed to turn his attention to pressing domestic discontent. However, one can see why historians such as Pollard (1910) argue that the Treaty of Boulogne, which Northumberland negotiated with France in 1550, was “the most ignominious… signed by England during the century”. Certainly, on the surface, the treaty appears to have been drawn up in indecent haste, as if Northumberland was attempting to quickly resolve foreign matters to focus

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.
Hi, how can I help?