blogs.butler.edublogs.butler.edu/.../05/Leadership-London-Paper.docx · Web viewSo she came up...

FINDING COMMON GROUND

Finding Common Ground:

Analyzing the Leadership Styles of Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Kay Ash

Brianna Marshall

Dr. Chuck Williams

Leadership London

September 4, 2013

1


Table of Contents

Executive Summary……...………...………………………………………...……………………3

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...……...4

Personal Backgrounds

Elizabeth I, Queen of England………………………….......……………………………..5

Mary Kay Ash………………….………………………………………………………….6

Leading with a Feminine Twist……………….....………………………………………………..7

Religion in Leadership…….....…………….....………………………………………………….10

Motivating Followers….....…………………………………………………………………...….13

Conclusion………………………….....…………………………………………………………18

References……………..…………………...…………………………………………………….19

2


Executive Summary

Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Mary Kay Ash were both prominent female leaders.

Elizabeth was the first major female monarch to rule in England and Mary Kay started her own

cosmetics business, Mary Kay, Inc., to prove women were just as able as men to do business.

Because they lived 300 years apart, on different continents, and under very different

circumstances, it would be expected that these two women would have very different leadership

styles from each other. By researching their personal histories and by analyzing the major

aspects of their leadership styles, it was found that their leadership styles had fundamental

similarities. They both used their femininity to their advantage, religion as a guide, and

motivation to gain support. Differences between Elizabeth and Mary Kay were usually the result

of the different settings in which they led. As a monarch, Elizabeth had to be stern and a tad

manipulative to keep the people on her side or she would risk losing her title and her life. On the

other hand, by leading a modern business Mary Kay had more leeway to be innovative and to use

more moral and ethical means. Mary Kay would only face financial danger, not mortal, if she

lost favor within her business. Despite these differences in applications, it can still be said that

Elizabeth and Mary Kay shared some basic similarities in their leadership styles.

3


Finding Common Ground:

Analyzing the Leadership Styles of Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Kay Ash

Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Mary Kay Ash were both famous female leaders.

They were groundbreaking in their respective fields. Elizabeth (1533-1603) was the first major

politically active, ruling queen of England. She took control of a male-dominated government,

led the country to the famous defeat of the Spanish Armada, and brought in the country’s

“Golden Age.” To this day, she is still one of England’s most loved monarchs. Mary Kay Ash

(1915-2001) was the founder of the direct-selling cosmetics company, Mary Kay, Inc. One of the

first and most successful female entrepreneurs, Mary Kay turned a $5,000 investment into a $10

million company in just five years (Nagel, 2003). These two women were both notable leaders,

but they were from totally different spheres: separated by over 300 years, one in politics and one

in business, and living in two different countries. These distinct environments definitely

impacted their leadership styles, so one would assume that Elizabeth and Mary Kay led with

completely different styles. But is that really true? Could there be fundamental leadership

qualities that could work in several environments? By analyzing Queen Elizabeth I and Mary

Kay Ash’s leadership styles and methods, I will answer those questions to find common ground.

Personal Backgrounds

A person’s background can greatly influence their leadership style, so it is important that

it is not overlooked. In the cases of both Elizabeth and Mary Kay, their lives before they were

leaders heavily influenced their future leadership methods and philosophies. The problems and

struggles they faced would impact the decisions they made later on. By studying their

backgrounds, we will have a better understanding of the choices they made.

4


Elizabeth I, Queen of England

Elizabeth was born on September 7, 1533 in Greenwich, England to King Henry VIII and

his second wife Anne Boleyn. When Elizabeth was two years old, Henry had Anne beheaded so

he could marry his next wife during his pursuit to have a male heir. Although Elizabeth was

claimed to be illegitimate by Parliament on July 1, 1536, she was still brought up in the Royal

household as a princess and received a formal education. Elizabeth proved to be especially bright

in her study of music and languages, including Latin, French, and Italian (“Elizabeth I,” 1998).

This education would prove to be essential when she was writing her speeches to demonstrate

her abilities as a ruler to her own government and to foreign dignitaries. Being brought up as a

princess also showed her how royalty should be treated. It was said that as queen, Elizabeth

“expected instant obedience and respect,” just like her father before her (Weir, 1998, p. 221).

After her father’s death in 1547, all the Royal comforts were taken away from Elizabeth

during her half-brother Edward VI’s reign. She was essentially placed under house arrest;

though, she was able to continue her studies. At the time, she was “romantically involved” with

Thomas Seymour, Lord High Admiral. Seymour fell in ill favor with the king and was arrested,

along with Elizabeth, and he was eventually executed (“Elizabeth I,” 1994; “Elizabeth I,”1998).

This was probably the beginning of Elizabeth’s aversion to marriage. When, Elizabeth’s half-

sister Mary took the throne, Elizabeth was once again a prisoner. Mary, a Catholic, put Elizabeth

in the Tower of London in 1553 because Elizabeth was gaining popularity among Protestants.

Elizabeth was in the Tower for two months (“Elizabeth I,” 1998). Her time spent in the Tower

probably influenced her reluctance to execute her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, Elizabeth’s

biggest threat, because she could remember the hardships and horrors she faced there. When

5


Mary, Elizabeth’s half-sister, died, Elizabeth was the next in line to rule England. Finally, in

1558 at the age of 25, Elizabeth ascended to the throne (“Elizabeth I,” 1998).

Mary Kay Ash

Mary Kay Ash, born Mary Kathlyn Wagner, was born on May 12, 1918 in Hot Wells,

Texas. Beginning at the age of six, Mary Kay spent her childhood caring for her father after he

was diagnosed with tuberculosis. It was during this time that she gained confidence in herself

and her desire to help others. She later credited much of her success to her mother, who

constantly encouraged her with the words “You can do it!” when she struggled to care for her

father and family. Her mother’s encouragement proved to be invaluable because Mary Kay used

the encouragement as a model for her business’ practices (Nagel, 2003). Mary Kay was an honor

student and graduated high school in just three years. One of her favorite extracurricular

activities was competitive speaking. In fact she placed second in a state speech competition

while still in junior high! (“Mary Kay Ash,” 1999). This skill of public speaking would also be

very important to her future career. Mary Kay had dreams to be a doctor, but could not afford to

go to college. So, she married a local celebrity musician Ben Rogers in 1935 and soon had three

children. She started working at Stanley Home Products to save money for a house. It was with

Stanley that she saw her talent of selling shine. When Rogers came back from serving in World

War II in 1945, he asked for a divorce, leaving Mary Kay a single mother and forcing her to

work full time (Nagel, 2003).

Mary Kay quickly rose to the top in Stanley Home Products and she perfected the art of

direct selling. She was recruited and took a job at World Gift Company in 1953. Again, she

gained success quickly and was promoted to national training director in just six years (Nagel,

2003). Despite this success, Mary Kay noticed that she was being overlooked for other jobs, as

6


the promotions went to men she was training. She became frustrated and said later, “If I could

teach them how to do it, why couldn’t I be the superior? But the real reason was, you are in the

wrong body, honey!” (Underwood, 2003, p. 12). She noticed these men were making twice her

salary, and she left World Gift in 1963 fed up with the discrimination she faced. She was still in

her 40s at this point, so she decided to write a book about her career experiences, detailing how

to be a better direct selling company. Upon completion, she realized that she actually wrote a

marketing plan for her dream business. Based off her list, she decided to start her own company

that would be equal opportunity for women and follow the Golden Rule. She started a cosmetic

company with only one product, a beauty cream from the formula she had purchased from a

previous customer when she was with Stanley Home Products. In 1963, she and her second

husband took their life savings of $5,000 to open “Beauty by Mary Kay.” Unfortunately her

husband died of a heart attack shortly before the opening, but Mary Kay continued with the

business with the help of her son Richard Rogers (Nagel, 2003). She would marry her third and

final husband Mel Ash in 1966, and although she took his surname she was already widely

known simply as Mary Kay (“Mary Kay Ash,” 1999).

Leading with a Feminine Twist

Until recently, a woman with power was not very common. The leadership styles of

Elizabeth and Mary Kay were notably different mainly due to the fact that they were women.

While it might be taboo to label their methods as “feminine” today, Elizabeth and Mary Kay

embraced their feminism to turn their challenge of being a woman in a man’s world into an

advantage. Marilyn Loden wrote in her speech “Feminine Leadership” (1986/1995) that “men

and women possess talents and skills unique to each simply because they are men and women…

and when [women] are able to use their unique God-given talents, they can add to any

7


organization’s strengths and accomplishments by providing a necessary balance to male styles of

management” (p. 13). Elizabeth and Mary Kay did just that.

Female leaders were not a completely new concept when either Elizabeth or Mary Kay

took to power; however, it was the extent to which they exercised their power while embracing

of their femininity that was revolutionary. For Elizabeth, most had accepted the legitimacy of

female monarchs but most also thought that Elizabeth would get married right away and let her

husband do most of the ruling (MacCaffrey, 2004). Even her first secretary, William Cecil,

thought she would leave most of the governing to her council (Doran, 2003). However, Elizabeth

proved them all wrong and used her womanly charm to get them on her side. She played on

emotions to persuade people. Sir John Harrison, Elizabeth’s godson, noted, “I have seen her

smile – with great semblance of good liking to all around and cause everyone to open his most

inward thought to her” (Weir, 1998, p. 220-21). Elizabeth pined for her people’s love, and could

be much more open about it as a woman. She said in her 1569 “State of the Nation” speech, “We

have been always desirous to have the obedience of all our subjects of all sorts… by love and not

by compulsion” (Rice, 1951/2001, p. 9). To the public, Elizabeth showed her compassionate

side, from visiting the sick to starting the tradition of giving money to the poor on Maundy

Thursday (Weir, 1998, p.226). In one of her last speeches, she said in her “Golden Speech” of

1601, “There is no jewel, be it of never so rich a prize, which I prefer before this jewel, I mean

your love, for I do more esteem it than any treasure of riches, for that we know how to prize, but

love and thanks I count inestimable” (Rice, 1951/2001, p. 11-12). Queen Elizabeth gained almost

a cult-like following, with her being their unwed “Virgin Queen.” Remaining unmarried also

proved to be a diplomatic weapon; by not marrying she balanced Continental powers while also

showing her own people that she put England’s needs above her own (“Elizabeth I,” 1998;

8


Doran, 2003). In the privacy of her own court, however Elizabeth could act much differently.

She could act much more bipolar with them, caring one moment and furious the next. Elizabeth

used her “sexly weaknesses” to make her courtiers protective of her by flirting with them (Weir,

1998, p. 222), but she would also throw temper tantrums on those closest to her (p. 227). Sir

John Harrington said, “Surely she did play her tables well to gain the obedience thus, without

constraint. Again, she could put forth such alterations when obedience was lacking, as left no

doubt whose daughter she was” (p. 220). Elizabeth played on her emotions to get the public and

her court to respect her.

Mary Kay’s main use of femininity was her womanly intuition about her sales force and

business. She knew what women would respond to and what type of work environment they

needed because Mary Kay was a woman too. Mary Kay based her business on her personal

principle of “God first, family second, and career third.” While this goes against the grain of

most business strategies, it works for Mary Kay, Inc.’s female-dominated work force. She said in

an interview with The Saturday Evening Post in October 1981, “Where women are concerned, if

they have problems at home, they cannot function. If they keep faith and family ahead of

business needs, then they will have time for a career” (Rosenfield, p. 59). That is one reason

Mary Kay made her saleswomen, called “beauty consultants,” independent contractors and not

employees, putting them in charge of their own career. When thinking of ways to motivate the

consultants to meet their sales goals, she again used her intuition. She believed that things which

made the consultants feel special would be more likely to motivate them, knowing that women

are more receptive of emotions than physical objects. In fact, she thought that women would

more likely use a cash bonus on a new washing machine than on themselves. So she came up

with the idea of giving luxury “Cinderella gifts,” from the famous pink Cadillacs to diamond

9


rings or even exotic vacations. Her hunch was right; the year she introduced the luxury items as

bonuses, her consultants broke all existing sales records (McLean, 2002, p. 56). The recognition

from getting the items was a much better motivator for women than traditional cash bonuses.

Ultimately, Mary Kay used a feminine style of leadership because she wanted to show that

women were just as good at business as men. Mary Kay showed that, in her own words,

“thinking like a woman” could work in business. This way of thinking requires one to be

empathetic and more receptive to others’ needs and feelings (Underwood, 2003, p. xiii). She also

strove to give the equal opportunity she was denied. Mary Kay stated, “So often a woman comes

to us who desperately needs to hear [encouragement]… When I see a woman like this, I want to

do for her what nobody did for me, in the way of providing opportunities” (Rosenfield, 1981, p.

107). Mary Kay was successful in providing opportunities for women by creating a work

environment that allowed women to work to their full potential. She was a champion of flextime,

letting women be active in their families as well as their careers; cracking the glass ceiling,

giving women equal opportunities to climb up the corporate ladder; and balanced priorities,

allowing women keep their faith and family ahead of their career (Underwood, 2003, p. 114).

Religion in Leadership

Religion can greatly influence leadership style through its teachings and philosophies. It

can act as a guide for decision-making in personal life and even professional life. Using religion

in leadership has been a popular method for leaders working for social causes, such as Mahatma

Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. They both led social movements that fought social injustices

but used nonviolence to achieve their goals. Gandhi and King were both rooted in their

spirituality, which helped them lead morally and without violence. While these are prominent

examples of religion in leadership, religion has also impacted politics and business. Queen

10


Elizabeth I and Mary Kay Ash used their faiths as guides and reasoning for their leadership

practices and behaviors.

Tension between Catholics and Protestants was a central issue in England for many years

before and during Elizabeth’s rule, so it is no surprise that religion was an integral part of her

reign. Elizabeth’s father, Henry VIII, had cut ties with the Catholic Church of Rome by creating

the Church of England to obtain his divorce from his first wife Catherine of Aragon, and since

then England had swung back and forth between Protestant and Catholic with each new monarch

(Green & Ottensmeyer, 2001). When Elizabeth came to power, she strove for religious stability.

She did not work for “purity of doctrine or practice, but public order, a goal that demanded

religious uniformity” (MacCaffrey, 2004). While this was unpopular with many people,

ultimately this helped keep the country peaceful.

Early in her reign, Elizabeth used the theory of “Divine Right” to establish the legitimacy

of a female monarch. In her accession speech, she stated (as written in a manuscript from the

British Museum), “I am Gods Creature, ordeyned to obey his appointment I will thereto Yelde,

desiringe from the bottom of my harte that I may have assistance of his Grace to bee the minister

of his Heavenly Will in this office now commytted to me” (Heisch, 1975, p.34). Elizabeth, and

her country, sincerely thought that in the words of Lord North, “she is our god in Earth” (Weir,

1998, p. 219). It was believed that only Royals could completely understand the “complexities

and mysteries of Church and State” (p. 219). Elizabeth used her godly powers to help others,

regularly visiting the sick, believing she had a healing touch. She also continued the tradition of

washing the poor’s feet and giving them food and clothes during Maundy Thursday (p.226).

Elizabeth spoke about God and His goodness and blessings He bestowed on the country in

almost all of her speeches. At the end of her “Golden Speech” of 1601 Elizabeth proclaimed, “I

11


speak it to give God the praise as a testimony before you, and not to attribute anything unto

myself” (Rice, 1951/2001, p. 13).

Elizabeth sometimes used religion for her own advantage. Following a rebellion,

Elizabeth gave her 1569 “State of the Nation” speech. She spoke out against the opposition and

revealed her views of the country’s natural duty to her. She said foreign forces had tricked

Englishmen “to withdraw them from obedience to us and our laws– yea, from all divine service

of God, contrary to their natural birth and duty toward God and their native country” (Rice,

1951/2001, p. 9). She also alluded to being obedient servants of the country, just as they were for

God. Elizabeth also took advantage of religious symbols to foster her image of the Virgin Queen.

She adopted the symbols of the Virgin Mary: the rose, the moon, the ermine, and the phoenix

(Weir, 1998, p. 223). While these actions were often out of necessity, using God for her own

advantage was not the most ethical leadership practice.

Mary Kay was a religious woman and devout Christian. So when it came to forming her

business, she incorporated many of her faith’s principles. She believed for her company to be

successful, it had to have unchanging values and practices. At its core, all of Mary Kay, Inc.’s

principles stem from the Golden Rule. She presumed that business would prosper if she treated

others, from employees and vendors to customers, as she wanted to be treated (Underwood,

2003, p. 14). Building a company based on the Golden Rule is not very common in the business

world, but Mary Kay stated that the Golden Rule “was not a spigot to be turned on and off. To

treat people according to your whims on a particular day is not what this beautiful philosophy is

all about” (McLean, 2002, p. 57). After Mary Kay’s death, company leaders compiled a list of

unambiguous statements that captured Mary Kay’s beliefs focusing on leadership. To no

surprise, most of them describe how to follow the Golden Rule, including:

12


Always do what is right, honorable, and ethical.

Always consider the human impact of every decision before a final decision is made.

Use the Golden Rule as a guide for determining the right thing to do.

Remember that employees are real people with diverse backgrounds and

multidimensional lives. Value their personal differences, recognize their individual

circumstances, and respect the whole person that each truly is.

(Underwood, 2003, p. 176)

One of the best things about these statements is that they transcend religions; they apply to all

people, not just Christians. It shows how to treat employees with respect and to lead ethically.

Mary Kay, Inc. executive Dick Bartlett said at Mary Kay’s memorial service, “Although she

preferred to use the word God, she understood that when it came to people and countries that

held different beliefs, the word faith could be substituted. The words matter far less than the

ideas. God first. Family second. Career third. Like so many of her precepts, it works as well

today as it did in 1963” (p. 137). Mary Kay was often criticized for the simplicity of her

businesses principles, even Morley Safer of 60 Minutes asked Mary Kay in an interview if she

was “using God.” Mary Kay blatantly replied, “I sincerely hope not. I hope instead that God is

using me” (p. 138). This way of doing business has proven to be successful for the company; it

has just entered its 50th year, with $3 billion in global wholesale sales from its 3 million

independent Beauty Consultants (Del Castillo, 2013).

Motivating Followers

Motivating followers is one of the hardest, but also important, jobs of a leader.

Motivation can be physical, like money and prizes, or abstract, like goals and words of

encouragement. Motivation is essential because it gets followers to do work for the cause. In the

13


business world, motivation is key to encourage employees to work harder. James G. Treybig,

founder and president of Tandem Computers, used employee benefits to create loyalty and to

increase productivity. All employees were given stock options and the company’s campus had

amenities such as a pool, jogging trails, and periodic company-supplied barbecues. The company

also sent out a magazine called Understanding Our Philosophy to pound in the ideas of loyalty,

hard work, respect of coworkers, and other points of the Tandem culture (Magnet, 1982/1994, p.

15). Mary Kay Ash also gave employee benefits and gifts, but she used words of encouragement

and set personal goals as well. Motivation is also important for political figures. British Prime

Minister Winston Churchill encouraged his country to stay positive during World War II. His

famous wartime speeches helped unite the country in a time of terror. In one of his most famous

speeches, he tried to prepare his country for the upcoming Battle of Britain by saying, “Let us

therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its

Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, ‘This was their finest hour’” (James,

2001, p. 22). He told of the gravities of the dire situation, but he was also optimistic about the

future if the country fought hard together. Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I was an excellent speaker

and relied on her speeches to rally forces. Without motivational tools, Elizabeth and Mary Kay

would not have been as effective leaders.

Queen Elizabeth I was an excellent speaker. She wrote all of her 18 speeches herself and

personally delivered 11 of them. She chose her words wisely and for good reason; public

speaking was her way to control Parliament. Studies of her speeches have revealed several

trends. First, there was often a seemingly deliberate vagueness in her word choice. Elizabeth

only used direct language when she was absolutely certain of her position. For example, in early

speeches she used heavily adorned prose. She did this to prove she could make a “princely

14


oration” while also using it as a “technique of evasion” because she was still unsure of how she

would rule. Elizabeth also used flattery and affection in her speeches for the House of Commons

and public distribution. Lastly, a common thread of metaphors of her as “a loving and yet

virginal mother” ran through most of her speeches (Heisch, 1975, p. 31-32). Speeches were her

way of explaining the justification for her action to her subjects. As gifted as she was a writer,

she was even better at performance. She knew what to say, and more importantly how to say it,

to get the audience on her side. She realized that personally delivering the speech would have a

much greater impact than sending one of her court. Elizabeth once told Parliament, “Princes’

own words be better printed in the hearers’ memory than those spoken by her command.” That

insight proved to be true, as her godson Sir John Harington stated, “Her speech did win all

affections, and her subjects did try to show all love to her commands.” Elizabeth tried to make

many public appearances, from travelling on annual progresses to boat rides along the Thames,

to be a personal and visible monarch (Weir, 1998, p. 220).

One of the best examples of Elizabeth’s public speaking is her speech to the troops of

Tilbury on August 9, 1588. The Spanish Armada was sailing for England to invade the country.

Spain, a Catholic country, was angry at the execution of Catholic Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots

because they considered her to be the rightful heir of the English throne. Spain hoped to conquer

both Protestant Netherlands and England with a fleet of 130 ships carrying 30,000 men.

Elizabeth visited troops stationed at Tilbury to prepare them for the upcoming battle (Green &

Ottensmeyer, 2001). She said to them:

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and

stomach of a king, …and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain or any prince of Europe

15


should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which, rather than any dishonor should

grow by me, I myself will take up arms. (Rice, 1951/2001, p. 11)

Her speech worked and the British ships miraculous outmaneuvered the Spanish and forced them

to retreat. This victory marked the pinnacle of Elizabeth’s reign, saving the country’s

independence, Protestantism, and throne (Green & Ottensmeyer, 2001).

Mary Kay also understood the importance and power of words and personal appearances.

Because the beauty consultants are independent contractors, they do not have managers

constantly besides them to push them to sell more. Mary Kay had to come up with creative ways

to keep the consultants motivated, but she always believed in them. She described her success

with the company as “gradual, based on the fact that I gave women the ultimate chance to do

whatever they were smart enough to do. I believe you can praise people to success” (Rosenfield,

1981, p. 62). “Praising people to success” has been a motto for Mary Kay and her directors since

the beginning. For example, in the early years of the company when a consultant would have a

poor week of sales, Mary Kay would celebrate the small success of simply selling anything. She

would then have the consultant set a higher goal and remind the woman that she could achieve

anything if she was committed (Underwood, 2003, p. 100). It was the recognition and

encouragement that Mary Kay gave her consultants that made them so successful. Monthly

prizes, birthday cards, and listing of top performers in Mary Kay, Inc.’s monthly magazine

Applause were simple ways that Mary Kay was able to recognize beauty consultants all year

long (American National Business Hall of Fame, n.d.). However, the largest, most spectacular

way Mary Kay motivated consultants was at an annual business convention known as Seminar.

The first Seminar was in 1964, just one year after the business started, and since then the

event has been held every August in Dallas (Underwood, 2003, p. 18). The idea for Seminar

16


probably stemmed from her days at Stanley Home Products. She could barely afford the $12 to

attend; in fact she borrowed the money from a friend. The trip was definitely worth it, as she

took 19 pages of notes and watched the Queen of Sales crowning from the back row of the

auditorium. She was very moved by the crowning and she was determined to achieve the

position the next year. She felt so determined that she approached the president of Stanley Home

Products, Frank Stanley Beveridge, and told him, “I’m Mary Kay Rogers, and next year I am

going to be the Queen of Sales.” Beveridge took her hand and replied, “Somehow, I think you

will.” And she did! (Rosenfield, 1981, p. 61). Mary Kay’s Seminar has grown into an opulent

multi-week event, with over 50,000 total beauty consultants attending five Seminar events

(Underwood, 2003, p. 95). Seminar is used to introduce new products, programs, and plans, but

it is most known for Awards Night. Mary Kay described it as “part beauty pageant and part

Academy Awards night… Thousands of prizes are awarded, ranging from the keys to a Cadillac

to diamond bumblebee pins. We crown the queen of sales and recruitment and present them with

prizes and flowers and scepters” (American National Business Hall of Fame, n.d.). It is worth

noting that these Cadillacs are pink, modeled after Mary Kay’s own. Recipients get to use the

leased cars for two years after selling $96,000 wholesale sales in six months (Rosenfield, 1981,

p. 106; Underwood, 2003, p. 7). The diamond bumblebee pins are for those who have sold more

than what was expect of them, a symbol of the fact that bumblebees are not aerodynamic but fly

anyway (Rosenfield, 1981, p. 59). While these prizes are worth a lot of money, Mary Kay was

able to make them into a symbol of accomplishment. The recognition she gave consultants was

her best tool for motivation, not the value of the gifts.

17


Conclusion

It cannot be denied that Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Kay Ash were two very effective

leaders. They led in completely different worlds, with different people and different situations.

However, there do seem to be several similarities in their leadership styles on the basic level.

First, they both used their femininity to their advantage to lead in a male-dominated world. They

both used emotions to gain support although they differed in some ways of applying this.

Elizabeth used emotions in flirtations with her court while Mary Kay used her woman intuition

to appeal to her female sales force through emotions. Religion was also a major aspect of their

leadership. They both openly talked about God and to an extent were guided by religious

teachings. However, it seemed more often than not Elizabeth was just using religion as an excuse

for her actions. Mary Kay was truly guided by her faith; she built an entire company following

the Golden Rule. Lastly, as all great leaders do, they were able to motivate those around them.

Both Elizabeth and Mary Kay would use speeches and personal contact, although Elizabeth

relied much more on this. Mary Kay also used recognition to make her beauty consultants feel

special and worthy by helping them set goals and giving lavish gifts. Therefore, Elizabeth and

Mary Kay have fundamental similarities in leadership styles. They used what they were good at

to overcome obstacles and to rally support. Differences between them are largely accounted for

the different settings in which they led. Mary Kay was ethical more often than Elizabeth, but a

monarch must be strict with followers to maintain obedience or she would risk an overthrow of

the throne. As a businesswoman, Mary Kay was not in much danger, other than financially, if

she lost support so she could be more caring and focus of the ethicality of business behaviors.

Nevertheless, the span of 300 years and working in different fields, Queen Elizabeth I and Mary

Kay Ash have more similarities in their leadership styles than would ever be expected.

18


References

American National Business Hall of Fame. (n.d.). Mary Kay Ash. Retrieved from

http://www.anbhf.org/laureates/mkash.php.

Del Castillo, P. (2013, July 22). Fifty and fabulous: Mary Kay continues to experience record-

breaking growth during golden anniversary year. Retrieved from

http://marykay.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/FIFTY-AND-FABULOUS-MARY-

KAY-CONTINUES-TO-EXPERIENCE-RECORD-BREAKING-GROWTH-DURING-

GOLDEN-ANNIVERSA-a4.aspx.

Doran, S. (2003, May). Elizabeth I: gender, power & politics. History Today, 53(5), 29+.

Retrieved from World History in Context.

Elizabeth I. (1994). In Historic World Leaders. Gale. Retrieved from Biography In Context.

Elizabeth I. (1998). In Encyclopedia of World Biography. Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from

Biography in Context.

Green, W. A., & Ottensmeyer, E. (2001). Introduction. In Hartwick Classic Leadership Cases:

Elizabeth I, Queen of England (p.1-5). Oneonta, NY: The Hartwick Humanities in

Management Institute.

Heisch, A. (1975, Autumn). Queen Elizabeth, I: Parliamentary Rhetoric and the exercise of

power. Signs, 1(1), 31-55. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172965.

James, R. R. (2001). Winston Churchill’s speeches. In Hartwick Classic Leadership Cases:

Winston Churchill. (p. 15-22). Oneonta, NY: The Hartwick Humanities in Management

Institute. (Reprinted from Winston S. Churchill: His complete speeches 1897-1963, Vol.

6, Chelsea House Publishers).

19


Loden, M. (1986). Feminine leadership. In Hartwick Classic Leadership Cases: “A Jury of Her

Peers.” (p.13-17). Oneonta, NY: The Hartwick Humanities in Management Institute.

(Reprinted from Vital Speeches of the Day, 1986, May 15).

MacCaffrey, W. (2004). Elizabeth I, Queen of England. In J. Dewald (Ed.), Europe, 1450 to

1789. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Retrieved from Biography in Context.

Mary Kay Ash. (1999). In S. Dow & J. E. Noce (Eds.), Business Leader Profiles for Students

(Vol. 1). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from Biography in Context.

Magnet, M. (1994). Managing by mystique at Tandem Computers. In Hartwick Classic

Leadership Cases: The Rule of St. Benedict. (p.14-18). Oneonta, NY: The Hartwick

Humanities in Management Institute. (Reprinted from Fortune, 1982, June 29, p. 84-91).

McLean, C. (2002, January 7). Operating in the pink. The Report, 56-57.

Nagel, M. C. (2003). Mary Kay Ash. In A. Markoe & K. T. Jackson (Eds.), Scribner

Encyclopedia of American Lives, Thematic Series: Sports Figures. New York: Charles

Scribner's Sons. Retrieved from Biography in Context.

Rice, G. P. (2001). The public speaking of Queen Elizabeth. In Hartwick Classic Leadership

Cases: Elizabeth I, Queen of England (p.6-13). Oneonta, NY: The Hartwick Humanities

in Management Institute. (Reprinted from The public speaking of Queen Elizabeth, by G.

P. Rice, 1951, New York: Columbia University Press).

Rosenfield, P. (1981, October). The beautiful make-up of Mary Kay. The Saturday Evening Post,

59-63, 106-107.

Underwood, J. (2003). More than a pink Cadillac: Mary Kay Inc.'s nine leadership keys to

success. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weir, A. (1998). The life of Elizabeth I. New York: Ballantine Books.

20

blogs.butler.edublogs.butler.edu/.../05/Leadership-London-Paper.docx · Web viewSo she came up...

Documents

Transcript of blogs.butler.edublogs.butler.edu/.../05/Leadership-London-Paper.docx · Web viewSo she came up...