LEGISLATORS AS LEADERS: INVESTIGATING AND ELUCIDATING THE INFLUENCE OF GENDER, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND MINDFULNESS ON LEGISLATIVE DECISION MAKING
by
ALISON J. BATTAGLIA
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Weatherhead School of Management
Designing Sustainable Systems
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
May, 2017 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of
Alison J. Battaglia
Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy*.
Committee Chair
Diana Bilimoria., Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University
Committee Member
Kalle Lyytinen, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University
Committee Member
Kathleen Buse, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University
Committee Member
Eileen Doherty-Sil, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania
Date of Defense
March 24, 2017
*We also certify that written approval has been obtained
for any proprietary material contained therein.
© Alison J. Battaglia, 2017
All rights reserved. Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to legislators, advocates, stakeholders and policy makers who provide a voice and support for those unable to advocate for themselves. It is my hope that this research contributes to a strong and civil society that recognizes mindful deliberation, and the strengths inherent in gender differences. These critical practices, when applied by legislators, can improve the well-being and prosperity of everyone. We seek fairness and equity in each decision, particularly when they affect those who are in considerable need. We must never overlook the reality that the roots of our present impact our future. Table of Contents
List of Tables ...... viii List of Figures ...... ix Abstract ...... xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ...... 1 Problem of Practice ...... 4 Purpose of Research ...... 5 Research Questions ...... 5 Definitions ...... 6 Research Design ...... 7 Flow of Research ...... 9 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 11 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH FINDINGS ...... 14 Study 1: Qualitative Study Findings ...... 14 Study 2: Quantitative Study Findings ...... 15 Study 3: Qualitative Study Findings ...... 15 Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework ...... 17 Decision-Making Theory ...... 17 Leadership ...... 24 Social Role Theory ...... 45 Mindfulness ...... 47 CHAPTER 5: A STUDY OF LEGISLATORS’ VALUES AND DECISION- MAKING (Study 1) ...... 55 Theoretical Framework and Literature Review ...... 55 Review of Literature ...... 57 Research Design ...... 63 Findings ...... 66 Discussion ...... 70 Implications ...... 75 CHAPTER 6: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE INFLUENCERS OF LEGISLATORS’DECISION-MAKING (Study 2) ...... 76 Theoretical Framework ...... 77 Review of Literature ...... 78 Hypotheses ...... 82 v Research Design ...... 86 Exploratory Factor Analysis ...... 88 Hypothesis Testing ...... 91 Results ...... 92 Discussion ...... 94 Implications ...... 97 CHAPTER 7: DOES MINDFUL LEADERSHIP MATTER? A STUDY OF LEGISLATORS’DECISION MAKING (Study 3) ...... 98 Research Purpose ...... 100 Theoretical Foundations ...... 101 Review of Literature ...... 103 Findings ...... 127 Discussion ...... 136 CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION ...... 138 Discussion ...... 138 Limitations ...... 142 Implications ...... 145 Future Research ...... 148 Conclusion ...... 149 Appendix A. Theory Literature Review Table ...... 154 Appendix B. Study 1 Qualitative Research Protocol ...... 168 Appendix C. Agentic Decision-Making Quotes ...... 170 Appendix D. Communal Decision-Making Quotes ...... 171 Appendix E. Quotes for Pride in Passion Bi-Partisan Legislation...... 172 Appendix F. Quotes for Consequences for Passing Bi-Partisan Legislation ...... 173 Appendix G. Quotes for Listening ...... 174 Appendix H. Construct Definitions ...... 175 Appendix I. Study 2 Quantitative Respondents Demographics ...... 176 Appendix J. Construct Table ...... 178 Appendix K. Mindfulness Construct Definitions ...... 182 Appendix L. Using Mindfulness and Legislative Decision-Making Process Qualitative Interview Protocol ...... 183 Appendix M. Coding Results ...... 185
vi Appendix N: Quote Tree: Mindful Decision-Making in the Legislature: Results ...... 186 Appendix O: Quote Tree: Decision-Making Confidence ...... 188 Appendix P: Quote Tree: Mindful Decision-Making: Managing Stress ...... 190 REFERENCES ...... 192
vii List of Tables
Table 1. Definitions Table ...... 7 Table 2. Study 1 Qualitative: Sample Demographics ...... 65 Table 3. Agentic and Communal Instances ...... 66 Table 4. Work Ethic and Integrity Instances ...... 68 Table 5. Pride in Passing Bi-Partisan Legislation ...... 69 Table 6. Exploratory Factory Analysis Pattern Matrix ...... 90 Table 7. Correlation Matrix ...... 91 Table 8. Hypothesis Results (PLS) ...... 94 Table 9. Mindfulness Sample Demographics ...... 118 Table 10. Data Results ...... 125 Table 11. Chi-Square Test Significant Results ...... 126
viii List of Figures
Figure 1. Exploratory Sequential Procedural Diagram for Legislative Decision- Making Mixed Methods Study ...... 8 Figure 2. Integrative Flow of Research Model ...... 9 Figure 3. Integrative Flow of Research Model Including Findings ...... 16 Figure 4. Hypothesized Quantitative Model ...... 77 Figure 5. Data Structure Table ...... 121 Figure 7. Mindful Decision-Making Legislative Benefits Model ...... 135 Figure 8. Gender Differences: The Impact of Mindful Women in the Legislature Model ...... 135
ix Acknowledgements
I am profoundly grateful for the work and guidance of my committee Chair and mentor, Dr. Diana Bilimoria. Diana’s unwavering support, leadership, and research expertise are unparalleled. My experience was exceptional because of Diana’s kindhearted approach while guiding me through academic rigor with high expectations and generosity of spirit. Thank you, Diana. I look forward to continuing our research together.
Dr. Kalle Lyytinen is a distinguished scholar with an unwavering commitment to academic success through his leadership and scholarly acumen. Kalle instilled upon me a passion for research and drive to contribute to scholarship with rigor and enthusiasm.
Under Kalle’s leadership, he developed a life-changing academic experience while
unconditionally championing our work. Thank you, Kalle.
Dr. Kathleen Buse is a personal role model for me. Kathy began lifting me up
academically and personally from the moment we met. Kathy keep me excited, motivated
and consistently aware of my abilities even when I was unsure. As a professor, she was
able to take complex analysis and integrate it into our learning with ease. Kathy is unconditionally loyal, and her guidance made my success imminent. Thank you, Kathy.
I knew I wanted to be in Dr. Eileen Doherty-Sil’s sphere 15 minutes into our world politics lecture. Eileen’s enthusiasm for teaching, scholarship and theory are contagious. She asked questions about my research that compelled me to grow as a student and researcher. She provided support and experience and encouraged me to think globally and interpret scholarship through an additional lens. Thank you, Eileen.
x I have built a village of remarkable champions in my life. Throughout this journey, I was given unwavering support, care, and encouragement. Special recognition goes to my mother, Linda Sempliner, my brother, Michael Shea, my ever-loyal cousin,
Michelle Bermudez, and Stepfather, Ted Sempliner. To my sisterhood of women who never let me forget that with love, support, and generosity of spirit as basic tenants, we can accomplish anything. Therese Andjeski, Kiki Brockman, Scarlett Bouder, Amanda
Bowen, Jessica Colombi, Virginia Davidson (V), and Mary Louise Madigan—thank you.
xi Legislators as Leaders: Investigating and Elucidating the Influence of Gender, Religious Beliefs, and Mindfulness on Legislative Decision Making
Abstract
by
ALISON J. BATTAGLIA
State and Federal Legislators determine policies that impact both our constitutional rights and government obligation towards citizens of the United States.
Legislators deliberate on hundreds of bills requiring an equal number of ultimate decisions in any given term. This mixed method exploratory sequential research includes three independent, but closely related, studies focused on the legislator's decision-making process. This dissertation will examine the influencing factors of legislative deliberations including whether mindfulness, originating from the practice of spirituality, influences legislative policy-making and effectiveness. Gender differences informed all areas of inquiry. The goal of this research is to gain an improved understanding of the best ways to unite legislators with policy advocates and other engaged citizens. To do this, I seek to understand what influences legislative policy decision-making? Are there gender differences in decision-making style and approach? Do religious practices, family values, and in turn, mindful decision-making influence male and female legislators differently?
Through this research, I discovered male and female legislators in my sample approach policy decision-making differently. Men employ an agentic decision-making
xii style, and women employ a communal decision-making style. The most significant driver
of decision-making, and in turn legislative priorities, for both male and female legislators
that I interviewed is their personal values or faith. Legislative mindful decision-making has a noteworthy impact on the outcomes of legislative deliberation. Mindful legislative
leadership increases effectiveness, confidence, and decreases the legislative stress that
comes from diverging policy decisions. Practicing mindfulness and the legislators who
commit to it are more effective in developing common ground and are emotionally
resilient.
Overall, the implications of this dissertation extend to advocates, citizens, and legislators. As advocates are developing their strategic approaches for support of issues, understanding the core values of legislators, their decision-making process, and gender
differences will help guide stakeholders, including voters, to understand the philosophy of policy makers on complex and divisive issues ultimately leading to better legislative outcomes for all involved. The practice of mindfulness in legislative decision-making is
central to the success of the community, the constituents and the longevity of the
legislator's career.
Keywords: legislators; policy; gender; decision-making; religion; mindfulness;
constituents; advocates
xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Legislative Leadership is central to this research, both operating within legislative bodies and as a representative of one's constituents. Much research has been done on the behavior of leaders and the ways in which people can perform well or poorly as leaders.
The historical and contemporary conversation regarding the ideal elements of leadership were reviewed and incorporated into this research. Among legislators, too, there is substantial consideration given to the actions they must take to be the effective leaders they and their constituents feel they ought to be. This work unfolds into that conversation.
Over the course of these studies, the importance of gender in leadership emerged as a central consideration. The role of women in the legislative process has been given substantial attention, but there remain barriers to the full realization of the potential of these lawmakers in practice, and there remain skeptics and other barriers to the effectiveness of research on the subject. Women and men often make important decisions differently, with men making what are described as agentic decisions, which are driven by considerations of self, and women making communal decisions, which include incorporating empathy and trust into their decision-making process (Smith et al., 2013).
The complexities of how women lead as legislators deserve continued attention for an array of reasons, many of which will be enumerated below. Beyond consideration of basic human rights, there are unique advantages to having women as part of the legislative decision-making process, and any effort to pinpoint some of the detail of that process will be well-served by including gender in its considerations. Furthermore, many studies suggest that women are more apt to make moral decisions—certainly an
1 important quality in legislative deliberation (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Glover, Bumpus,
Sharp, & Munchus, 2002).
The convergence of these three sets of research questions reflects a developing interest in the nuances of the deliberative process of legislators. From the factors the lawmakers themselves identified in the first study as significant influences on them to the possible factors that influence their decisions explored in the second investigation to the focused consideration of mindfulness in the third research component, these three lines of investigation and analysis dovetailed into a singular and focused purpose.
This research is meant to improve the lives of ordinary citizens and enrich the polis through a more complete understanding of how legislators make decisions and in what ways they can be encouraged to make the best decisions.
The scope of literature which these results intersect is broad, but it converges around the subjects of legislative leadership, decision-making, and gender. The focus that this research brings to the question of how legislators in general and women legislators, in particular, make good decisions, especially under difficult circumstances, is unique in the literature in terms of the specific intersection of questions and the variety of individual research projects nested in the study. While there is a great deal of research on politics and legislation, including a substantial amount of political history and theory, research is not abundant that seeks to answer the practical question of how the best decisions are made with an eye to supporting the work of advocates. The understanding of the general public and rapport and work between legislators is not abundant.
All citizens hope for the most thoughtful decision-making possible from their elected officials, but most resign themselves to a system that seems so corrupt that there
2 appears to be little reason to have faith in it. The cynicism this can inspire is reductive and is an obstacle to understanding how to make the system work to advance one's priorities. Moving from disillusionment to pragmatic practice requires some understanding of the nuances of decision-making that take place within the political process. In order to fully appreciate the relationship between mindfulness and political leadership, it is necessary to overcome the prejudices against official politicians that are often fixed in the average constituent’s mind.
The question of how to adjust behavior among politicians is a common theme among reformers, and it tends to reach an impasse when it comes to changing the way in which politicians think about politics. One way to achieve this transformation in thinking is to return to the foundation upon which the civic bodies of the Republic rests. One can argue that politicians need to adopt an attitude of mindfulness and citizens need to select people who are predisposed to this frame of mind because the foundation of democracy depends upon careful and sober judgment.
In this argument, one begins by recognizing the need for improved decision- making by legislators and tacitly suggests it is great enough that certain actions would be justified to achieve this end. What is not clear is just what those actions would be. Could one attempt to compel mindful decision-making and eliminate all influences outside of simply making the best decision for one's electorate? Scenarios in which one attempts to compel good governance within the context of the existing system are unlikely to be successful. The system seems to generate the problems one would be attempting to use it to remove. While many critics of contemporary politics contend that people who run for office are uniquely venal, it is at least a possibility that, instead, the process draws
3 venality out in people and that the system corrupts those who enter into it. The chain of
corruption in just about every country is a substantial massing of evidence reinforcing
this argument.
There is a growing sense that some action must be taken in the face of ineffective
political leadership. This is where integrating the idea of mindfulness with the
contemporary political landscape becomes imperative. The qualities of mindfulness have
increasingly become a subject of great interest in academic circles, and there is a
substantial body of literature which explores many facets of mindfulness and its value.
This study advances that research by pinpointing conditions under which mindful
decision-making is most likely within the legislative context.
In that process, the components of decision-making that came to the fore varied as
data was collected and findings were determined. For example, listening was an
important variable early in the research, and while it continued to matter, it ceased to be
overt. Instead, it was recognized as a consistent element of deliberative practice among
legislators, who often engaged in other practices that varied more significantly. Listening
is a crucial part of the information-gathering process for every legislator, but that is
reflected in an emphasis on the filtering and use of the information gained from listening.
Problem of Practice
State and Federal Legislators determine policies that impact both our
constitutional rights and government impact on citizens of the United States. Legislators
make decisions on hundreds of bills. It is unfeasible to have expertise in every area. This
decreases decision-making performance and increases stress and anxiety. Research is available about the political environment and voting, but I will examine the influencing
4 factors in a way that will help improve communication with policy advocates and policy
makers. Additionally, I will examine religion/spirituality and mindfulness and explore
whether mindfulness, originating from the practice of spirituality, influences legislative
policy making and the effectiveness of the legislator. I will identify the most influencing
driver in the midst of these structural and environmental constraints within the sample.
Additionally, I will examine gender differences throughout each investigation.
Purpose of Research
The dissertation contributes to the extant literature by providing advocates and legislative leaders with an understanding of how to best approach, understand and impact the legislator’s or colleagues view and understanding of issues. I will address this by looking at both values and the underlying styles of decision-making norms for men and women in the legislature. Moreover, I will identify effective legislative leadership traits and examine how these values affect their leadership confidence and performance.
Research Questions
The overall research questions for this dissertation are:
What influences legislators’ decision-making?
Are there gender differences in decision-making style?
Do faith, family values, and in turn, mindful decision-making influence male and female legislators differently?
The work of legislators or policy makers relies on meeting with, listening to, and forming relationships with others. They confer and debate with their colleagues, about the
merits of proposed laws and determine their colleagues’ level of support to assess a
preferred outcome of policy. In doing so, they must negotiate and compromise among
different interest groups and respond to the concerns of the people they represent. Part of 5 this deliberative process comes from their personal history and experiences, family
values, integrity, faith, prior career opportunities, personal challenges, success, and
gender. This research was developed in part from my practitioner experience in
government relations, including resource development, lobbying and communicating policy messages. I am interested in understanding how to be more influential in advocacy and creating a model for best advocacy practices with the legislative body and between legislators themselves. It is anticipated that the efforts contained within this report will advance those goals.
Definitions
Terms that will be used throughout this dissertation are legislative decision- making, religious beliefs, mindful decision-making, and gender. These are central to this research and have been pragmatically rendered. They are based on existing scholarship and my previous research. Legislative decision-making as a primary term in this dissertation focuses on the internal and external deliberation process related to policy decisions. It includes life influences, quantitative data legislators review, relationships and constituent influences that legislators consider. It is important to note this deliberative process proceeds the structural rules procedures for legislative policy procedures.
Individual legislators have to engage in a personal deliberative process to participate meaningfully in shepherding a bill to the final vote. A definitions chart can be seen below in Table 1.
6 Table 1. Definitions Table
Core Term Definitions Legislative decision-making is defined as having the function of making Legislative laws or relating to the enactment of laws. This term is used when Decision-Making investigating the personal, political and data based influences of legislative decision-making.
Religious beliefs are defined how much of a role religion has and how Religious Beliefs much religion impacts legislators’ daily lives.
Mindful decision-making is defined as self-monitoring as a way to be aware of both personal knowledge and deeply held values to take in and Mindful be aware of new information and different perspectives. A mindful Decision-Making practitioner is self-aware and present in everyday experiences including actions, thoughts, sensations, images, interpretations and emotions. Gender is defined in this study as consensual beliefs about the attributes of Gender women and men.
Research Design
I will be following the protocol of Myers and Oetzel (2003) for an exploratory sequential design. The significance of an exploratory sequential study is that I begin the
first phase of the study with qualitative data collection. The results of this exploratory
phase help us to frame and hypothesize the next phase of the study, which is quantitative
and is developed by the findings or results of the qualitative research. These results are a
primary influence on the protocol of the quantitative work of Myers and Oetzel (2003).
This will help us show a greater depth of understanding the results of a rich and complex,
yet smaller quantitative sample size. The Exploratory Sequential Procedural Diagram is shown below in Figure 1.
7 Figure 1. Exploratory Sequential Procedural Diagram for Legislative Decision- Making Mixed Methods Study
A Mixed Method design will provide a more comprehensive account of results that cannot be realized with either a qualitative or quantitative study alone. In addition, I like that “the use of mixed methods allows for the presentation of the larger spectrum of divergent views” (Schulenberg, 2007). Divergent views are valuable and can lead to additional examination of the conceptual frameworks that were used to inform the research question and hypothesis. A determining factor in committing to a Mixed
Methods Study is my quantitative sample size. While 52 respondents are acceptable against the 160 potential respondents, a mixed methods paper will increase the validity of the results and findings. My access to policy makers was unprecedented for private one- on-one interviews which were recorded and without any influence from colleagues or staff aides. This revealing data combined with the statistical data from my survey will generate rich and in-depth discovery of what principles affect legislative votes. 8 Flow of Research
My research questions are proposed in three iterations. Each phase of research was developed from the results of the previous study. The integrative flow of research is seen below in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Integrative Flow of Research Model
Policy decisions are made with different influences that shape human behavior
(Canfield-Davis, Jain, Wattam, McMurtry, & Johnson, 2010). The qualitative work addressed these issues while the quantitative research provided me with a deeper understanding regarding the influencers which had a significant effect on leadership decision-making performance and decision-making confidence and leadership attributes.
My quantitative research was prompted by the specific results of the primary motivations or considerations in policy decision-making from my most frequently coded qualitative interviews.
My final study linked the results of studies one and two and motivated an additional area of exploration of mindful decision-making. Mindful decision-making 9 requires slowing down, focusing on facts, paying attention, becoming aware of internal and external resources and benefitting the community and country (Ryan, 2012) because of the positive effects of the practice of mindful decision-making. Each study will examine gender differences in each query.
10 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN
In this chapter I provide an overview of each study used in this dissertation, focusing specifically on the design and methods of each of the three studies undertaken.
More details of the research methods of each study are provided in Chapters 4, 5 and 6.
Study 1: Qualitative Study Design
A common feeling from citizens about politicians is that they are for sale and make decisions that support high donors or interest groups that make contributions to their campaigns which enable them to get re-elected. One way to achieve a transformation in this thinking is to return to the foundation upon which the polis rests.
Policy decisions, which are deliberated and passed into law, by legislators, determine our ability to safeguard ourselves and our families to provide opportunities to prosper. I began this investigation by developing a qualitative study to explore how legislators make decisions, how their values impact those decisions and the differences in gender and leadership in decision-making styles. The question of how to adjust behavior among politicians is a common theme among reformers, and it tends to reach an impasse when it comes to changing the way in which politicians think about politics. Therefore, my research questions ask: How do make decisions? How do their values and leadership styles affect decision-making? Are there gender differences?
This research used semi-structured interviews to develop a theory as the primary means of data collection and analysis. This research included 28 interviews with current or former legislators, mostly from the Midwest. I interviewed a mix of state and federal legislators, Republican and Democratic Party members, and men and women with a varied level of legislative and leadership experience.
11 Study 2: Quantitative Study Design
I propose a hypothesized quantitative model that was informed based on my findings from qualitative study 1. Specifically, religious beliefs and practices, family values and additional areas of exploration that are most commonly perceived as influencers of legislators’ policy decisions. The proposed research will explore, in depth, the influencers of decision-making leadership confidence and leadership decision-making
performance. The variables of religion and family were initially included as they had the
most instances mentioned or coded in study one interview and research analysis.
I collected initial demographic data including gender, age, and political party,
from the Ohio General Assembly and the Ohio Federal Congressional Delegation which
totals 160 potential respondents. I proceeded by using the snowballing technique through
my personal network by identifying an initial number of potential sample respondents
and asking those participants to encourage their colleagues to participate in the study
(Magnani, Sabin, Saidel, & Heckathorn, 2005). Through this strategy, I captured data from other states including Minnesota and Georgia. The total response rate was 52 respondents or 32%. My research questions are:
Does the influence of financial contributions to campaigns and the complexity or importance of the policy issue have a direct effect on both leadership decision- making performance and decision-making confidence and leadership attributes?
Does decision-making inside and outside party lines mediate the effect on leadership decision-making performance and decision-making confidence and leadership attributes?
What is the impact of religious beliefs and practices, and family values on decision-making for legislators? Is gender a mediator in measuring these potential influences in decision-making?
12 Study 3: Qualitative Study Design
In the final study, I aim to understand the power of the practice of faith in a contemporary way by expanding on my findings to the bearing of religion or spirituality on legislative deliberations. As I look at the past findings on influencers on legislative
decision-making, and future research opportunities, the impact of faith or spirituality are
an essential factor, not only to understand what impacts decision-making, but how faith
or spirituality as a deliberative process increases decision-making confidence (Battaglia,
2015) and effectiveness. My research questions are:
Does mindful decision-making decrease the stress during intense legislative logjams and increase the effectiveness of important policy decisions affecting constituencies?
Is there a difference between male and female legislators’ tendency to use mindfulness in policymaking?
How does practicing mindfulness affect decision-making confidence and performance?
This research used semi-structured interviews using two policy and decision-
making scenarios to develop grounded theory as the primary means of data collection and
analysis. This research included interviews with 31 current or former legislators from
Ohio. It includes a mix of political party, gender (nine women and 11 men) and varied
levels of leadership and experience.
13 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH FINDINGS
The following section shows a summary of the findings for each phase of study in
this dissertation. Findings and results of each study can be seen in full in chapters 6, 7,
and 8.
Study 1: Qualitative Study Findings
Study 1 reveals that: state and federal legislators, who make critical public policy
decisions, share similar gender approaches to other leaders outside the legislative
paradigm. The two styles that emerged from my coding process were agentic and communal decision-making leadership styles. These leadership decision-making styles are characteristic of traditional gender roles. Leaders with an agentic decision-making capacity show higher qualities of independence, assertiveness, data-based decisions, masterfulness and competency (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). Female legislators with a communal decision-making style adopt a more collaborative or inclusive style of decision-making that is labeled as Communal decision-making, which shows higher attributes in areas such as concern for others, emotionally expressive, friendly and unselfish (Eagly et al., 1995).
The interviews with legislators in this study reveal that their values are paramount to any other factor in their decision-making process. This includes political party priorities, financial support, lobbyists influence or constituent desire.
Both male and female legislators spoke of “crossing party lines” as being a significant area of pride in their work. Legislators’ I interviewed believe constituents favored voting on the best policy over party lines.
14 Legislators who regularly support bi-partisan legislation suffer the consequences of their party leaders. This is due to party leadership retaliating against members who work in a bi-partisan way. This can happen by removing members from committees and withholding them from chairing or serving on influential committees.
Study 2: Quantitative Study Findings
Questions about religion or the results from our religiosity were more aligned with legislators’ decision-making confidence. Legislators’ confidence is deep seeded in their beliefs.
Religion positively influences leadership decision-making performance.
Legislators I interviewed who scored higher on the religion scale tended to also score higher on the Leadership Decision-Making Performance scale.
Religion positively influences Decision-Making Leadership Confidence.
Legislators I interviewed that scored higher on the religion scale, they also tended to be more confident in their decisions.
Study 3: Qualitative Study Findings
Applying mindful traits to the decision-making process increases decision-making confidence, reduces stress and encompasses many characteristics of an effective legislator.
Peer-selected exceptional female legislators demonstrate mindful decision-making instances more often than men that were interviewed. They focused on the depth of knowledge they developed while deliberating the points of policy. Respondents in this study shared that cultivating relationships, listening, leading with integrity, and being conscientious are decision-making traits to emulate.
15 I found that mindful decisions are desirable and the politicians interviewed often aspire to achieve a mindful process because legislators value mindful decision-making.
The full integrative model including research questions, design and findings can be seen below in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Integrative Flow of Research Model Including Findings
16 CHAPTER 4: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This dissertation uses a combination of decision-making theory and social role
theory to frame the research reviewed below. Decision-making theory reflects the centrality of legislative deliberation. The increasingly important role of gender in the research questions and results reinforced the use of social role theory as an illuminating construct. Taken together, the two theories interweave to create an explanation of how the various elements of the research can combine to provide a context within which the research takes place.
Decision-Making Theory
Behavioral decision theory is described as using both normative and descriptive attributes (Barron, 1974; Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1977). A normative judgment
describes decision-making which is based on personal beliefs, values, and experiences
that influence decisions (Slovic et al., 1977). Typically, this is presented as the decision a
person makes about his or her life, based on his or her values. When considering this
theoretical construct within the context of legislative decision-making, it is important to adjust this perspective slightly and consider the view of a person who is attempting to make a decision simultaneously on behalf of a group of people and for himself or herself as a representative of that group. These two viewpoints are not precisely the same, and it is worthwhile to bear this tension in mind when considering legislative deliberation.
Normative decision theory is explained as the decision that one ought to make in a given situation (Barron, 1974). This is not a moral stance, as in what one should do based on some set of external values, but more of a model of alignment between one's beliefs and one's behavior. It is the behavior that would be most consistent with a given person's
17 values and belief system. It also describes decisions using these same factors. By contrast, descriptive judgment makes a contention that is presented as a state of fact that concerns reality (Slovic et al., 1977). It is also explained as a decision that is actually made (Barron, 1974). The beliefs and values that comprise the source of decisions that ought to be made based on normative analysis are then the objects of description in the appropriately named descriptive mode.
This is also the legislators’ process of collecting information about potential outcomes based on facts, constituent demographics, political party positions, budgetary realities, and all of the other myriad factors that go into their deliberative process by legislators. The decisions legislators make and the votes they cast include a combination of both of these theories. The data collected, the past voting record and the facts based on the situation combined with their personal and faith-based values bring together the full process described by legislators in their policy consideration process (Battaglia, 2015).
This theory does not necessarily identify the decisions as normal or conscious. The theory can be tested simply by the subject being conscious of the bases of their decisions (both fact based and value based) (Herriot, Ecob, & Hutchison, 1980).
Decision-making theory serves to frame the exploration of factors that shape legislative deliberation, but it must be understood that even within this theoretical context, the particulars of legislative decision-making are unique and deserve special attention. For instance, the multiple constituencies that legislators have to take into consideration when the making decisions are particular to their position. While other decision-makers may have people attempting to influence their decisions, they are not typically obligated to incorporate those views into their deliberation. There are other
18 aspects of legislative decision-making that also present unique challenges to the
researcher attempting to understand how decision-making theory aligns with legislative
choices. Some decision-making theory explores the unique characteristics of legislative
decision-making.
Legislators operate within the broader context of a political construct tasked with
protecting the citizens of the society in which they govern. How they function as a group
is an essential part of the assessment of any individual legislator. In theory, a legislator
could make decisions that would, in a private context, seem perfectly executed, and they
could still be ill-advised. What is essential for legislators is that the choices that are made
operate within the deliberative body they are part of in such a way as to produce the
outcome they want. Consequently, decision theory, which is in its most basic form a
description of a nearly linear decision-making process, must be adapted to accommodate
these unique conditions. One scholar managed to capture this unique circumstance by identifying political actors as “veto players,” people whose consent is a precondition to approving and implement the policy (Tsebelis, 1995). This view argues that decision- making is a salient quality of government bodies, and scholarly findings of decision- making by these players can span democratic forms of government (Tsebelis, 1995).
There have been other analytic strategies intended to operate on legislative
decision-making as well, with varying levels of success. An extremely popular method of
analyzing decision-making is the mathematical model, which has strengths and
weaknesses unique to legislators. The central limitation of mathematical models is that
they cannot render some factors that are integral to the decision-making process into
numeric representations (Saaty, 2008) Many factors in human decision-making are
19 simply irrational, and cannot be plugged into a formula (Hammond, 2000). Nevertheless, they can be incorporated into an understanding of why decisions are made the way they are made. On the other hand, they should not be rejected out of hand, because they provide keen insights into many of the aspects of human nature that are rational
(Hammond, 2000).
This complexity may appear to be an argument against the efficacy of the decision-making construct as a theoretical frame, but it is, in fact, an ideal tool for this type of analysis. While all decisions made by people have the potential to include rational and irrational elements, the sort of meta-decision-making that is inherent in legislative deliberation necessarily is more likely to introduce these divergent elements. Therefore, consideration of both the explicable and the irrational aspects of the human psyche is central to legislative decision-making.
Tsebelis further develops the relevance of this theory by arguing the universal value of decision-making analysis. To the extent that he is correct, work that emphasizes decision-making by legislators and other public officials has the potential to resonate internationally (Tsebelis, 1995). Regardless of how complicated explaining these decisions might be, focusing on them holds tremendous potential in terms of benefit to the democratic experiment.
Scholarship on the decision-making process of lawmakers has observed that the most effective legislators use a broad decision-making process (Weingast, 1979). When there is an impasse in decision-making, expanding the context within which the decision is being sought is a strategy that can produce effective solutions while expanding the impact of the effort (Keeney, 2009). Research further suggests that this exact approach is
20 popular and even preferred among members of Congress when it is an option (Weingast,
1979). Congressman will seek out the broadest possible support among their peers when
trying to pass legislation to produce the greatest impact (Weingast, 1979).
To further appreciate the complexities of the environment that have to be
accommodated by any theory of legislative action, the relationship between bureaucrats
and legislators deserves some consideration. Many legislators value the relationship with
the people running the government, while others find them difficult based on differing
philosophies or other obstacles (Lupia & McCubbins, 1994). In general, research
suggests that bureaucrats can influence legislators when they are good at their jobs and
have positive relationships with lawmakers (Miller, Nicholson-Crotty, & Nicholson-
Crotty, 2011). This may appear to suggest that the relationship between two groups
operates in a single direction, with legislators instructing bureaucrats, but the reality is
very different. There is substantial evidence that the power that bureaucrats and legislators possess can be a zero-sum proposition (Gailmard, 2002). When legislators
delegate work to bureaucrats, then they compromise their capacity to make independent
decisions. Nevertheless, there is certainly value to being able to increase one's impact by
enlisting others to advance one's agenda, even if it means that agenda might be somewhat adjusted (Lupia & McCubbins, 1994). Further, there is evidence that effective legislators
can create a sort of feedback loop that prevents power leakage that might happen
otherwise (Lupia & McCubbins, 1994).
What this relationship is meant to illustrate is the challenge that would be
presented to other theoretical constructs. As Tsebelis argues, there is something essential
about the deliberative process to democracy, and therefore trying to understand legislators
21 without making decision-making central to one's analysis risks oversimplifying the
context within which they operate regarding the decisions they make. To further develop
the example provided above, legislators must make the appreciation of evidence a central
aspect of the work that they do in order to produce optimal outcomes (Bawn, 1995). As
obvious as this may sound, they do have the option of making decisions based on politics
or other, non-rational decision-making criteria. This latter option produces fundamentally
compromised outcomes. For example, research demonstrates that when legislators
increase the political control they have over the information they received, the ability to
receive technical information regarding the consequences of policy decisions is reduced substantially (Bawn, 1995).
When legislators engage in decision-making, they certainly operate within the
framework of normative attributes as explained by behavioral decision theory (Slovic et
al., 1977). Importantly, however, they are taking into consideration the beliefs, values,
and experiences of their constituents, interest groups, and their peers, along with other
bodies. Beyond this, they are also obligated to act as leaders, which is to say, they must make a decision based on their normative framework. This balance is a unique challenge.
Similarly, the descriptive attributes that are considered typical of the decision- making process are present when legislators are deliberating, but they are present in a different way. One substantial difference is the volume of information that legislators are presented with as part of the information gathering process. Managing that information is
essential, and the managing the relationships that provide it is also crucial regarding
future opportunities to receive information (Lupia & McCubbins, 1994).
22 At the heart of this dissertation is the question of whether various factors can
make legislators better decision-makers or help their constituents understand the process
by which they make decisions. To most effectively navigate the complex waters traversed
by legislators as they make their choices, decision-making theory will serve as a reliable
compass, aiding in the discernment of true north in the face of many obstacles and
shadows. A table showing the theory foundation of this research can be seen in Appendix
A.
The following will illustrate the overall purpose of this research and show the
overarching research questions and specific research questions for each of the three studies. This allows me to expand the overall design for the sequential procedural study.
The give-and-take of the political process is exasperating for many people. Often, the more a citizen witnesses of this process, the less he or she trusts in it to produce the outcomes that are often described in American history and civics classes. While it might be a harrowing prospect to consider the specifics of how deliberation takes place in a legislature, it is essential in order to improve the system.
As it turns out, it is more complex than may appear at first glance. Understanding these complexities is a precondition to understanding the overall process and making any improvement in it. This understanding is also needed when one is developing a research model that collects data from legislators about decision-making.
This review of literature will reveal that the question that animates this study— what influences legislative decision-making has been explored through several external approaches but very rarely from the point of the view of the legislator. Further, the specific process of deliberation through which legislators reach their decisions is virtually
23 absent from the scholarship as such. The element that knits these two concepts together is the presence of mindfulness in deliberation, perhaps overlooked by cynics as too
Pollyanna and otherwise not typically associated with the political process in the bustle of
American politics, with its unusually comfortable relationship to traditional religious elements.
Leadership
Legislators and Decision-Making
The process of legislative decision-making is at the heart of this dissertation.
Leadership consistently emerges as a central element of legislative deliberation; these ideas will be coupled in this section of the review. The ways in which legislators collect information, seek advice, and navigate influence comprises the essence of the decision- making process. This dissertation examines important aspects of the process, but it by no means intends to be a comprehensive review of legislative decision-making.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to understand the totality of the deliberative process in order to recognize the influences under consideration as they manifest.
The relationship between the factors examined in this dissertation and the complex web of influences that impact the decision-making process of lawmakers is complicated, but one way to simplify the process under consideration is to focus on the individual and institutional players seeking to persuade legislators as they make up their minds about bills and other relevant actions. Each of the prospective influencers will intersect with legislators in ways that are relevant to gender and mindfulness on every occasion, and religion very often is either present or conspicuous in its absence in policy discussions. To analyze each of these elements in turn, however, requires an
24 understanding of who a legislator encounters on any given day and how that person navigates these encounters.
Certainly, lawmakers can expect engagement with their constituents on a regular basis. So, too, will their peer and political leaders be ever present. Not only will the constituents from their district make their preferences known but also other people affiliated in different ways with their district will make their views clear. In the most immediate understanding of how politics works, these can be considered the foundational interactions.
Of course, moving beyond theory into reality, one immediately confronts interests seeking influence to gain wealth and power. These groups are primarily identified in terms of their donations to politicians. Donors, therefore, must be considered has another, large influence on politicians. This group may break into numerous smaller groups, many of which are at cross purposes with one another, but they interact with politicians in a uniform way. Their expectation is that, in exchange for financial support, their priorities will be aligned more closely with the actions of the legislators that are their beneficiaries.
Corporations will be a big part of this group, but this is not the only way that corporations influence policy. People are often engaged by corporations to support positions they prefer. Some of this is done through direct appeal, but some of it is through careful advertising into other promotional strategies that may not explicitly acknowledge that corporate dollars drive them.
Corporations can also pressure legislators as part of the large category of influencers known as lobbyists. Recognizing the role of lobbyists in legislative deliberation is essential to any modern analysis of political systems, particularly in the
25 United States. It should also be observed that some lobbying is simply organized constituent action, and this is also relevant to the process and deserves consideration.
The media is certainly a huge influence on politicians. The coverage that issues are given often drives the extent to which those issues are given attention in legislative bodies. The precise relationship between media and lawmaking, however, is not always clear, and the media often engages politicians for other topics as well, and relations between legislators and specific media outlets can be better or worse than average based on factors that can be entirely unrelated to creating good public policy.
Finally, there are numerous policy institutes that provide data and briefs to politicians in the hope of influencing a more rational process than donors or lobbyists often employ. This group is sometimes in a state of anxiety over the extent to which it influences the passage of laws. It's apparently naïve approach, which presumes a certain degree of integrity on the part of politicians and interest in making the right decision, can be discounted by some skeptics. This group will be considered in turn, and its influence on legislators will be weighed alongside everyone else's.
Considered altogether, this can look like a group of disparate interests attempting to influence lawmakers. That is an accurate characterization. Voters, in fact, make up just a fraction of the army of persuaders that are knocking on the politicians’ doors every day, and they are often the least wealthy and powerful of those visitors. Nevertheless, in reviewing the relationship between legislators and these characters, it will become clear that influence is not linear in politics, that politicians are carefully weighing many factors when they make decisions and are persuaded by many disparate considerations.
26 Voters are a central factor in the decision-making calculus of politicians (Burstein,
2003). There is a lot of discussion about the relative importance of voters, but they continue to have substantial influence over legislative deliberation, despite the hype. One study examined the impact of public opinion on policy development by exploring publications in major journals and major literature reviews (Burstein, 2003). The author found that public opinion continues to have a strong influence on legislators and that that influence continues even face of political organizations and deletes attempting to persuade legislators. The author further concluded that this circumstance had not changed significantly over time. The net effect of the steady increase in money in the political system seems to be a marginal change at best in influence (Burstein, 2003).
Citing a long history of research that confirms the confluence of citizen interests and legislative votes, another study attempted to bring the research up to date with contemporary data compared to the data set incorporated into a model in 1980 (Gray,
Lowery, Fellowes, & McAtee, 2004). The authors found that the influence of organized interests on decisions by legislators that translate into public policy are, in fact, quite small. Although the data in model comparison in this research was imprecise, only to an inability to perfectly replicate the original model, the evidence still suggested that, while there is certainly capacity for influence, special interests have less of a qualifying effect on the relationship between legislators’ votes and public opinion than is sometimes reported (Gray et al., 2004).
This research is more optimistic than many people might predict, but, as will be seen below, there are many ways in which legislators can be distracted from the public opinion that they carefully track. The importance of these studies to this dissertation is
27 perhaps primarily that it affirms a baseline from which research that presumes some good intention on the part of politicians can operate. While the panoply of influencers will be presented in the following pages, the idea that they dominate the thoughts of legislators is very likely cynical. One might think that the influence of political leaders could dilute their concern for the opinions of their constituents. After all, the success and failure of politicians depend largely on support from the party they represent. In some ways, the party operates as its special interest with a unique hold on politicians, and the party leader in a given assembly represents all of that influence embodied in one person.
Research bears out this idea that political leaders do influence legislators (Powell,
2012). Importantly, the scholarship indicates that is not a uniform influence. Legislative leaders often can persuade their rank-and-file to vote according to their interests over those of the constituents of the individual legislators, and outside influencers recognize this power and have increasingly directed donations to the leaders as a way to influence the legislators (Powell, 2012). One study showed a direct correlation between money raised by legislative leaders and their influence in environments where campaigning is more expensive. That same study showed that legislative leaders were more easily persuaded by donations in states where the majority was slimmer (Powell, 2012).
There are a couple of important observations to make about these findings. One is that the connection between donors and legislators is obviously imperfect or the system would continue as it had in the past, where donors would attempt to influence individual legislators directly. Of course, this continues to take place, but if it were achieving the goals that outside interests had for it, there would be less of a presence of donations to legislative leaders. Another is that, even for these leaders, influence is impacted by
28 context. That means that creating an environment that makes outside influence less impactful is possible. Among the potential benefits of a more mindful legislative assembly can be included reform that limits the importance of legislative leaders.
In another study, the power of party leaders was measured using data regarding state legislator’s preferences (Anderson, 2014). The researcher concluded that these preferences were less important to legislators in states with term limits and knew where the legislature was more professionally organized. The research also found that leaders in states where the majority party controlled the legislative calendar wielded outsized influence (Anderson, 2014).
Constituents and other people from state legislators’ districts impact the behavior of representatives in ways that make them distinctive and representative of the communities from which they hail. This research finding is significant in that it demonstrates the influence of the specific context from which legislators come (Hogan,
2012). The research was based on an analysis covering 16 states. Similar legislators representing different demographics and geographies displayed different behavior that appeared to be driven by these conditions (Hogan, 2012).
Corporations are perceived by many as the great enemy of contemporary political life in the United States. They are demonized for their influence, and they are considered a poison in the democratic process. Of course, this is not everybody's perspective, but it is an influential one. One study related to this issue examined whether corporations were able to mitigate the view of politicians when they had a poor corporate social responsibility reputation (Alakent & Ozer, 2014). The study found that, in fact, investment in corporate political strategy, which includes lobbying, can mitigate negative
29 fallout from irresponsible corporate behavior. This study considered data from 348 manufacturing firms to achieve its conclusions (Alakent & Ozer, 2014).
Although this demonstrates the clear power of corporations to influence legislators, it does not speak to the important issue of whether their influence is greater than that of the constituents of a legislator. This is an important distinction to make.
People sometimes confuse the idea of a method of influence that appears to be effective with a zero-sum implication in which other methods of influence are less effective. A clear demonstration of the flaw in this type of analysis is displayed in a recent study which examined the trajectory and patterns of grassroots lobbying by corporations
(Walker, 2012). According to the study, the most powerful and influential corporations are adding a grassroots component to their public relations strategies. In essence, they are turning to the public as their lobbying force (Walker, 2012). This demonstrates that there is tremendous power in the people over and above any influence that a corporation can have on its own.
This same principle is further illustrated in a recent study that explored the impact of grassroots lobbying by citizens to advance their issues. The research involves an experiment in which a grassroots email lobbying campaign contacted legislators, and the results were studied by the author (Bergan, 2009). The findings demonstrated a substantial influence on legislative voting behavior, according to the author (Bergan,
2009). While this type of lobbying is substantially different from the behavior that normally associated with the term, one can see from this investigation that it is an impactful approach.
30 What about lobbyists in general? Do legislators change their minds based on the influence of lobbyists? The answer to this is not entirely straightforward, in that in the world of politics, corporations and constituents are not always separate entities. From a distance, it can be easy to look at the polluting behavior of a corporation and condemn it, for example, but if that corporation is considering coming to one's district, thereby providing hundreds of jobs, it is likely that one will have to navigate the strong opinions of constituents who are both for and against the corporation. One study confirmed the reality of this type of circumstance by conducting an analysis of data provided by experts in the field of corporate lobbying and concluding that the most effective lobbyists incorporate mobilization of constituencies as part of their strategy (Lord, 2000). In other words, the lobbyist is no longer always an independent force in politics but instead blends when possible with legislators’ constituencies.
Media plays an outsized role in influencing legislators, by some measures, but this influence is circumscribed. In a study of climate change articles and their relationship to legislation, one team found that there was some influence, but it was driven by the type of news reported. Examining news coverage of climate change from 1998 to 2006 in 17 states, these scholars sought to gain an understanding of the relationship between news coverage and climate change legislation (Dolšak & Houston, 2014). They divided the coverage into negative, anti-policy tone; balanced tone; and positive, pro-policy tone. The researchers found that pro-policy narratives were associated with increased legislative activity and that balanced narratives were associated with fewer climate change mitigation bills. One implication emphasized by the authors was that when a balanced
31 tone is struck, presenting “both sides” of the issue, a preponderance of views on one side
ought to be reported (Dolšak, & Houston, 2014).
Policy analysts are not to be ignored. Some question their efficacy, but it is likely
larger than assumed. Although there is a substantial body of literature questioning the
impact of policy research on decision making in legislatures, one researcher examined the influence on a wide range of issues across many states, defining the idea of the use of
policy reports broadly (Hird, 2005). The scholar found that there is a strong association
between size and type of research organization and influence. Legislators place a higher
value on the work of these organizations in states in which large and analytical
nonpartisan research organizations were present than in those in which the organizations
were small and their products descriptive or short term. The author inferred from this
finding that policy analysis organizations have a significant impact on policymaking by
providing information and analysis (Hird, 2005).
Taken altogether, these sources of influence on legislators suggest the need for a
broad view of the factors that enter into the decision-making calculus of lawmakers.
Clearly, research demonstrates that the decisions that are made are not facile; legislators
hear all of these groups, and their views are incorporated into deliberations. What this
suggests is that a thorough understanding of the way in which the views of all of these
groups is processed is a precondition to influencing the decisions reached by legislators.
The factors presented in this dissertation are a critical dimension of this understanding.
Mindfulness, in particular, ought to be considered within this complex set of
relationships. Mindfulness is central to the research herein and is recognized as an
important component of effective decision-making. The role that mindfulness plays in the
32 deliberative process will be explained in greater detail below, but it is worthwhile to note
at this juncture that these groups are yet another very important element of good decision-
making. All of these influencers may have their personal, professional or institutional
interests to represent an agenda of which they seek to persuade legislators. Nevertheless,
they often present important perspectives which aid in reaching the most circumspect
decision. Careful consideration of these views is important, as the following research
demonstrates. Having a wide variety of views and information from varied sources is also
an important part of the process.
Further, these variegated influences seek to entice decision-makers. The two-
dimensional image of an easily influenced legislator, voting based on a sizable benefit,
simply does not square with the huge variety of pressures brought to bear on the political
process or the complexities of such hybrid phenomena as citizen lobbyists and corporate
enlistment of grassroots support. The reality and depth of legislative deliberation are
complex, and it is much more realistic to recognize that many factors influence legislative
decision-making than it is to depend on the old canard of votes for sale.
Leadership and Communication
Public leadership has been described as being able to develop and communicate a
vision (Wolvin, 2005). Perspective taking and listening include analyzing the values and attitudes of others to understand how to approach these issues. This is the foundation of legislative advocacy. Outcomes of listening or perspective taking, help legislators, understand issues and different points of view and move them to a policy decision. A
willing legislator and advocate can use listening skills to understand how to come
together on an issue to best serve their constituency. Listening and understanding how
33 issues affect the legislator’s district is a primary component in their role and obligations as a constituent representative. When an advocate has an opportunity to communicate directly with a legislator, it is important to know how to relate to and educate on an issue in addition to understanding what impacts their decision-making.
Perspectives on leadership have developed in recent years, based in part on the growing understanding of the complexity of the concept and also because of the realization that many of the attributes that have been associated with leadership in the past are not as important to—and may even be problematic for—the effective leader
(Northouse, 2012). Emphasis has shifted away from the personality of the leader and towards the relationships around that person and his or her ability to move those relationships in a desirable direction. Northouse, therefore, characterized leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016: 6). Behavior is similarly emphasized over individual achievement in other contemporary definitions of leadership (Berger, 2014).
This means that the contemporary leader must be capable of looking beyond his or her agentic strengths, which are self-centered, and more toward other skill sets that can further the collective agenda. Within this context of communication, this means working together with others to achieve consensus and putting the group’s understanding ahead of one’s personal perspective. These skills are just as applicable to the legislative floor as they are to engaging constituents and require a capacious set of communication skills.
When considering the influences of legislative decision-making, one realizes that the most ambitious research on leadership is focused on a corporate context. Still, the analysis and implications are fully compatible for legislative decision-making. Simply
34 looking at what a legislator voted for, or how much money a legislator that voted a certain way received, only scratches the surface of the process. Likewise, the influence of any one force described above provides an important but limited picture. The cause for this gap in the literature is a question beyond the scope of this dissertation, but it is important to note that this provides both opportunities for the type of research presented here and suggests that there is likely a further need for research in this area.
Individual Leadership
In researching legislators as leaders in a community, good leadership requires a level of perspective taking, particularly when discussing galvanizing issues. These include education, healthcare, the death penalty, freedom of speech and authorizing the military to wage war. After a leader has established a vision, it is important that they focus on listening to stakeholders before executing or formalizing that vision (Wolvin,
2005). While looking at negotiating—which is frequently used in legislative decision making—social competencies, perspective taking and empathy have been shown to motivate a better social understanding of an opponent’s position (Galinsky, Maddux,
Gilin, & White, 2008). Perspective taking allows an individual to anticipate and predict the behavior of others (Galinsky et al., 2008). A study in morality and justice discussed a legislator’s primary role to convince other officials that certain ethical principles are at stake on particular issues and that such ethical principles are so important they need to be integrated into urban policymaking (Schumaker & Kelly, 2012). This is sometimes referred to as transformational leadership and can be applied to engagement with constituents as well as fellow legislators (Kark, 2004). In either case, the goal is to develop followers and empower them to act independently in ways that further shared
35 goals (Kark, 2004). In the morality and justice study, legislators revealed that they regarded their personal values as important as budget constraints in leading them to a decision (Schumaker & Kelly, 2012). These elements all point to a leader who is less concerned with dominating followers and inspiring obedience and conformity to his or her vision—agentic behavior—and more with mutual respect and conjoined effort based on shared values (Berger, 2014).
Leadership and Gender Diversity
Social role theory demonstrates that there are fundamental differences in the way in which men and women are expected to engage in various social milieu (Eagly,
Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). This suggests that understanding the ways in which the behavior might vary based on gender would be a valuable addition to any analysis of behavior in a leadership context. There is further scholarship to suggest that the gendered differences in leadership behavior may reveal traits that would be considered more desirable and that are practiced more consistently by women than by men.
Regardless of the specifics of gendered behavior, however, there are strong arguments for thinking about gender and culture when thinking about leadership.
Studying leadership without thinking about gender culture can be problematic. Research suggests that the reception of decisions by leaders in a diverse group is best understood when fundamental aspects of that diversity taken into consideration (Ayman & Korabik,
2010). Gender can certainly be thought of as a fundamental difference (Ridgeway, 2011).
Further, exploring the role of women as leaders can be particularly beneficial in that there are potentially unique advantages to having women in leadership positions, including the
36 capacity to deal more effectively with an increasingly diverse society (Bilimoria &
Piderit, 1994).
There is ample evidence that men and women make decisions differently and lead differently. Some aspects of this were explained and explored in the social role theory section of this chapter. Looking beyond the source of difference. However, one can see that there are clear and compelling contours of difference. Research reveals women as leaders prefer participatory leadership and gender egalitarianism (Herrera, Duncan,
Green, & Skaggs, 2012). There are other qualities demonstrated by women as well that make their legislative leadership choices unique, including their strong moral identities
(Kennedy, Kray, & Ku, 2017) and their legislative priorities (Volden, Wiseman, &
Wittmer, 2013). These qualities are worth careful consideration, in part because they align significantly with the concept of transformative leadership.
Mindfulness, in particular, ought to be considered within this complex set of relationships. Mindfulness is central to the research herein and is recognized as an important component of effective decision-making. The role that mindfulness plays in the deliberative process will be explained in greater detail below, but it is worthwhile to note at this juncture that these groups are yet another very important element of good decision- making. All of these influencers may have their personal, professional or institutional interests to represent an agenda of which they seek to persuade legislators. Nevertheless, they often present important perspectives which aid in reaching the most circumspect decision. Careful consideration of these views is important, as the following research demonstrates. Having a wide variety of views and information from varied sources is also an important part of the process.
37 Prejudices against women as leaders also make analysis by gender an important research choice. Women continue to face obstacles when assuming leadership positions, and this is even more challenging in spaces where men dominate the cultural context
(Eagly & Carli, 2003). Even when women become leaders, they are evaluated less favorably than men in those environments (Eagly et al., 1992). This is uniquely significant in terms of elected positions. Women are inaccurately evaluated been voted into office, then that prejudice might lead to the selection of a less effective elected official as result of prejudice. This raises the analysis of gender and politics to the level of a civic necessity.
Gender diversity research also begins to dissect the specific mechanics of decision-making, which were hinted at early in research regarding agentic decision- making. While this is critical research, it has a limited presence in the scholarship related to legislative decision-making. What is present is a valuable picture of the differences in approach from an external point of view, and the consequences of those differences.
Scholarship that attempts an understanding of the deliberative process as it is understood by the legislator himself or herself is almost completely absent. This is the work of this current research, that which comes closest to the decision-making process and therefore allows for a complete understanding of what influences it.
There are additional arguments in favor of a gender component to research as well. Gendered prejudices persist even in the research environment (O'Neil Deborah,
Hopkins, & Diana, 2008), which means that analysis of this type ought to include a gender dimension in order to avoid a slide into inaccuracy resulting from the male- dominated construction of research. Also, the positive elements of leadership that may be
38 more prevalent among women could be obscured in the fog of sexism, thereby preventing the incorporation of valuable strategies by leaders, male and female, who do not currently engage in these successful practices.
Without question, the policies that are pursued by legislators are influenced by the presence of gender diversity in legislative bodies. So-called “women’s issues,” which are largely social welfare topics, are pursued with greater determination and success by female legislators than by their counterparts (Volden et al., 2013; Welch, 1985). Examples listed in these studies include education, healthcare, family issues, healthcare, gun control, capital punishment and foreign policy. While some of these issues have traditionally been characterized as more important to one gender over the other, they encompass such a vast range of topics, all of which are related to the welfare of citizens, which this characterization is questionable. What can be said about women's priorities in the legislature is that those areas that are historically a priority for female lawmakers see greater success and passage when women are involved in the process (Anzia & Berry,
2011; Volden et al., 2013). Understanding what makes these areas more or less compelling as objects of legislative action should be a concern for society in general.
There is also the question of whether women are leading in a way, generally speaking, that is more compelling or of greater value to the body politic. There is certainly evidence to suggest that this is the case. Glover et al.’s 2002 study concluded that gender was a strong predictor of ethical behavior in each of four scenarios presented by the researchers to participants, with women demonstrating more ethical behavior in all studies. Westbrook et al.’s 2011 study concluded that women are less likely to engage in unethical bargaining behavior than men when both groups have high scores on personal
39 development competitiveness. Beyond the moral component, there is a plethora of research that suggests that there is a decided advantage to having women in leadership roles for a variety of reasons (Eagly & Carli, 2003).
One dimension of this advantage could be a stronger moral identity among women (Kennedy et al., 2017). Another explanation could be the capacity of women to engage in the transformative leadership practices described above (Herrera et al., 2012;
Kark, 2004). In any case, it is clear that understanding how women make decisions as leaders can be of significant benefit to society.
While there are clear advantages to having women serve in leadership positions, not everyone recognizes those advantages. When men and women have equivalent emotional and social intelligence and perform the duties of leadership, men are routinely assessed as superior leaders, despite that equivalence (O'Neil Deborah et al., 2008). This discrepancy is more than a moral question. There are practical consequences to not being able to recognize the most qualified leaders and the practices that make them effective.
Research suggests that, although women might have a more effective style of leadership in some cases, men can adapt that style for their use (Appelbaum, Audet, & Miller, 2003).
Put another way, while there are prejudices against gender, not all gendered behavior may be equally discriminated against (Embry, Padgett, & Caldwell, 2008). These findings indicate that qualities that could be universally employed for the good of all may go unrecognized because of prejudice.
The motivation that propels women into effective leadership may stem in part from the very obstacles that make achieving that leadership so challenging. Research suggests that women who persist in challenging positions made may be uniquely
40 motivated to do so (Buse, Bilimoria, & Perelli, 2013). Research in the field of legislators
reinforces this argument. Female lawmakers are devoted to reconciliation and
compromise, even when it makes them less effective in a legislative context (Volden et
al., 2013). While the rough-and-tumble calculus of political wins and losses may judge
these officials less successful than their take-no-prisoners counterparts, the hope that
many citizens have for a high-minded, values-driven political system would probably
judge these politicians differently. In any case, the overall effectiveness of
congresswomen is at least open to debate, as some research suggests that women have to
overcome more obstacles in Congress and yet are more effective (Anzia & Berry, 2011).
Diversifying Leadership
Societies are separated by opinion leaders and followers (Van den Brink,
Rusinowska, & Steffen, 2012). In an era of complex social, economic and technological issues, leadership needs to be more diverse and able to adapt to diverse advocates and constituents. This means a paradigm shift towards more expanded and diverse community leadershi (Easterling & Millesen, 2012). Diversifying civic leadership and adaptive problem-solving means engaging in a varied and open manner with a more varied set of stakeholders, including other categories of leadership (Easterling &
Millesen, 2012). Scott Page describes why diversity is so important to a community’s prosperity when he states that “unless we capitalize on our differences and different ways of thinking, no matter how smart we are, we will most likely get stuck at the same locally optimal solutions and that finding new and better solutions, innovating, requires thinking differently” (Page, 2007: n.p.). The complexity of leaders’ roles and responsibilities has increased in many different contexts. Leaders are much more dependent on their
41 members to provide them with the knowledge and support that helps them lead
effectively (Eagly & Chin, 2010).
This brings us to how differences in gender affect leadership. Women have shown to have a more transformational leadership style than male leaders, especially in mentoring and developing workplace colleagues (Eagly & Chin, 2010). They also face the challenge of trying to balance the expectation of taking charge and leading in a way that is similar to male leaders, while keeping the cultural expectation of warmth and gentleness. Research shows women in the legislature having a more democratic and participative leadership style than men and can build consensus easier than men (Volden et al., 2013).
Gender is an important variable when evaluating effectiveness in the legislature
(Volden et al., 2013). In looking at research on male versus female legislators and which gender is more effective in legislating, it is shown that different gender characteristics provide better leadership at different times. Examining women’s leadership in the legislature in 1992, when women were elected to 54 offices between the House and
Senate, Volden looked at how the different characteristics of men and women affected actual outcomes, including strength in committee settings and the passing of legislation or new policy. Gender differences are relevant in leadership styles, e.g. how men and women work and communicate with their constituents (Volden et al., 2013). Women are
more likely to focus on women’s issues, are more collaborative with their male
counterparts, and are consensus driven and able to facilitate movement of their agenda
because of these characteristics. This best serves them when working on contentious
issues where consensus is difficult to achieve (Volden et al., 2013).
42 Strong leaders can define and communicate their vision, articulate their priorities
and understand their weaknesses and strengths. They are also aware of the impact they
have on others (Moline, 2004). Although it is difficult to give a precise definition of a true leader, leaders are always identifiable when you see them or work with them. They motivate and excite a group or individual to achieve their goals and desired outcomes
(Moline, 2004). Moline (2004) discusses the lack of research on the topic and the
inability to succinctly describe qualities of a good leader; instead, behaviors are often
used to describe good leadership instead of qualities. He outlines characteristics of
leadership, including the ability to articulate a vision, identify and clarify priorities,
define what is most critical and provide the resources to complete those priorities. Most
importantly, he says good leadership is being self-aware and empathetic.
Joanne Ciulla, a philosopher, and leadership scholar, studied another part of
leadership not yet mentioned, that of legislators and “being there,” She argues that a leader’s job is to be attentive to and care for followers or constituents. Being present at important times is symbolic, emotional and provides moral support (Ciulla, 2010).
To fully appreciate the relationship between mindfulness and political leadership,
it will be necessary to overcome the prejudices against official politicians lodged in the
average person's mind. This is not an undeserved reputation. It is the result of a pattern of
behavior that is so common among the political class, and often a result of a broken
system.
The question of how to adjust behavior among politicians is a common theme
among reformers, and it tends to reach an impasse when it comes to changing the way in
which politicians and their fellow travelers think about politics. One way to achieve a
43 transformation in this thinking is to return to the foundation upon which the polis rests.
One can argue that politicians need to adopt an attitude of mindfulness and citizens need to select people who are predisposed to this frame of mind because the foundation of democracy depends upon careful and sober judgment.
In this argument, one begins by recognizing the need and tacitly suggests it is great enough that certain actions would be justified in order to achieve this and. What is not clear is just what those actions would be. For example, one could decide that the need was so great that politicians must be compelled to reflect mindfully on the decisions they make and rise above self-dealing and pettiness and therefore impose a draconian penalty on any politician who might be caught behaving in a less-than-ideal way. This hypothetical situation would have the disadvantage of discouraging people from politics in two ways. First, it is understood that many are attracted to the political life because there are incentives, such as renown and possibility of enrichment at the end of a public life. Second, it threatens some extreme punishment for those who do not conform to what will probably be a fairly abstract idea which could be used by people in a position of power punish enemies instead of elevating the society to higher-level of governance.
Attempting to legislate mindfulness is unlikely to be successful
Scenarios in which one attempts to compel good governance within the context of the existing system are deeply problematic and likely doomed to failure. The system seems to breed the problems one would be attempting to use it to remove. While many critics of contemporary politics contend that people who run for office are uniquely venal, it is at least a possibility that instead, the process draws venality out in people that
44 the system corrupts those who enter into it. The cavalcade of corruption in just about
every country is a substantial massing of evidence buttressing this argument.
If this were the only option, however, it would have to be implemented. The
current state of affairs in political life is increasingly untenable as a result of mounting
pressures economically, socially, environmentally, and politically.
This is where integrating the idea of mindfulness with the contemporary political
landscape becomes urgent. The qualities of mindfulness have increasingly become a
subject of great interest in academic circles, and there is a substantial body of literature
which explores many facets of the state of mindfulness and its value. A primary purpose
of this review of literature is to identify those places where this scholarly work can give
rise to efforts to bring greater mindfulness to the political arena.
One area in which thinking about the uses of mindfulness might be presented is
the consideration of practical benefits to leaders of developing a mindful attitude (Riskin
& Wohl, 2015). Ways in which mindfulness changes the brain and how people think for
the better are plentiful. A review of a couple of these studies, which follows an
examination of social role theory will provide a sense of the available literature and its
value about the study.
Social Role Theory
Alice Eagly established social role theory as a way to account for the individual
social components of persistent differences between the roles played by men and women in society (Eagly et al., 1992). People are expected to personify these gender-defined
roles, according to the theory, without exception. A sense of propriety drives these
limitations; men are supposed to act one way, and women are supposed to act another.
45 These views extend beyond the social sphere into professional life (Eagly & Karou,
1991).
What this amounts to is a constantly reinforced limit on the capacity of both
sexes, as leaders and otherwise, but on women in particular (Eagly et al., 1992). This is
reflected, for example, in men being regarded as superior leaders compared to women
when the level of both genders' emotional and social intelligence is the same (O'Neil
Deborah et al., 2008). Whenever gender is a salient element of a situation, gender bias is apt to be triggered (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). When one turns to legislative, one sees
these roles writ large (Volden et al., 2013), and the implications are substantial.
Approaches used by men and women succeed at various times in the process of crafting
and passing legislation (Volden et al., 2013), meaning that the ability to pass laws is
diminished if all options are not available at all times. Social role theory suggests that
there will be times when a woman is expected to act a certain way—a way that is
different from the way in which a leader would be expected to behave—and will
therefore not be as effective as would otherwise be possible. Considering the challenges
facing any legislation, there is a profound civic impact to these obstacles.
One aspect of these constraints is the ways in which people are expected to lead based upon gender. Men are often seen as behaving in agentic ways, with women behaving in a more communal manner, both in and outside of leadership roles (Smith et al., 2013). This, combined with the presupposition that men behave in ways that are more
“typical” of or appropriate to leadership, puts women in a permanent position of presumed inferiority. Women are “punished” when they demonstrate agentic behavior
(Livingston, 2013: 4). Meanwhile, the presupposition that women are overly or
46 inappropriately emotional is reinforced when women respond in an emotional way to a
situation – another option which is closed to them (Brescoll, 2016). In essence, women
cannot show either too much or too little emotion without triggering doubts about their
capacity to lead – a problem men do not face (Brescoll, 2016) and a highly subjective
standard.
The implications of social theory also work in reverse. There is ample evidence of the capacity of women to lead, and the advantages to organizations and institutions that choose to engage women as part of leadership teams (Bilimoria & Piderit, 1994; Volden et al., 2013; Welch, 1985). There is also evidence that the way in which men and women lead is different (Eagly et al., 1992; Herrera et al., 2012). Diminishing the unique contributions of women as leaders means losing sight of what may be some of the most important tactics to making positive change, based on the efficacy of women as leaders and the contrast of approaches used by men and women. This hinders the ability of all legislators to make use of the most effective forms of leadership and communication.
Mindfulness
Mindfulness and Intuition
Mindfulness can tap into the capacity of the brain for intuition, according to some
scholars (Remmers, Topolinski, Dietrich, & Michalak, 2015). This capability has many
potential positive applications, especially when paired with research that shows that
decision-making in a less traditional style can prove beneficial to organizations. Intuition
is also thought not just to be a consequence of developing mindfulness but a
characteristic of it. In other words, researchers are beginning to explore the possibility
that the qualities that are associated with mindfulness are in part derived from the
47 capacity to intuit, or access understanding and insight without needing to engage in a linear reasoning process.
One study sampled responses from 94 undergraduate students to the Kentucky
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills to assess the relationship between intuition and mindfulness (Remmers et al., 2015). Although the results of the study were considered at variance with the original hypothesis of the scholars, which supposed increased mindfulness would be directly related to increased intuition, there's still valuable insight in the study about opportunities to make a strong case for the possibility of a more mindful political leadership. The unexpected variance in the results of this study was that people who were habituated to making judgments did better in the experimental task that was expected to gauge mindfulness. In other words, when a more rational element was more likely to be present, a more consistent result in the test for mindfulness took place
(Remmers et al., 2015).
While the scholars who produced these results suggest that this might mean that people who make judgments on a regular basis have greater access to interior decision- making calculus that includes intuition, it is also reasonable and worthwhile to emphasize that this result reflects a connection between kind of work that is the everyday duty of an engaged politician and the practice of mindfulness (Riskin & Wohl, 2015). While one may prefer to think of mindfulness as a consequence of an abstract and gauzy state of consciousness, it may be that it has a more practical dimension that is sometimes overlooked.
Intuition is extremely important when considering the effective all-around leader, and there is a substantial amount of evidence that mindful practice deepens the capacity
48 for intuition. According to Karelaia and Reb (2014), studies in the sciences and psychology, as well as on the topic of mindfulness, all reinforce the idea that emotional and cognitive aspects of perception and decision-making should not be separated as they have been in the past. To this observation, one can add that many aspects of decision making that are considered feminine are also connected to intuition and the ability to access one's emotional center. In other words, to the extent that research is increasingly recognizing the value of female leadership and feminine qualities of leaders, it is also very likely affirming the benefits of greater mindfulness in leadership.
Mindfulness and Political Leadership
To some critics of the political milieu, the idea of mindful political decision making may still seem idealistic and impractical. Is worthwhile therefore to look at some of the specifics of how mindfulness is achieved and to consider practical ways in which this could be integrated both into research and into practical implementation of programs of increased mindfulness in professional political life. If mindfulness can be thought of as akin to exercise or diet, then its attainment can be understood as challenging but not impossible. While people still have their choices to make regarding how they take care of themselves, it does matter to the broader public whether one is engaged in healthy practices or not as a politician. Of course, this is sometimes important in ways that are opposite to what one might hope. For example, in states where there is a robust cattle industry, a vegetarian may find that his or her diet is scandalous to voters. Nevertheless, it is true that lifestyle can impact decisions made by voters and that sometimes decisions are in fact aligned with progressive practices. A more welcome intolerance that is increasingly present in political life is that of rejection of politicians when evidence of
49 abuse of either one's spouse or one's children appears. Voters no longer look the other way when informed of this sort of behavior.
Practices that can lead to a more mindful decision maker are even easier and less cumbersome than a change in diet or starting a regimen of exercise. A 2016 study by
Lancaster et al. reveals a straightforward practice that can lead to mindfulness and its results. In this study, a group of students was introduced to meditation and progressive muscle relaxation and evaluated for effects. Across the board, the effects were positive in terms of reduction of anxiety and improvement of cognitive capacity (Lancaster, Klein, &
Knightly, 2016). This very simple exercise illustrates the capacity of anyone when properly incentivized to engage in a mindful practice that can lead to improvement in mood and the capacity for decision-making.
Mindfulness and Decision-Making
Beyond examining the specifics of how one achieves mindfulness logistically, one can also consider just what it means to engage in mindful decision-making and how it improves outcomes. In one report, the idea of social mindfulness was brought to the fore and measured as a tool for decision-making (Van Doesum, Van Lange, & Van Lange,
2013). For this project, a series of studies were enacted that focused on the idea of prosocial behavior and its connection to social mindfulness. The hypothesis was that the idea of social mindfulness, which is a construct that suggests one’s mindful practice as being oriented towards other people, would create positive outcomes on a social level
(Van Doesum et al., 2013). The results of this study affirmed this capacity in social mindfulness and isolated the mechanism by which preferred outcomes were achieved. In essence, what happens is that people who encounter others who are mindful and aware of
50 their presence respond by themselves being more aware of their environment. By contrast, people who are interacting with others who seem unmindful or unaware of them will adjust their focus to a more self-interested frame of mind (Van Doesum et al., 2013).
As a result, outcomes and decisions, in particular, reflect the awareness that serves as a backdrop or context within which the decisions are made. Social mindfulness, or the awareness of others when practicing mindfulness, proves to be the mechanism that results in a virtuous circle of awareness in which each member of the group is more considerate of the consequences to others of decisions.
In an article advocating for mindfulness published in the International Journal of
Leadership in Public Services in 2012, the essence of the shift in awareness that takes place from the mindless to the mindful decision-maker is deftly characterized. For this author, it is the shift of focus from a question of control to an awareness of our mind and the ripple of impact that our decisions make beyond ourselves (Rezek, 2013). In other words, the traditional Western thinker reasons regarding leading by controlling and therefore deciding on behalf of some range of resources, including other people. The mindful leader thinks about the impact that decisions that he or she will make will have outside of himself or herself to the organization and beyond. At the same time, this leader is aware of the process of thinking (Rezek, 2013). That attenuation, that presence in the moment, is an important component of mindfulness.
Looking at these precise descriptions of how mindfulness happens, one can imagine a politician being able to make decisions in this way. It is not impossible to think about the impact of one's behavior on others. It is not only a meditating monk who can
51 pay attention to people around him or her and therefore elicit a more thoughtful response from those people.
The truth is, on some level mindfulness is a behavior that is practiced by everybody every day to some extent. Very few people are without any presence of mind whatsoever. The challenge society faces is that in positions of leadership, myriad temptations lead officials to be more aware of and more focused on one's personal material benefit and superficial matters rather than to be turned inward and thinking carefully and thoughtfully. One important dimension to this dilemma is that the politician who is attempting to be more thoughtful, if he or she risks being overtaken by an unscrupulous competitor, will be unlikely to maintain the experiment with mindfulness.
Therefore, one must be aware of the context within which politicians must operate.
Is worthwhile to examine some additional examples of how mindfulness can practically be implemented as a strategy among various scenarios. A broad examination of undergraduates using self-report questionnaires revealed variation in mindfulness that was more significant among females than among men. This is typical of a new wave of mindfulness studies with an eye to gender. The studies indicating the strength of women as mindful decision-makers are ever-growing, and it seems that feminine characteristics that were once associated with poor leadership might become part of a suite of enlightened behavior for future leaders.
Unfortunately, this process is not seamless, and not all researchers are finding affirmation for female leadership or feminine styles of thought among leaders. Another study using role-playing and economic decision-making revealed that people who were engaged with others whom they thought to be female tended to make overly cautious
52 decisions about whether to offer their female counterpart in the negotiations the same offers that they offered to men. The subtle complexities of the study suggested to the scientists that gender characteristics may have been triggering different behavior as opposed to mere gender identification. In other words, behaviors recognized as female triggered different reaction than behaviors that were associated with men (Fabre, Causse,
Pesciarelli, & Cacciari, 2016).
Another study engaging these issues came to a slightly different conclusion when it discovered that women imitating masculine leadership style in a way that appeared to be obvious mimesis were rejected by prospective male employees, while a mindful adoption of male characteristics got a strong positive response from the same group
(Kawakami, White, & Langer, 2000). The scholars concluded that this seems to reinforce the idea that it is feminine behavior that may prevent respect, and that it is certainly masculine behavior mindfully presented even by a woman that is most enthusiastically embraced by employees. Another study showed significant differences in mindfulness among women across unspecified, interpersonal, and task-oriented contexts, while males did not show the same variation (Luk, Holman, & Kohlenberg, 2008).
Finally, we can turn to a very practical illustration of the value and necessity of mindfulness by discussing the study of nurses and the importance of their behavior as leaders. Charge nurses are found to require five effective decision-making behaviors when they are considered working optimally. These are resourcefulness, tactful communication, flexibility, decisiveness, and awareness of the big picture (Wilson,
Talsma, & Martyn, 2011). All of these attributes are also associated with mindfulness and
53 therefore make a strong case that a mindful leader can be developed in even the most
stressful of situations
These studies and analyses represent a shift in the perspective on mindfulness that
could be developed into an opening for solving apparently intractable problems in the
contemporary political landscape. While complex systems of governance bog down
international conversations and negotiations, an ever-increasing pool of people
committed to mindful decision making can find new ways to make change possible.
Reaching the tipping point embedded in that possibility will require an enlarged
understanding of how the practice of mindfulness can be integrated into the behaviors of political leadership.
Mindfulness signifies the fundamental mechanics of optimal legislative decision- making. As such, a study that begins to track its presence, as reported by the only people who could truly know whether it is part of the process, is more than a building block for understanding where optimal deliberative practices are absent and present. It is a cornerstone, upon which a foundation, and then an entire edifice, of understanding regarding legislative decision-making can be built.
54 CHAPTER 5: A STUDY OF LEGISLATORS’ VALUES AND DECISION-MAKING (STUDY 1)
The purpose of this research is to explore how legislators make decisions, how
their values impact those decisions and the differences in leadership and decision-making
styles between men and women. The research questions I am investigating are: How do legislators make decisions? How do their values and leadership styles affect decision- making? Are there gender differences? The study contributes to the extant literature by
providing advocates and members an understanding of how to best approach, discuss and impact a legislator’s view and understanding of issues. I will address this by looking at
both values and the underlying styles of decision-making norms for men and women in the legislature.
Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
Decision-Making
In his body of work, Sir Geoffrey Vickers talks about the conflict of ethical judgment, and other social and institutional factors that impact policy decision-making
(Stephenson, 1987). His book, The Art of Judgment (Vickers, 1983), was intended to describe, analyze, and understand the processes of judgment and decision, as they are encountered in business and public administration and particularly those exercises that I regard as contributing to the making of "policy” (Stephenson, 1987). Vickers discuss how the making of judgments is a necessary element of all human action, including professional practice. He developed the theory of appreciative judgment which includes reality judgments, value judgments and instrumental judgments, and how they all play a role in decision-making (Vickers, 1983). These can be conflicting considerations and confirm the philosophy that decisions are a matter of balance and are ever evolving. 55 Vickers felt this appreciative judgment was critical for government decision-making and
"that these ideas were ideas that everybody, governors, and administrators, should be excited about” (Vickers, 1983). These three forms of judgment can be broken down by what is, what ought to be, and what can be done or the set of actions that come next
(Vickers, 1983).
Social Role Theory
Social Role Theory (Eagly et al., 1992) posits that men and women are limited to particular roles in the workforce and then assumed to personify those roles without exception. Agentic and communal leadership decision-making styles are characteristic of traditional gender roles. Although these decision-making styles are not exclusive to gender roles, there is a distinct approach that is adopted by each gender. Leaders with decision-making skills show higher qualities of independence, assertiveness, masterfulness and competency (Eagly et al., 1995). Agentic decision-making is often attributed to male leadership styles as they are “expected to possess high levels of agentic qualities, including being independent, masterful, assertive, and instrumentally competent” (Eagly et al., 1992: 6). Female legislators adopt a more collaborative or inclusive style of decision-making that is labeled as communal decision-making, which shows higher attributes in areas such as concern for others, emotionally expressive, friendly unselfish and collaborative (Eagly et al., 1995). Communal decision-making is often attributed to women leaders, as women are expected to “possess high levels of communal attributes, including friendly, unselfish, concerned with others, and emotionally expressive” (Eagly et al., 1992: 6).
56 Review of Literature
Leadership
Public leadership has been described as being able to develop and communicate a
vision (Wolvin, 2005). Perspective taking and listening include analyzing the values and attitudes of others in order to understand how to approach their issues. Outcomes of listening, or perspective taking, help legislators understand issues and different points of
view. A willing legislator and advocate can use listening skills to understand how to come
together on an issue to best serve the community.
Little research has been done on the most effective ways to communicate with
legislators or how to engage them in meaningful conversations with advocates on a local,
state or federal level when making decisions. Traditional operational advocacy tactics are
virtually the only approaches that can be found in the literature (Petry, 2012). Teater
(2008) explores the process by which the agenda of constituents and interest groups
develops into the agenda of political decision makers. After Teater interviewed nine state
elected officials in Ohio, themes emerged that created a model for how groups can
influence legislators voting and how a constituent’s agenda can become a legislator’s
agenda (Teater, 2008). A study in morality and justice with one urban city discussed the
official’s primary roles to convince other officials that certain ethical principles are at
stake on particular issues and that such ethical principles are so important they need to be
integrated into urban policymaking. Officials regarded their ethics as important as budget
constraints in leading them to a decision (Schumaker & Kelly, 2012).
57 Individual Leadership
Good leadership requires a level of perspective taking, particularly when
discussing galvanizing issues. These include education, healthcare, job creation and
freedom of speech. After a leader has established a vision, it is important that they focus
on listening to stakeholders before executing or formalizing that vision (Wolvin, 2005).
While looking at negotiating—which is frequently used in legislative decision making—
social competencies, perspective taking and empathy have been shown to motivate a
better social understanding of an opponent’s position (Galinsky et al., 2008). Perspective taking allows an individual to anticipate and predict the behavior of others (Galinsky et al., 2008).
Diversifying Leadership
Societies are separated by opinion leaders and followers (Van den Brink et al.,
2012). In an era of complex social, economic and technological issues, leadership needs to be more diverse and able to adapt to diverse advocates and constituents. This means a paradigm shift towards community leadership comprised of expanded and diverse leaders
(Easterling & Millesen, 2012). Diversifying civic leadership and adaptive problem- solving means engaging in a varied and open manner with a more diverse set of leaders
(Easterling & Millesen, 2012). Scott Page describes why diversity is so important to a community’s prosperity when he states that unless one capitalizes on differences and different ways of thinking, no matter how intelligent, one will most likely get stuck at the same locally optimal solutions and finding new and better solutions, innovating, requires thinking differently (Page, 2007). The complexity of leaders’ roles and responsibilities has increased in many different contexts. Leaders are much more dependent on their
58 members to provide them with the knowledge and support that helps them lead
effectively (Eagly & Chin, 2010). Diversity in leadership is critical when looking at differences in men and women as leaders. Women legislators are more likely to sponsor bills that affect the lives of women and families. These include education, healthcare and family issues (Volden et al., 2013). Women have shown to have a more transformational leadership style than male leaders, especially in mentoring and developing workplace
colleagues (Eagly & Chin, 2010). They also face the challenge of trying to balance the
expectation of taking charge and leading in a way that is similar to male leaders, while
keeping the cultural expectation of warmth and gentleness. Research shows women in the
legislature having a more democratic and participative leadership style than men and
being able to build consensus easier than men (Volden et al., 2013).
Gender is an important variable when evaluating effectiveness in the legislature
(Volden et al., 2013). Research on male versus female legislators and which gender is
more effective in legislating, it is shown that different gender characteristics provide
better leadership at different times. Examining women’s leadership in the legislature in
1992, when women were elected to 54 offices between the House and Senate, Volden
looked at how the different characteristics of men and women affected actual outcomes,
including strength in committee settings and the passing of legislation or new policy.
Gender differences are relevant in leadership styles, e.g. how men and women work and communicate with their constituents (Volden et al., 2013). Women are more likely to focus on women’s issues, are more collaborative with their male counterparts, and are consensus driven and able to facilitate movement of their agenda because of these
59 characteristics. This best serves them when working on contentious issues where consensus is difficult to achieve (Volden et al., 2013).
Strong leaders can define and communicate their vision, articulate their priorities and understand their weaknesses and strengths. They are also aware of the impact they have on others (Moline, 2004). Although it is difficult to give a precise definition of a true leader, leaders are always identifiable when you see them or work with them. They motivate and excite a group or individual to achieve their goals and desired outcomes
(Moline, 2004). He discusses the lack of research on the topic and the inability to
succinctly describe qualities of a good leader; instead, behaviors are often used to describe good leadership in lieu of qualities. He outlines characteristics of leadership, including the ability to articulate a vision, identify and clarify priorities, define what is most critical and provide the resources to complete those priorities. Most importantly, he says good leadership is being self-aware and empathetic.
Constituents and Communities
Legislative issues start from the needs of individuals or communities on a local
level. Communities have complicated issues managed by community organizers, leaders
and elected officials (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). The foundation for advocacy and
working with legislators begins on the community level. Controversial issues develop on
an individual level, then within a community and upward to state and federal
conversations. The parameters of community encompass community as a place,
community as relationships, and community as collective political power (Chavis &
Wandersman, 1990). Community or citizen participation is instrumental for and has a
direct effect on important social issues. Citizen participation is a crucial tool for local or
60 community action. Chavis and Wandersman outline a model of three critical areas of influence for people to get involved in their communities for change. These are: perception of the environment, social relations and perceived control and influence in their community. There is a process for improving the quality of the community, which is described as community development, community building, and community organization. Critical to improving the community is the involvement of community volunteers and citizens. This sense of commonality is what motivates individuals to get involved in collective action and reinforces individual, and community needs. It provides individuals and the whole with a sense of power. Martin and Morehead (2013) discuss how community groups have a stronger impact in the current economy because of the complexity of our social and economic issues. Constituent voice has a greater impact because leaders need community groups and buy-in from all levels of organizations to make successful change for complex issues (Martin & Morehead, 2013). These social identity groups include churches, neighborhood groups, professional organizations, self- help groups and of course, political parties (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). They are the primary forces to community change including social issues and individual rights. The level of effectiveness and satisfaction depend on the commitment of the community members and their participation in both the cause and the effect of change.
Listening and Perspective Taking
Negotiating, specifically in the areas of politics, social competencies, perspective taking, which includes listening and empathy, have been shown to motivate a better social understanding of an opponent’s position (Galinsky et al., 2008). Perspective taking allows an individual to anticipate and predict the behavior of others (Davis, 1983). It
61 further allows people to step outside themselves and their biased view and be open to the information presented. It also serves as a tool to determine the balance between competition and cooperation, and self and other interests when decision-making
(Galinsky et al., 2008). A study that tested the relationships between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership in 80 elected officials found several correlations which reinforce the role of emotional intelligence in their leadership
(Barbuto & Burbach, 2006). Emotional intelligence includes listening and self-awareness, interpersonal skills and empathy of a leader.
“Policy representation requires legislators to advance the interests of their constituents” (Herrick, 2013: 88). The growing diversity of constituents or members of
groups challenges leaders to listen and understand the differences in their members as well (Eagly & Chin, 2010). In Herrick’s research about listening and legislative representation, she discusses the importance of listening to constituents as a way to understand their needs. She argues that policy representation should be looked at as listening (Herrick, 2013).
In 1999, Hilary Clinton’s Senate campaign undertook a “listening tour” to get to know the people of New York and to understand better what was important to them and the issues where she needed to focus her attention. In his 2005 article, Wolvin discusses his analysis of leadership utilizing Hillary Clinton’s listening tour. To communicate effectively as leaders, one must first work with individuals to know what needs to be accomplished. Wolvin’s research shows a model of leadership competencies including adaptive capacity; engaging others by creating shared meaning; voice; and integrity.
Leaders who listen to their constituents have a clear picture of their needs, motivations,
62 and priorities. Knowing this information can serve as the foundation to further the goals of the organization, including the legislature and the country (Wolvin, 2005). It was argued that her listening tour was a brilliant decision and helped position her as a trusted listener and potential advocate (Wolvin, 2005). Having listened to the people of New
York intently for months, she was able to diffuse the issue of her status as a newcomer and announce her candidacy as a spokesperson for the people, stating, "I may be new to the neighborhood, but I'm not new to your concerns” (Wolvin, 2005: 35).
Research Design
This research used semi-structured interviews to develop a theory as the primary means of data collection and analysis. The grounded theory approach in social sciences is a way to systematically organize data through which coding is used to better understand complex psychological and social scientific phenomenon. Grounded theory takes facts and constant comparative analysis and develops theory from the results. It reveals information and raises new questions. This research method helps reveal the meaning of events, situations, experiences and the comprehensive nature of the participant’s inner and outer worlds (Charmaz, 2006). Collections of narratives are analyzed to derive theory from lived experiences in order to discover new concepts and ideas that will help contribute to both the practitioner and academic communities. The Research Protocol can be seen in Appendix B.
I used a grounded theory approach as there are limited comprehensive studies about how legislator’s values, leadership styles, and listening intersect to make decisions while voting on issues. To gain new and uncontaminated insights from the interviews, I respected the standard principles of the grounded theory research approach. Interviews
63 included open-ended questions that brought compelling insight and experiences from legislators. Scheduling interviews took months of inquiry and discussions with legislative staff and legislators in order to develop trust with the process and to fully understand the confidentiality of their participation. The location or interview method was determined by the legislator’s geographic location and schedule. Interviews focused on decision-making techniques, values, constituent feedback and moments of which they were proud in their legislative career. Legislators were forthcoming with their experiences. They had the freedom to fully disclose their personal and professional perspectives with confidentiality, evidenced in their passionate stories and rich experiences which they willingly and openly shared.
Sample
My research included 28 interviews with current or former legislators, mostly from the Midwest. I interviewed a mix of state and federal legislators, Republican and
Democratic Party members, and men and women with a varied level of legislative and leadership experience. The ratio of men and women that participated is an apt gender representation of the state and federal legislature. Sample Demographics shows the political party, leadership, and current or former legislative demographics are found in
Table 2.
64 Table 2. Study 1 Qualitative: Sample Demographics
Respondent Classifications Men Women % Men % Women
Democrat 6 9 21.4% 32.1% Republican 10 3 35.4% 10.7% Current Legislator 7 8 25.0% 28.6% Former Legislator 9 4 32.1% 14.3% Party Leader 4 4 14.3% 14.3% Committee Chair 2 2 7.1% 7.1% Committee Member 10 6 35.7% 21.4%
Interviews were conducted in person, via Skype or phone, lasting approximately
60 minutes. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and coded. Participants were selected by the primary researcher’s personal and professional network; 17 men and 11 women participated in the study.
Data Collection
All interviews were collected between April 2014 and December 2014. I conducted semi-structured interviews of approximately 60 minutes that were guided by an interview protocol. The interview site was chosen by the participant and was convenient, discreet and comfortable for interviewees. The interviews were conducted face-to-face, over the telephone or Skype and all interviews were audio recorded with written consent and later transcribed for analysis.
Data Analysis
Consistent with a grounded theory approach, data analysis began simultaneously with data collection. The audio recordings of each interview were listened to several times, and the transcripts of each interview read repeatedly. In the first part of coding of
65 the transcripts, I used an “open-coding” process that required us to identify every piece of
data with potential interest. These codes were identified, labeled, compared to and categorized with similar parts from other interviews. In the second phase of coding
(“axial coding”), I further redefined as categories, ideas and themes emerged from the data. Finally, in my third phase of coding (“selective coding”), I focused on key categories and themes that yielded my findings. The analysis involved both manual coding and the use of qualitative data analysis software. Throughout this process, I
composed interpretative memos (Charmaz, 2006) and notes reflecting “the mental dialog
between the data and the researcher” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Findings
Finding 1: Male and female legislators approach decision-making differently.
My research shows that legislators in my sample, who make critical public policy decisions, share similar gender approaches to other leaders outside the legislative paradigm. Male legislators adopt an individual style of decision-making that is agentic,
and women adopt a style that is communal.
The instances and percentages that men and women describe agentic and
communal decision-making styles are found in Table 3.
Table 3. Agentic and Communal Instances
Code Men Women % Men % Women
Agentic Decision-Making Instances 20 1 59% 9% Communal Decision-Making Instances 12 43 53% 73%
M16 “Well, I got to get my facts straight; I can’t just have ideas, you got to have some things to back up your ideas.”
66 M12 “I tried to tell social service advocates, no one is undermining you because we can’t cry all of the time in front of you. We do get it, but for every one of you, there are ten more others behind you. So, my point was that I would try to get them to understand the issue…but don't try to convert people.”
Agentic decision-making quotes from male legislative interviews can be seen in
Appendix C.
F1 “We call groups and say we have this issue and what do you think, give us your input, how do you see this? I really respect ACLU. If it's a first amendment issue, if it’s something that has to do with constitutional law, if I haven't heard from them, I'll ask my staff, "Where's ACLU on it? What do they think?" Oftentimes, though, ACLU will, on some issues, let us know upfront. So, it goes both ways.”
F2“I basically did a mediation process. I sat down, and I listened to anybody who wanted to talk. I know a lot of legislators don’t agree with this and to some extent, it's not tactically smart on my part. But I believe that even those people who were ultimately going to oppose the bill had good ideas that should be listened to and should be incorporated. I remember, the last time I told everybody, all the players who were involved, I didn't try to hide the ball with anyone. I said, this is a bill that’s really important, I want to address your concerns, I know that you may or may not support it, but there are some ideas that you have that will help protect your concerns, even if you can’t wholly support the bill […] People would call in and I made sure that everybody knew that they were treated fairly even if we didn’t agree with what they wanted, and we didn’t accept.”
F27 “I really think it's imperative in what I do to get myself updated all the time[…]legislators often think that because they have a perspective, even if it's 25 to 30 years old, they think they know about an issue. And I think that is a dangerous assumption to make because things change so rapidly.”
In contrast to male legislators’ independent decision-making, the female legislators I interviewed believe they are a direct representation of their constituents.
F27 “I didn't come here to isolate myself, to only speak in terms of political rhetoric and to never try to get anything done. I came here to make a difference, to represent the voice and the people of my district and that's all the people of my district.”
67 Communal decision-making quotes from female legislative interviews can be seen in Appendix D.
Finding 2: The most significant driver of decision-making, and in turn, legislative priorities for both male and female legislators interviewed in this study are their personal values.
Public managers’ choices are influenced by their values which lead to their decision-making (Connor & Becker, 2003). My interviews with legislators reveal that their values are paramount to any other factor in their decision-making process. This includes political party priorities, financial support, lobbyists influence or constituent desire.
These legislators are driven by a personal work ethic that they believe is their obligation to respond to their constituents while taking great pride in their role.
F33 “And I am like, my philosophy is this: I’m only here because of you [constituents], and so if you call me, anybody that’s working in my office needs to call right back; like 24 hours if you’re there.”
M16 “I’m glad they’re paying attention [constituents], and they want something. Of the 14 direct bills that I passed into law, 12 of them were ideas that constituents gave me.”
The instances and percentages that men and women discuss work ethic and integrity, faith and family values can be found in Table 4.
Table 4. Work Ethic and Integrity Instances
Code Men Women % Men % Women
Values: Work Ethic and Integrity Instances 32 58 71% 82% Values: Family Values/Faith Instances 40 24 82% 64%
Work ethic values intersect with values developed from family or faith. In this investigation, faith is described as the impact of the beliefs or practices of policy makers.
68 Legislators I interviewed who grew up with strong family and/or spiritual influences use those influences when they develop legislation. Living in poverty, understanding the importance of contributing to the family or well-being of others, shapes long-term ideas of using their power to influence the greater good.
M34 “But I'll say from a spiritual place, from a place of, you know, really wanting government to help people and creating policies that do create the pathways so that people can build their measure of the American dream. I do think of things, from […] life experience, I don't think any elected official can negate their life experience.”
F6 “My mom and I didn’t know what was going on and later he [brother] was misdiagnosed with schizophrenia and then later they found out it was a bipolar disorder. Lots of young men of color are misdiagnosed with schizophrenia […], so I’d always advocate for a mental health policy, for more funding.”
F27 “Your word means so much. And if there is anything I've learned in the legislature; I think -- Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter -- people do value consistency and honoring your word. They can accept the fact that you totally disagree as long as you are real honest and honorable about it.”
Finding 3: Both male and female legislators are most proud of passing bi-partisan legislation. Passing bi-partisan legislation comes with great consequence and can negatively affect the career of the legislator.
Male and female legislators spoke of “crossing party lines” as being a significant
area of pride in their work. The legislators I interviewed have a commitment to helping as
many people as possible in their state or country. The number of instances of both male
and female legislators that found pride in working on passing legislation across party
lines can be found in Table 5.
Table 5. Pride in Passing Bi-Partisan Legislation
Code Men Women % Men % Women Instances of Pride in Passing Bi-Partisan 11 15 41% 45% Legislation
69 This emerged as a value in my coding but is reflected directly in this finding.
Legislators can satisfy this value and need to help directly and impact their constituents, with the broadest reach of support, by working across the aisle with their colleagues.
Quotes of legislators describing their pride in bi-partisan policy-making can be found in
Appendix E. Quotes from male and female legislators describing the punishment or consequences of passing legislation while crossing lines can be found in Appendix F.
Discussion
My first finding, that male and female legislators have different decision-making and leadership approaches is best aligned with Social Role Theory. Social role theory predicts the effectiveness of male and female leaders and is described “as a general tendency that people are expected to engage in activities that are consistent with their culturally defined gender roles” (Eagly et al., 1995: 126). Social role theory in a political paradigm can be explained when “gender differences in political attitudes can be understood by attending to the social roles of men and women” (Diekman & Schneider,
2010). My research discovery is best understood when relating legislators to this gender and leadership approach. Social role theory describes men and women’s behavior as consistent with culturally defined gender norms (Diekman & Schneider, 2010). As a leading voice in this theory and extensive gender research, Eagly’s theory directly supports my discoveries about communal and agentic decision-making by legislators who were interviewed. “Masculine and feminine leadership styles can be understood regarding content of people’s stereotypes about women and men” (Eagly et al., 1992: 6).
Agentic characteristics, which are traditionally men’s style of leadership, can be aggressive dominant, forceful, daring self-confident and competitive (Eagly &
70 Johannesen‐Schmidt, 2001). Communal Characteristics, which are adopted more by women, describe a leadership style of being affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic,
interpersonally sensitive, nurturing and gentle, including contributing to the solution of
relational and interpersonal problems (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
These different leadership behaviors may also be driven by external pressure or expectations of gender norms and internal cultural expectations that intrinsically motivate behaviors (Eagly et al., 1995). Many of the legislators whom I interviewed were not life- long legislators and had other careers before being elected. Any gender norms or pressures from those experiences were brought forward to their legislative leadership roles. Men and women occupy different specific roles such as occupational and family roles, which leads to stereotyping expectations and attitudes and beliefs which increases the gender gap on the local, state and county level (Diekman & Schneider, 2010).
Women develop a democratic or participatory style of leadership and men develop an autocratic or directive style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). This is consistent with my research, which identifies communal and agentic styles of leadership in male and female legislators and how they approach constituents or respond to constituent feedback, data collection and policy management. Consistent with my findings of gender and legislator’s decision-making styles, women’s interpersonal skills drive a democratic or participatory or collaborative style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Herrick’s (2010) research on sex differences in constituent engagement observes no difference in how often legislators engage in constituent interaction, but she did find that women were contacted by constituents or advocates more than men, and they attended more meetings and used constituent derived information when decision-making. Also, she finds that constituents
71 view females as generally nurturing, caring and more compassionate than their male counterparts (Herrick, 2010). Because of this, advocates or constituents are more likely to reach out to female legislators. This also adds an increased pressure to a female legislator to be engaged (Herrick, 2010).
The impact internally and externally of cultural norms allows men the freedom to lead in an autocratic or non-participatory way because they are not constrained by any gender bias (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). This supports my discussion of male legislators
selecting their trusted counsel and making fact-based and independent policy decisions.
Informants discussed their values of faith, family, and integrity as primary
influences while making decisions on legislation. This finding crossed over gender and
party lines. Faith in these instances is not related to a specific religion or sect.
Alternatively, these legislators would describe how experiences about their faith would
impact their compassion and thoughtfulness about the consequences of legislation under
consideration. One legislator shared his experience growing up with a drug-addicted
family member, the unconditional support of his church, prayer and spiritual compass.
The foundation and influence of faith during legislative deliberation substantiated his policy decision-making decisions on mental health and addiction issues. Without that
impact of faith, he admitted he might not have the compassion or forethought to make a
sound decision on such an issue.
I found a curious observation that intersects both my communal and agentic
discussion and my faith and family values findings. Female legislators had higher
instances of references to work ethic and integrity than male legislators, while male
legislators had higher instances of family and faith than female legislators (Table 4).
72 From the standpoint of the observer, this may run counter to agentic and communal
decision-making, but from the perspective of the legislator, this can be consistent with
their decision-making. Female legislators may see work ethic and integrity not as
calculated constructs, but as personal social commitments. Similarly, male legislators
may see faith and family values not as social constructs, but as a non-negotiable set of rules. This observation could be an interesting next step in values research.
I have discovered through this research that success in approaching legislators is not always effective with the common advocacy approach which includes discussions about budget implications, community need or their political party’s favor to a particular piece of legislation. Understanding the legislators approach to decision-making, whether it is Agentic (data driven and independent) or Communal (compromising and inclusive) and their values system, will best prepare advocates of any kind for legislative success while working with legislators on policy issues. A common perception about legislators is that their decisions are driven by contributions to their campaigns, deals that they can make in exchange for votes or voting to support their party. I am not arguing that there are not instances of decision-making of this kind, but it was not a focus of this research, and it did not emerge as a part of any informant’s interview.
Values are defined as motivated preferences, conceptions of what is desirable, in personal or collective terms that influence actions or decisions (Frick, 2009). Little research address legislators’ values and decision-making directly, but research on public decision-making and value hierarchies supports that public decision-makers prioritize their values in the context of policy decisions (Witesman & Walters, 2015). Witesman’s research on modeling public decision-making preferences is meant to looking at the
73 community and individual value hierarchies when trying to model or predict policy decisions by public administrators (Witesman & Walters, 2015). Although this research argues there is not a universal hierarchy of values, in Finding 2 I have identified in my sample that faith and family values and values of integrity are the most commonly referenced and articulated as leading values. I agree with Witesman’s position that values or value hierarchies may be helpful in understanding and predicting policy decisions of leaders. Their values and reasoning can help provide insight into policy decisions and outcomes. Connor and Becker studied the relationship between personal values and managerial decision-making. “Values may be conceptualized, therefore, as global beliefs that underlie attitudinal processes” (Connor & Becker, 2003: 156). They argue that the increased interest in values with scholars is the important influence of values on managers interpersonal, decision-making, ethical and performance behavior (Connor &
Becker, 2003). This research supports my findings, and my contribution to research, for constituents and advocates. Understanding legislators’ process and value impact can provide insight into best practices in approaching legislators on important policy matters.
As I discussed in Finding 3, a topic of significant interest which was not an initial focus of my work was a conflicting area of pride and policy-making for legislators.
Forty-one percent of men and 45% of women spoke of “crossing party lines” as being a significant area of pride in their work. Although those opportunities may present themselves often, they are limited by the fear of reprimand by their party leadership.
Examples of this include removing members from committees, withholding members from committee leadership and party leadership. Beyond what legislators believe and consistently want as a part of their legacy, they have a barrier of political hierarchy.
74 The legislators I interviewed understand the importance of listening skills for
constituent relations, data collection, and decision-making. They do this by emulating
people in their lives whom they respect, and who have good listening skills. Legislators I
interviewed acknowledged it is important to understand the issues that are presented to
them and acknowledge the advocates who care so deeply about making their districts a
better place to live and prosper. Quotes from legislators describing their listening style
and the importance of good listening skills can be found in Appendix G.
Implications
As advocates are developing their strategies and approach for support of issues,
understanding the core values of the legislator, combined with a knowledge of their
decision-making style and understanding, will help the advocate with understanding an
issue; connecting it to the legislator’s integrity, family values, and data. This
understanding will also prepare advocates for compromise when working with a
communal leader. Where a legislator grew up, their faith, economic background, family, and history all have an impact on their support for a cause or issue. One approach can be to make the discussion about the legislator and to relate to their history and voting record.
There are many important issues that need attention, and I have learned that it is critical
to understand both the style and value filter that legislators use as they consider their
support for an issue while staying true to their personal ideals.
75 CHAPTER 6: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE INFLUENCERS OF LEGISLATORS’DECISION-MAKING (STUDY 2)
The purpose of this research is to explore how legislator’s decisions are influenced and how their values impact these decisions. Previous scholarly work explores constituent influences on legislators’ votes. I am examining religious values, financial contributions and how reach or impact of the policy issue affects both leadership decision-making performance and decision-making confidence and leadership attributes.
This quantitative research will further explore the influencers of decision-making with the following questions: Does the influence of financial contributions to campaigns and the complexity or importance of the policy issue have a direct effect on both leadership decision-making performance and decision-making confidence and leadership attributes? Does decision-making inside and outside party lines mediate the effect on leadership decision-making performance and decision-making confidence and leadership attributes? What is the impact of religious beliefs and practices, and family values on decision-making for legislators? Is gender a mediator in measuring these potential influences in decision-making? The proposed research model can be seen in Figure 4.
76 Figure 4. Hypothesized Quantitative Model
Theoretical Framework
Decision-Making Theory
There are two important elements to decision-making theory for the purposes of
this study. These are the normative and descriptive attributes of decision-making (Barron,
1974; Slovic et al., 1977). The normative dimension includes one’s personal values,
beliefs, and experiences and is the prescriptive component of decision making; it deals with the question of what one ought to do. Descriptive decision-making involves the process by which one gathers intelligence to achieve a well-reasoned decision. It involves aspiring toward a comprehension of a state of fact (Barron, 1974; Slovic et al., 1977).
These two elements comprise the essence of the decision-making process of many legislators. On the one hand, lawmakers will decide what it seems they ought to do. They will then reach out to experts, advocates, and their constituents to see whether the facts
77 square with their opinions and what the stakeholders in the decision to be made consider
to be the best decision. The results of the research will be developed with these elements
in mind so as to produce a thoughtful means of exploration of the process of deliberation.
Construct definitions can be seen in Appendix H.
Social Role Theory
Developed by Alice Eagly, social role theory posits that men and women are consigned to specific roles in the workforce and are expected to not deviate from these roles (Eagly et al., 1992). The assumptions underlying these expectations reinforce numerous stereotypes about the roles of men and women in society and are barriers that at times prove insuperable to women seeking to distinguish themselves in a professional capacity (Eagly et al., 1992). The description of society achieved through social role theory lays emphasis on the individual social components of gender.
This theoretical foundation helps to explain certain obstacles faced by women in
the legislature and therefore aids in evaluating their effectiveness (Volden et al., 2013). It
also suggests that there are dangers to the limits created by these obstacles, in that the
leadership approaches of men and women are effective at different times (Volden et al.,
2013). Without the unfettered capacity of both men and women to lead, there are opportunities missed for successful completion of legislative goals, a dangerous proposition in an era of gridlock and glacial movement on important issues of the day.
Review of Literature
Establishing the role of values in the decision-making process of legislators has proven to be a complex task (Witesman & Walters, 2015). Perhaps this is in part a consequence of the long-standing concept of the public good, which looms large in any
78 conversation of the values that do drive or ought to drive legislative decision-making
(Bozeman, 2007). Still, there is undoubtedly a matrix of values based on the personal experience and moral grounding of legislators that is a factor as they make decisions
(Witesman & Walters, 2015). This research seeks to provide clarity regarding some of the values that are part of that matrix.
Public Values
In 2015, Witesman and Walters published a paper that revealed the results of their efforts toward creating a universal hierarchy of public values. The data for the study was gathered through the use of a questionnaire distributed to 182 public employees from 27 cities in the United States. The cities varied in size from just over 1,600 people to more than 1.3 million people. Using models that were based on value hierarchies, the pair observed that predictions of policy preferences were improved through the presence of value hierarchies (Witesman & Walters, 2015). This research demonstrates the significance of identifying and measuring values in the public sphere, although its data set was derived from public employees and not elected officials.
Research in the field of public policy has, in recent years, tended to engage less in investigations of the public good and values in a political context than in the past, perhaps due in part to a changing sense of what the purpose of research ought to be (Bozeman,
2007). The growing role of quantitative methods, which tend to steer researchers toward things about which one can be certain, might also play a role (Bozeman, 2007). While current trends in research are producing valuable results, the importance of values in how decisions are made cannot be ignored. Knowing when and how leaders use values to
79 navigate their choices is central to understanding how decisions that impact the public are made (Schnebel, 2000).
My 2015 study (Battaglia, 2015) established that values are an important part of the decision-making calculus of legislative leaders. This is in keeping with research that demonstrates the role of background and values for these public figures (Oldmixon,
2009; Schnebel, 2000). In this research, the focus shifts to individual components of the values that help to steer decisions by these leaders.
Influencers
The role of religious beliefs and practices and family values in decision making is demonstrated by research which reveals that the cultural background of legislators influences their deliberative process (Schnebel, 2000). Further, the recognition of a religious influence on legislative decisions has been documented by many studies, particularly ones that focus on specific issues, such as abortion and sexual orientation
(Oldmixon, 2009; Tatalovitch & Schier, 1993). By introducing the question of the role of religious belief within the context of other influences, this research contributes to the broader end of the literature's spectrum.
There is a vast literature on the influence of financial contributions on legislators.
Without question, money influences politics, but there is less agreement about the influence it buys. Extant scholarship suggests that legislators are extremely reluctant to deviate from the expectations of their constituents, which significantly colors the question of what influence is being purchased by lobbyists (Burstein, 2003; Gray et al., 2004).
This is borne out by a parallel trend that is demonstrated in research, which is the shift of corporations and lobbyists to the use of grassroots campaign strategies in addition to
80 campaign contributions in order to influence lawmakers (Walker, 2012). Corporations are
increasingly aware of the power of the electorate and are trying to use it in order to
amplify their influence. The value of this research is both the intersection of this question
with other important topics such as family values and religious beliefs and practices and
the focus on legislators' own perspectives on these topics, which provides the unique advantage of firsthand perspective.
This research also explores the role of the party in influencing decisions made by legislators. This important topic has also received sustained attention by scholars. While there is a vast body of literature to consider, it is perhaps well-represented by a snapshot
of the research on legislative leadership. Party leaders certainly influence the rank-and-
file in legislative bodies, but that influence is not uniform, and it is not absolute. The
power of legislative leaders is reflected in the trend of corporations to direct donations
increasingly to leaders instead of individual legislators (Powell, 2012). This has led to a
concentration of the power of leaders, as they can distribute those funds as a punishment
and reward system. Such trends may increase influence, but research suggests that the
influence those leaders have is mitigated by other factors, including the preferences of
their constituents (Hogan, 2012). Further, the power of the purse alone is not sufficient to
influence lawmakers; research reveals that the ability of the majority party to control the
legislative calendar in certain states increased the power of leadership substantially,
which in turn suggests that there is autonomy in states where that power did not exist
(Anderson, 2014).
81 Gender
All of these factors are additionally examined in this research through the lens of gender. As the above description of social role theory mentioned, there are clear differences in the ways in which men and women make decisions (Volden et al., 2013).
Political attitudes also vary based on gender (Diekman & Schneider, 2010; Eagly &
Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). This will be explored in greater detail below, but it is essential to observe that the use of gender as a lens through which to view these other elements of influence in the decision-making processes of legislators provides an altogether different perspective than research without this component would afford.
Women possess a different style of leadership (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). It is described in some research as more communal and consensus-seeking; what is important regarding the unique value of this research is that it is a different way to solve problems in the legislative arena. Any research that furthers the capacity of legislative bodies to employ the most diverse range of problem-solving approaches possible serves to advance the public good, which, while it can be a daunting concept, is also an important value for any researcher in the public sphere to bear in mind.
Hypotheses
Previous research shows that ethics or ethical principles are as important as economic constraints on decision-making and are more important than political, legal, jurisdictional or cultural considerations (Schumaker & Kelly, 2012). Work ethic values intersect with values developed from family or faith (Battaglia 2015). Those legislators who grew up with strong family and spiritual influences use those influences to develop and vote on legislation. These religious influencers may affect legislative decision-
82 making in two ways: how much weight do legislators give to public opinion about issues influenced by faith and how much weight does a legislator give to public opinion grounded in religious convictions (Greenawalt, 1994).
Understanding the ethical importance of contributing to the well-being of others, many times through the influence of religious beliefs, shapes long-term ideas and uses power to influence legislation (Schumaker & Kelly, 2012).
Hypothesis 1a. A legislator’s religious beliefs and practices positively influence the legislator’s leadership decision-making performance.
Hypothesis 1b. Legislators’ religious beliefs and practices positively influence the legislators’ decision-making confidence and leadership attributes.
Interest groups play a critical role in developing public policy. “Politicians are willing to serve an interest group's wishes and thereby willing to deviate from the policy position preferred by the voters (or themselves) because money is valuable in attracting votes” (Potters & Sloof, 1996: 408). Research as far back as 1908 place interest groups at the heart of the political process (Potters & Sloof, 1996). Constituency control has been of great controversy around representation. It is generally recognized that constituency control is opposite to the conception of representation. This was to serve the constituency's interest but not its will. This has been at the heart of controversy for a century and a half (Miller & Stokes, 1963). There is a link between fundraising and lobbying: contributors gain access to legislators based on donations (Powell, 2012).
Without early and large campaign contributions, political candidates lose momentum, which can affect their electability.
Hypothesis 2a. Financial contributions to legislators’ campaigns from both groups and individuals influences legislators’ leadership decision-making performance.
83 Hypothesis 2b. Financial contributions to legislators’ campaigns from both groups and individuals influences legislators’ decision-making confidence and leadership attributes.
A key finding in my 2015 study (Battaglia, 2015) was that legislators described prideful moments as developing legislation with their colleagues in the opposing party to ensure passage of important legislation. Legislators believe that if the issue is critical to the people, it will not have a party identification. Legislators that felt this way were left with a difficult decision: limit the number of votes outside party lines, or experience the consequences or punishment from Leadership. Both Party Leadership and legislators agree that this punishment comes in the form of committee Leadership elimination, suppression of Leadership roles within the legislature, or lack of financial and advocacy support for their reelection (Battaglia, 2014). “Legislator decision-making is motivated by a re-election imperative and the quest for power respectively” (Oldmixon, 2009: 778).
Hypothesis 3a. The impact and reach of a policy issue influences legislators’ leadership decision-making performance.
Hypothesis 3b. The impact and reach of a policy issue influences legislators’ decision-making confidence and leadership attributes.
Values of a leader are influenced by cultural background (Schnebel, 2000). My
2015 research (Battaglia, 2015) finds family values, in particular, are one of the greatest influences in legislative decision-making. Values which are concepts or beliefs about a desired state that transcend specific issues or situations that drive the position or events in order of relevance of the decision-maker (Witesman & Walters, 2015). For legislators, this includes family, work ethic and integrity, being transparent, truthful, having good character and being hardworking and being morally sound. “Decisions in the public sector are particularly wrought with conflicts between important and cherished values”
84 (Witesman & Walters, 2015: 87). Policy decisions come with long hours and hard work.
This includes reading hundreds of bills and working on developing and passing important legislation through research and relationship building. These legislators are driven by family values and believe it is their obligation to respond to their constituents while taking great pride in their role (Battaglia, 2014).
Hypothesis 4. Family values positively influence leadership decision-making performance.
Both social scientists and journalists report that men and women have different political attitudes (Diekman & Schneider, 2010). The core principles are that men’s and women’s political attitudes diverge because of diffuse gender roles (e.g., family and occupational roles), broad exceptions based on sex as well as differential specific roles
(e.g., family and occupational roles) (Diekman & Schneider, 2010: 486). Aspects of gender roles that are relevant to understand leadership relates to agentic and communal attributes. Agentic behavior is controlled by the status of the interaction of the participants and is most agentic with a subordinate. Communal behaviors are influenced by the sex of the participants, regardless of the participant’s status (Eagly & Johannesen-
Schmidt, 2001). Women behave more communally than men, particularly when interacting with other women. In my 2015 research (Battaglia, 2015) research, female legislators would meet regularly to work collaboratively in solving policy issues and drafting legislation or amendments with a variety of input and collective problem- solving. Gender differences in the political environment align with those of social role theory. Gender differences, in general, are consistent with gender differences in the political environment. Women are more likely to focus on family and women’s issues.
Moreover, women are more collaborative with their male counterparts and are consensus 85 driven and able to facilitate movement of their agenda due to these characteristics
(Battaglia, 2015). Research shows women in the legislature having a more democratic and participative leadership style than men and are interested and able to build consensus easier than men (Volden et al., 2013). Men have a more independent style of decision- making and often feel responsible for making a decision autonomously (Battaglia, 2015).
Because of the difference of social identities, women and men can have different expectations for their own behavior in formal settings. Women’s interpersonal skills drive a democratic or participatory style of leadership. This involves collaboration with peers and subordinates while these relationships when looking at whether the idea is good or bad (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Because of this style, I hypothesize that women will be more confident in their decision-making attributes and leadership decision-making performance.
Hypothesis 5a. Gender positively moderates leadership decision-making performance.
Hypothesis 5b. Gender positively moderates decision-making confidence and leadership attributes.
Research Design
Instrument Development
Q-sort. After developing the survey items for each construct using both validated scales and scales developed from previous research, I conducted a q-sort using Qualtrics to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the survey items. Participants in the
Q-sort testing included 21 research colleagues, 10 previous and current elected officials and 10 practitioners. Feedback was provided not only through the Qualtrics tool but through notes and discussions from the participants. Minor adjustments were made to
86 accommodate for clarity on decision-making leadership attributes and leadership
decision-making performance.
Data Sample
I focused my efforts to legislators in Ohio General Assembly which totals 160
potential respondents. As legislators spend most of their time working in committees, meeting with advocates, colleagues and the constituents in their districts, I learned that online surveys are a difficult way to collect data for this demographic. I proceeded by
using the snowballing technique through my personal network. A snowball data
collection method is when the researcher identifies an initial number of potential sample
respondents (Magnani et al., 2005) and asks those participants to encourage their
colleagues to participate in the study. Through this strategy, I captured data from other
states including Minnesota and Georgia. Tracking lists were developed in order to send
reminders to the elected officials, and a database was developed. This rigorous process
provided enough data to perform an exploratory study and analysis.
I obtained survey results from 57 legislators. Of these, five cases contained
greater than 25% missing values and were therefore removed, resulting in a final sample
size of 52. Of these, 19 (36.5%) were female, and 33(63.4%) were male. The respondent
demographic is seen in Appendix I.
Data Collection
Surveys were administered using Qualtrics online survey software. The surveys
included a description of the study, including an ethical statement describing procedures
to ensure anonymity and an e-mail address where participants may contact me or my
chair and advisor with questions or concerns. Participants saw a written, informed
87 consent statement, which they were required to acknowledge electronically before proceeding to the study. When the survey was completed, participants received a notice thanking them for their participation including contact information for questions or concerns they may have about the survey or study.
When possible, the construct items used in my survey were adapted from previously validated measures. In some cases, items were developed based on past research and literature. I used a 7-point Likert Scale unless otherwise stated. A summary of the constructs related to the independent and dependent variables in the proposed study, including the construct, definition, items and source is seen in Appendix J.
Data Screening
To ensure that the data met the statistical assumptions for path analysis, I performed data screening. A single case had a single missing value, which was imputed using the series mean. To test for multicollinearity, I calculated the variable inflation factor (VIF) for each variable. All variables had VIF values below 3, indicating no problems with multicollinearity.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
I conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with a promax rotation to test whether the factor structure of the data conformed to the theoretical model. The variables included in the EFA were decision-making confidence and leadership attributes (DEC), leadership decision-making performance (DEP), financial contributions (FIN), faith and family values (FVAL), impact/reach of policy issues (IRP), and religion (REL). Based on the results of an initial EFA, I removed eight items that had factor loadings below 0.5: DEC35, DEC05, DEP01, DEP04, ETH1, ETH6,
88 FVAL2, and IRP2. This resulted in an EFA solution wherein all seven variables loaded cleanly (factor loadings greater than .5) on separate factors, with no problematic crossloadings. My constructs are formative, meaning if one item is removed, the construct remains intact. Each item is not independently necessary in order for the construct to function in the model. The low sample size in this study accounts for low loadings in the model. The EFA solution is presented pattern matrix in Table 6.
89 Table 6. Exploratory Factory Analysis Pattern Matrix
Pattern Matrixa Factor Decision Making Confidence Leadership Impact/ and Decision Financial Family Reach Policy Leadership Making Religion Cont. Values Issue Attributes Performance DEC02 -.200 .727 DEC15 .225 .699 DEC19 -.249 .666 DEP2 .724 DEP3 .602 DEP7 -.271 .210 .732 FIN1 .873 FIN2 .981 FIN3 .868 FIN4 .950 FIN5 .907 FVAL1 .995 FVAL3 .931 -.204 FVAL4 .685 FVAL5 .648 .215 IRP1 .653 IRP3 .234 .771 IRP4 .795 IRP5 .237 .733 REL1 .827 .254 REL2 .841 REL3 .824 REL4 .842 REL5 .898 REL6 .823 -.266 REL8 .673 REL9 .860 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
90 The factor loadings about 0.5 indicate good convergent validity. To test for
reliability of the EFA, I computed Cronbach’s α for all seven variables. The α values
were .946 (religion), .734 (leadership decision-making performance), .772 (decision-
making leadership attributes), .889 (faith and family values), .963 (financial
contributions), and .765 (impact and reach). These values were deemed acceptable to
demonstrate EFA reliability. Note: Due to the limitations of the data set, I was unable to
perform a Confirmatory Factory Analysis (CFA). Note: At this point in the analysis it was
deemed necessary to use smart Partial Least to measure the relationship between
variables. This system is well suited to analyze smaller sample sizes.
Hypothesis Testing
To test the hypotheses, I conducted a partial least squares path analysis using
SmartPLS software. The R2 values for the endogenous variables were as follows:
leadership decision-making performance, R2 = .264; decision-making leadership
attributes, R2 = .137. The SRMR for the model was .116, again supporting the use of exploratory PLS rather than confirmatory, covariance-based SEM. The model demonstrated good discriminant validity, with all inter-factor correlations below or approaching .5 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The inter-factor correlation matrix is seen in Table 7.
Table 7. Correlation Matrix
DEC DEP FVAL FIN IRP REL DEC .698 DEP .541 .723 FVAL .367 .199 .829 FIN .262 .068 .450 .929 IRP .407 .115 .499 .559 .718 REL .402 .357 .391 .443 .336 .854
91 As shown in Table 7, the only two inter-factor correlations to exceed .5 were those
between decision-making leadership attributes and leadership decision-making
performance and between financial contributions and impact. Considering the close
conceptual relationship between the constructs in these sets, the correlation values were deemed acceptable.
Results
Results indicated that religion positively influenced leadership decision-making performance, and this influence was significant at the .1 level ( = .287, p = .065).
Therefore, H1a is supported. This indicates that respondents who scored higher on the religion scale tended to also score higher on the leadership decision-making performance
scale. Additionally, religion positively and significantly influenced decision-making
leadership attributes ( = .406, p = .027). Therefore, H1b is supported. This indicates
that, as participants scored higher on the religion scale, they also tended to be more
confident in their decisions.
To get a more robust idea of the effect sizes for these relationships, I calculated f2
statistics. Results suggested a small effect size between religion and leadership decision- making performance (f2 = .084). The effect of religion on decision-making leadership attributes was larger and would be classified as a moderate effect (f2 = .154). The path
between religion and decision-making leadership attributes also had the largest t statistic
(t = 2.219).
With respect to financial contributions, the results revealed no significant influence either on leadership decision-making performance ( = -.095, p = .573) or on
92 decision-making confidence and leadership attributes (B = -.111, p = .566). Therefore,
H2a is rejected and H2b is rejected.
The results revealed a nonsignificant relationship between public impact and reach of a policy issue and complex leadership decision-making performance (= .286, p =
.194). Therefore, hypothesis H3a is rejected. H3b is rejected. Additionally, the influence of family values on leadership decision-making performance was positive, but nonsignificant ( = .160; p = .396), so H4 is rejected.
Finally, my results revealed a nonsignificant relationship between gender and decision-making confidence and leadership attributes H4a= (=.125, p=.310). Therefore, hypothesis H5a is rejected. Additionally, my results revealed a nonsignificant relationship between gender and leadership decision-making performance H4b= (=.019, p=.806) so H5b is rejected. The PLS model and output is contained in Appendix I. The hypothesized results from Smart PLS are summarized in Table 8.
93 Table 8. Hypothesis Results (PLS)
Hypothesis P Supported? Religion leadership decision-making .065 H1a + .287 Yes performance (f2 = .084) Religion decision-making leadership .027 H1b + .406 Yes attributes (f2 = .154) Financial contributions leadership H2a + -.095 .573 No decision-making performance Financial contributions leadership H2b + -.111 .566 No decision-making leadership attributes Impact/reach leadership decision- No H3a + .286 .194 making performance Family values leadership decision- H4 + .160 .396 No making performance Gender leadership decision-making H5a + .019 .806 No performance Gender Decision-making confidence H5b + .125 .310 No and leadership attributes
These results are discussed in the Discussion section, below. Discussion
A central belief in our democracy is that legislators make decisions based on the will of the constituents that they represent. During the past century, this has been a theme with alternative views and conflicting scholarly results (Bishin, 2000). Traditional political science research argues a strong influence of constituents on legislative decision- making. Political economics literature supports my study 1 qualitative work (Battaglia,
2015) which shows legislators views and decisions are influenced by their dogmas
(Bishin, 2000). Given that research, it is not surprising that my results found that religion positively influenced leadership decision-making performance. I recall earlier in this research that respondents who scored higher on the religion scale tended to score higher on the leadership decision-making performance scale. Additionally, religion positively
94 influenced decision-making confidence and leadership attributes. This shows us that, as participants scored higher on the religion scale, they tended to be more confident in their overall decisions.
Religion is a subject discussed in most interviews, debates and town hall forums throughout campaign events. Candidates use their religion to secure votes with fellow believers. Our current presidential candidate’s religion includes Methodist, Presbyterian,
Catholicism, Evangelicalism and Mormonism faiths. Candidates tout their beliefs in the hope of connecting with voters and committing to legislate in related ways to their faith.
A recent example is a comment from one conservative candidate, “My faith is the single greatest influence in my life.” A past example of the influence of legislator’s religion in the legislative voting reaches as far back as the 1970s when the equal rights amendment
was reintroduced into Congress (Chisholm, 1969). This controversial issue ignited the
first community organizing of Mormon women in Utah. The Mormon Church calling to
defeat the ERA legislation had a direct impact on Mormon legislators who admittedly
cast a faith-based vote (Gill, 1985) and defeated the legislation. My research supports that
historically and today faith impacts decision-making confidence and leadership attributes
and leadership decision-making performance.
My unsupported hypotheses bring some questions and considerations forward. I
can only speculate about the insignificant results of financial contributions, impact, and
reach of policy issue and my mediator: voting inside and outside party lines. A common
belief in American politics is that legislators are influenced by individuals, political
action committees (PACs), party committees and lobbyists for a favor exchange of money
for the support of the industries specific needs (Welch, 1982). The idea of buying
95 influence seemed so apparent to me and my network, that during this exploratory research of influencers this independent variable could not be overlooked. As I measured
financial contributions to decision-making leadership attributes and leadership decision-
making performance, I found an insignificant result. I believe this issue is so highly
charged that legislators may not have answered the series of questions reliably. Past and
future legislation related to capping financial contributions to candidates validate the
notion that these contributions come with an unspoken (and in relation to PACs) agreed
upon influence. A larger sample size and qualitative research design may have a different
result. The unsupported findings of the impact of policy and reach of issues speaks to the
question of reliability as well. As legislators are forced to pay attention to issues that are
critical for their constituents, this includes issues that are consistently debated in a public
forum and through the media. Issues that drive significant media attention force
legislators to address them with a formal position. My questions may have been
inflammatory when asking if the media has an influence over their decisions. Legislators
may have been uncomfortable identifying their important role of legislating with the
actions of the press. I believe that my moderator, the insignificance of the impact of
voting inside or outside party lines was due to my sample size. This exploration was
motivated by my study 1 qualitative findings that both men and women feel most proud
when voting for the good of the whole, not just the good of a segregated party. This
action has negative consequences with Party Leadership and comes with significant
penalties and even the loss of reelection. Lastly, I was unable to discern gender
differences due to my low sample size. The imbalance of women and men who
participated in the study (19 women and 33 men) prevented any gender analysis.
96 Implications
The most valuable practical implications of my work are for practitioners’ use, not
only for their role as advocates, but in a broader sense, for voting for candidates with
diametrically different views that are influenced by faith or religion. The first step in advocacy is to get to know legislators and to understand the depth of the issue as it relates educating those legislators. Advocates often plan government relations strategy around
the impact of the issue on the constituents that legislator represents. As I continue to
learn, the legislator’s personal values, specifically their faith and religious beliefs and
practices has a strong influence on the decision. Furthermore, these findings force
advocates and constituents to examine how policy may be affected long-term with a
particular candidate’s representation. Understanding the importance of faith and its
impact on policy may help policy maker’s better compromise and work together.
Understanding these similarities and differences can be central to legislators as they need
to find and understand common ground in an effort to reduce polarization of complicated,
divisive issues.
97 CHAPTER 7: DOES MINDFUL LEADERSHIP MATTER? A STUDY OF LEGISLATORS’DECISION MAKING (STUDY 3)
The topic of leadership is among the most well researched and published in any
field. People are interested in leadership because there is a deep need in human nature to
trust that leaders in one's society are on the right track.
As I look at the past research and findings regarding influencing factors on
legislative decision-making, the impact of faith or spirituality as a deliberative process
can increase decision-making confidence (Battaglia, 2015). Past research shows evidence
of business leaders engaging in religion-based workplace spirituality as part of their
decision-making process (Fernando & Jackson, 2006). Although these leaders have a
plethora of leadership and decision-making tools that have proven successful, in the most
challenging times, their connection to their faith, God, or a higher power was a source of
solace, guidance, and inspiration to their critical decision-making (Fernando & Jackson,
2006). This investigation will explore whether mindfulness, originating from the practice
of spirituality, influences the legislative process of policy making and the performance of
the legislator.
This investigation will consider the role of gender in the decision-making process.
Many studies have considered the ability of women to lead. Through research, some compelling information related to gender and leadership has emerged (Glover et al.,
2002; Kawakami et al., 2000; Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, &
Elawar, 2007). There is no question that differences in leadership can be traced back to
gender and that men and women make different choices based on different decision-
making calculi. It also seems clear that there is a moral dimension to this phenomenon;
that is to say, factors that would be considered matters of morals or ethics are prioritized 98 and incorporated differently based on gender (Doty, Tomkiewicz, & Bass, 2005; Kennedy et al., 2017; Westbrook et al., 2011). Based on an abundance of research, there is reason to consider that women prioritize moral components of the decision-making calculus more often than men; there is also a path to be made involving the mindfulness of leaders regardless of gender. What is lacking among these studies is an exploration of the role of mindfulness in decision-making differences in gender. If women are making more mindful and make more moral decisions, at least one aspect of the unique traits of female leadership could be investigated and possibly established as a significant quality.
Mindfulness is recognized as a method of improving the quality of one's life and one's decisions overall, but this does not inherently translate into the mindful and moral decision-making process of women leaders being present everywhere and in all cases.
Although it is accepted that mindfulness practices in other areas reduce stress and lead to more thoughtful decisions, does this occur at the most stressful point of any legislator's professional life, the legislative logjam? These periods in the legislative session, at the very end and in which lawmakers are under pressure to pass legislation with little reflection, are roundly condemned, in part, because of the difficulty of making a carefully considered decision under such conditions (Tucker, 1985).
My research questions in this investigation are: Does mindfulness both decrease stress in contentious situations and lead to better decisions? Is there a difference between male and female legislators’ tendency to use mindfulness in policymaking? How does practicing mindfulness affect decision-making confidence?
There is little scholarly research that addresses the effects of the practice of mindfulness in the legislature: specifically, whether there is a difference between male
99 and female legislators’ use of mindfulness or if mindfulness increases confidence and a sense of clarity during decision-making on polarizing policy issues. An exploration into this open field of study will give advocates and researchers a look into mindfulness as a new tool to increase confidence and relieve stress. The results of the study will provide an understanding of the impact of mindfulness on policymaking and legislation development and specifically explore policy making using mindfulness not only as a tool for decision- making but to provide clarity and confidence in decision-making. It will also provide some new perspective on the ways in which women are uniquely suited to leadership roles.
The definitions I used for mindfulness, mindful leadership, managing stress, decision-making confidence, effective legislative decision-making, and spirituality can be found in Appendix K.
Research Purpose
The 2017 Ohio General Assembly will focus on policy issues for education, unemployment compensation reform, the growing opioid epidemic and state legislated human rights issues (Borchardt, 2017). Investigating state legislators and their tendency to use mindful decision-making is important because the consequences of these policy priorities are enormous and influence over 11 million Ohioans. Constituents prefer legislators vote for policies that are closer to their philosophies (Tausanovitch &
Warshaw, 2013). State policy-makers’ decisions are notable because these leaders are
often more approachable and have more opportunities to listen, first hand, to their
citizens and therefore can develop policy decisions that best reflect their constituents’
needs and preferences. Earlier research shows that as workloads in the legislature
100 increase towards the end of a legislative session, logjams ensue and legislators make
hasty decisions regarding policies to move them through the legislative process quickly.
It has been noted that “in the midst of this confusion, legislators vote wildly and blindly
on countless measures they do not know a thing about” (Tucker, 1985). This can have
deleterious results for advocates trying to educate and receive support from legislators on
their issues of importance (Tucker, 1985).
The goal of this study is to understand if mindfulness is a practice used by state legislators, how it is used in legislative decision-making and whether it improves the quality of confidence of legislative decision-making. The results of this study may direct
scholarship to a new theory about the need and potential system that encourages
mindfulness as a positive means to internal and external representative success.
Theoretical Foundations
This study seeks to understand whether and to what extent mindfulness is
employed by legislators, with a particular eye to any gendered differences in mindful
practice. This purpose drives both the theoretical foundation and the review of the literature. The theoretical framework is constructed around the themes of leadership,
mindfulness, decision-making, and gender. The literature review examines where the
extant literature has explored and advanced findings in the intersections among these
themes and seeks new areas of exploration through which this research might help
develop the body of scholarly discourse in this area.
Decision-Making Theory
Both of the previous studies depended upon decision-making theory as a seminal
frame in the development of the research methodology and interpretation of results. This
101 study is no different. Although the focus of this study is more narrowly interested in the way in which legislators make decisions, the essential normative and descriptive elements of decision making as laid out by this theoretical construct are no less relevant (Slovic et al., 1977). The element of mindfulness does not supplant these components but is instead another layer of understanding. The greater attention and focus brought on by mindful decision-making applies to both the normative and descriptive modes (Karelaia & Reb,
2014). Further, both layers of investigation can serve to illuminate the other. The exploration of mindful deliberation is aided by an understanding of when a normative or descriptive mode is in operation. Likewise, when exploring whether one or the other type of decision-making is in use, recognition of the depth of that operation can only deepen comprehension.
Social Role Theory
Social role theory becomes, if anything, more important than it was in the two previous studies in this exploration. The essential explanation provided by the foundational theorists of this theory that men and women are expected to conform to pre- determined roles in society holds at least as true in a legislative body as anywhere else
(Eagly & Carli, 2003). The variability of deliberative approaches depending upon the gender of a decision-maker is a well-documented phenomenon. Women engage in practices that are more collaborative and less ego-driven (Volden & Wiseman, 2009). At the same time, there are unique obstacles to women as legislators and leaders (Anzia &
Berry, 2011).
102 Mindfulness Philosophy
Mindfulness is grounded in the act of awareness. It is a discipline and an attitude and a way of approaching decisions. Its basic premise is to bring awareness and thought into one’s life to be useful in any situation, including critical moments of complex decision-making. Mindfulness is often used as a tool to manage difficult issues or decisions and to reduce the stress that follows these situations. One scholar describes its efficacy by stating that “Mindfulness informs all types of professionally relevant knowledge, including propositional facts, personal experiences, processes, and know- how, each of which may be tacit or explicit” (Epstein, 1999: 33). Epstein (1999) explains that mindful practitioners engage in self-monitoring as a way to be aware of both their personal knowledge and deeply held values to take in and be aware of new information and different perspectives. A mindful practitioner is self-aware and present in everyday experiences including “actions, thoughts, sensations, images, interpretations and emotions” (Epstein, 1999: 835). The practice of mindfulness is aware of the ordinary, the obvious, and the present and traces back from a philosophical-religious tradition. “The underlying philosophy is fundamentally pragmatic and is based on the interdependence of action, cognition, memory and emotion,” according to Epstein (1999: 835).
Review of Literature
While research on the role of mindfulness in decision-making has had a robust start, it has in some ways just begun. There are many insights yet to be gleaned regarding the elements of careful deliberation that make up the idea of mindfulness. In particular, there is a great deal of uncharted territory with respect to legislators. The association between legislators and mindfulness is atypical; many people consider the process by
103 which laws get passed, and policy enacted too pragmatic to ever avail itself of a mindful process, but this is a reductionist view that deserves as much scrutiny as its opposite, the myth of the selfless lawmaker.
Mindfulness is the launching point of this review, but it is by no means the terminus. The decision-making process of legislators is the central object of study when considering the influences of legislative decision-making. This review will explore a route through the process that includes the mindfulness, broader research on decision- making, and how gender seems to impact deliberative approach.
Mindful Leadership and Decision-Making
Mindfulness in leadership is an area ripe for deeper investigation. Researchers are increasingly aware of leaders without a sufficiently mindful being and the consequences of that deficit. Consequently, there is a growing body of literature supporting the value of mindful leadership in precise ways. It is easy to say that a leader ought to be thoughtful and present in important times of engagement, but this is often dismissed as a trite cliché without data to back it up. Data and analysis are growing that support this critical facet of leadership, including research considered here (Karelaia & Reb, 2014; Kawakami et al.,
2000).
Much of the literature in this area of leadership studies has focused on business leadership. To be sure, this is a critical component of society, and there are tremendous benefits to be reaped from a more mindful business leadership. The political field has received less attention, relatively speaking, in these unique areas. To the extent that research on mindfulness and political leadership is underrepresented in the existing body of scholarship, this research will provide needed development in that area.
104 The idea of politicians practicing mindful leadership may seem counterintuitive, as people often consider political decisions to be narrowly calculated based on popularity or financial considerations, but it should be taken seriously as a practice to be documented and studied. There are practical benefits to inserting this dimension into the conversation about legislating. The disappointment many people feel about politicians should not dissuade people from attempting to envision a more effective way of leading through legislating. In fact, the more people are troubled by the way in which politics
happens in society, the more it should be systematically analyzed, with alternatives and
ideas for improvement considered and set on a solid foundation where practicable.
Research on mindful leadership increases one's understanding of the
psychological processes involved with, and a clear understanding of, critical judgment
consistencies (Weber & Johnson, 2009). Weber and Johnson (2009) discuss some
alternatives that include interventions created to overcome undesirable judgments in
decision-making. Early analysis on judgment and decision-making used mathematics as
the starting point for decisions. More recently, it is understood that people make financial
decisions based on variables such as beliefs, choice, and internal and external social
factors. This transition in the study of decision-making that shifts to mindfulness and decision-making that is closely related to cognitive psychology and research (Weber &
Johnson, 2009). This mindful leadership research in the area of psychology focuses on the characteristics of a person’s average or typical behaviors. The exceptions are the decisions that are particularly risky and carefully calculated by the long-term effect of the decision. Individual and cultural differences of a decision maker are mediated by two
105 variables: differences in values and goals, and differences in cognitive capacity,
education, or experience (Weber & Johnson, 2009).
Mindfulness, Managing Stress, and Well-Being
Mindfulness is intimately related to well-being. Mindfulness can be described as
“a state of being attentive and aware of what is taking place in the present” (Brown &
Ryan, 2003). It can also be described as an inherent state of consciousness. Although research has shown that mindfulness has positive outcomes for individual well-being, more research is necessary to show that mindfulness is a naturally reoccurring characteristic. Brown and Ryan (2003) studied the interpersonal variances in the ability for one to be present and the importance of forms of psychological well-being. In other words, they examined the direct link between mindfulness and well-being. Mindfulness takes “the quality of consciousness” that is described by the transparency of the current experience or operation that comes from habit and not simply clarity of the moment. It makes an individual break the cycle of habitual thoughts and decision-making and pushes an individual to healthy, constructive patterns into positive decisions and thus an improvement in well-being. Mindfulness can create a clear thinking and deliberative process that facilitates a natural condition of “relaxed attention” (Brown & Ryan, 2003:
823). This clear thinking or state of conscious attention relates to introspection and conscious thinking which increases well-being. This increase in well-being is through the conscious enjoyment of taking in or embracing the moment in its glory. Well-being includes enjoying food, company, work, and clear decisions. The appreciation of all these experiences, in turn, increases well-being. Brown and Ryan proved that “mindfulness is a
106 reliably and validly measured characteristic that has a significant role to play in a variety
of aspects of mental health” (2003: 844).
While lowered stress and improved well-being are often associated with personal
goals, this research points to its value in the decision-making process. Consequently, it is
important to advance research that further extends this aspect of well-being into
scholarship related to leadership. The set of intersections explored in this work represents a unique perspective in the literature.
Mindful Decision-Making and Gender
The connections between women and moral or ethical decisions are bridged by studies such as the one conducted in 2000 by Kawakami et al. In this research, a video
recording of female leaders who displayed masculine traits and were mindful, as defined
operationally in the study, were shown to men, as well as less mindful versions of the
videos. Men were also shown videos of women displaying traditionally feminine traits in
both a mindful and less mindful fashion. The men found the mindful leaders, both
masculine, and feminine in behavior, to be better leaders. They also found women who
were less mindful but congenial in a way that is considered feminine to be more effective
leaders than the both cool and less mindful alternatives (Kawakami et al., 2000). What
this study suggests is that mindfulness may be perceived as a transcendent factor, even by
men who might otherwise be resistant to women as leaders.
In a recent article on mindfulness and leadership, the author points out that there
is an increasing awareness of the role of mindfulness in leadership (Karelaia, 2014). At
the same time, its benefits seem to be a source of great interest to scholars, who are
building a substantial collection of research clarifying its role in decision-making.
107 Importantly, the article notes that the mindful leader tends to seek feedback before making decisions, a step often ignored by leaders (Karelaia, 2014), who may even think that it runs counter to the masculine stereotypes that are associated with leadership. There is also a slowness to judgment associated with mindfulness that might run counter to stereotypes of the strong leader but which has a demonstrable benefit to the decision maker. Above all, there is the trait of framing the decision, which is where ethics come into consideration. Here, the link between mindfulness and morality, which, when combined with the prior study in which the mindful female leader is preferred regardless of traits, opens an avenue of possible exploration in which there is a connection between female leadership and mindful leadership.
There is ample research suggesting that women make decisions in a way that is substantially different from men and therefore deserving of particular research and analysis. There is also research connecting mindfulness, deliberation, and ethical decision-making, some of which compares these traits by gender. This latter pool of research provides valuable insight into the decision-making process of leaders and deserves further development, as this study will afford. The extant scholarship also under- represents the importance of political leadership, an area that is advanced through this study.
Women and Politics
The role of women in politics should be carefully studied. There has certainly been an increasing presence of women in politics in the past half-century, much as there has been in business, yet women have had a disproportionately small number of leadership positions (Glover et al., 2002). This is in part prejudice, and the more the
108 quantity and quality of objective research enumerating the advantages of women in leadership positions that can be produced, the closer society is likely to come to accepting the equality of the genders in leadership.
In a study of female politicians in Santa Clara County, Janet Flammang found that women in the elected office were more effective in community organizing and building relations with community groups and that their attitudes on issues differ from men
(Flammang, 1985). This stemmed from the women’s networks and groups that supported the increase and development of female elected officials. These groups include parent- teacher associations, the League of Women Voters, and women’s political caucuses, among other groups. This grassroots relationship building that includes community activism develops a higher recognition of reputation, constituent support, and expertise for women. In Flammang’s (1985) qualitative study of female office holders, she found that women’s participation in these organizations helped them develop the skills needed to make decisions on a legislative level. Their management and organization within their advocacy group made them confident that “[t]heir non-traditional recruitment via women’s groups and neighborhood organizations provided bona fide organizational skills for public office” (Flammang, 1985: 101). This is in contrast to men who build their support through their education and relationships through their professional careers
(Flammang, 1985). This supports the view that women have different approaches to leading in public office.
Flammang (1985) discusses that women have two significant differences in holding public office: distinct differences on their policy positions and in the way they conduct or manage politics. My 2015 research (Battaglia, 2015) supports these findings
109 identifying women as communal decision-makers. Elected women see decision-making in an approachable, cognitively collective, inclusive, constituent based, empathetic, responsive and persistent manner. They were less authoritarian and more supportive during deliberation. Flammang (1985) found that in controversial budgetary issues that could negatively affect women’s issues, morals and ethics were paramount to female leaders. Flammang demonstrated this in a quote from one female leader saying, “we are morally and legally obligated” to cut optional programs. This too supports my 2015 research (Battaglia, 2015) that demonstrated that morals, family values, and ethics are the primary influences in elected official’s decision-making. Additionally, women have more liberal attitudes when voting on welfare or social service policies than men. As expected, this gap is bigger with Republican women and is driven by moral and ethical beliefs
(Poggione, 2004).
Women feel more comfortable making contentious decisions because as a minority there is less to lose or less risk as women are often not posturing or playing a
“career game” (Welch, 1985: 127) in the same way as men. Welch (1985) found that women are not positioning themselves for higher office as often as men. For this reason, women feel liberated in their individuality and are more willing to take risks in decision- making and policy-making. Additionally, women felt obligated and drawn to support their female constituents knowing they have a shared minority struggle.
Gender and Decision-Making
It has been mentioned that mindful decision-making may have a gendered component. The antecedent to this assertion is the idea that there may be gendered differences in decision-making in general. There is a substantial collection of research
110 that forms the foundation of that claim. One 2007 study administered a decision-making questionnaire designed to evaluate the importance an individual places on factors such as
consequences, social pressure, and time/money constraints when making a decision. The
study engaged 589 Spaniards across an age gamut that ran from 18 to 80 and a roughly
equal number of men and women. The study used the naturalistic theory of decision-
making, which explores decisions used in everyday contexts, instead of the rigorously
controlled environment of a laboratory (Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al., 2007). The study
found that women ascribed more importance than men to uncertainty, time/money
constraints, consequences, emotions, and social pressure. Men placed greater emphasis
on information and goals, motivation, and work pressure. For this study, it may be that
the emphasis on consequences is the most significant, as this implies a moral component
to decision making. The factors of cognition, self-regulation, and the environment were
not significantly different between the two groups. There were few relevant differences in
comparing age groups, with the youngest prioritizing emotion and social pressure and the
oldest emphasizing uncertainty, among other results (Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga et al.,
2007).
It has been observed that women tend to be more risk adverse in decision-making
than men. When dissecting this observation, it seems women view risk to be greater in all
ways except their social environment. This difference in risk taking is not biological but
stems from the deep-seated effects of risk taking from being in a society where the female
gender is viewed as having a lower social status in society (Slovic, 1999). “Risk
assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment
111 with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors,” according to Slovic
(1999: 689).
Gender and Ethical Decision-Making
In a 2002 journal article by Glover et al., the results of a study of the differences
between men and women in making ethical decisions were explained. The introduction
and review of literature that paved the way for the study and its results do an effective job of encapsulating much of the research on women and ethics in business. The context
within which the study takes place is a social climate in which the public believes the
need for ethics in business and government is at least as important as it ever has been and
also has very little faith in leaders in these environments to conduct themselves ethically.
The morals and ethics ratings for leaders are, according to one study in the report, at their
lowest point in nearly 50 years (Glover et al., 2002). In other words, I can confidently say
there is a gender leadership crisis, based on this study.
Literature supports the idea that placing more women in positions of leadership
tends to increase the degree to which ethical considerations are translated into decision-
making (Glover et al., 2002). The study cites a series of reports which take the question
from some different angles but all reach the same conclusion: When more women are
leaders, organizations and institutions become more ethical in their behavior. The study's
review of literature falls short of flatly stating that the extant research supports the statement that women are more ethical than men. Some studies find very similar results between men and women when testing ethical inclinations. Research points to the context within which people make decisions as the influential element in ethical decision-making.
One study suggests that women are more influenced by situations in a way that leads to
112 ethical outcomes, as opposed to being inherently more ethical (Glover et al., 2002). The
Glover et al. study hypothesized that women would be more likely than men to favor
ethical decisions over unethical decisions. Junior and senior business majors comprised
the study population, and 367 subjects with a median age of 21 years were engaged. The
test employed four work scenarios in a laboratory format (Glover et al., 2002). The
results reflected what many would consider evidence of ethical strengths in both genders.
Overall, men had a higher workplace score for fairness, while women scored higher for
concern for others and honesty/integrity. Women made the more ethical choice in the four
scenarios more often than their male counterparts (Glover et al., 2002).
Ethics, family values, and faith or religion were the most identified influencers of
legislative decision-making in my first qualitative research study (Battaglia, 2015). Those
results led to the inclusion of religion or spirituality in my quantitative research
(Battaglia, 2016) with the results positively influencing legislative decision-making
performance and confidence. Studies focusing on value systems have also attempted to
differentiate between the responses of men and women, but have found other factors at
play instead. Men and women respond similarly in these studies, suggesting that they
possess similar value systems. In some studies, the difference was found based on the
nationality of participants, rather than gender (Glover et al., 2002). Research shows that
ethics continued to be in the foreground, and a direct link has been demonstrated between
an increase of woman in the workplace and an increase in ethics (Glover et al., 2002).
Testing-based studies document women making ethical choices more often but not reveal the mechanics behind those choices, making them a helpful but partial piece of the picture. Investigating how people make choices and separating those elements out by
113 gender is another approach. A 2013 study exploring the gender differences in decision- making processes predicted that men would not spend as much time as women in observing options. The study engaged 232 university students and recorded the amount of time spent picking a food line in the cafeteria. Male students moved more quickly into a line than female students when participants were in a comfortable environment. On the other hand, when the environment was less familiar, selection time did not significantly vary between the two genders (Reiter, 2013).
This level of specificity in examining behavior involving decision-making is an important element in understanding the ethical choice. Still, there will often be some degree of inference that is necessary to develop a total explanation for behavior. This study suggests that men might be less likely to reflect in comfortable environments regarding their choices, yet what accounts for that difference?
My 2015 research (Battaglia, 2015) focused on public leader’s perception of commitment and the importance of ethics shares the same concern. Glover et al. show the positive and significant influence of ethics when the number of women in an organization or the workforce is at higher levels. Consistent with social role theory as previously mentioned, Eagly (1987), found that men and women conduct themselves in ways that mirror their social role (gender) stereotypes. My 2015 findings (Battaglia, 2015) support this with men making agentic decisions and women making communal decisions.
Research comparing the leadership styles of women and men is reviewed, and evidence is found for both the presence and the absence of differences between the sexes. In contrast to the gender-stereotypic expectation that women lead in an interpersonal-oriented style and men in a task-oriented style, female and male leaders did not differ in these two
114 styles in organizational studies. However, these aspects of leadership style were somewhat gender stereotypic in the two other classes of leadership studies investigated, namely (a) laboratory experiments and (b) assessment studies, which were defined as research that assessed the leadership styles of people not selected for occupancy in leadership roles. Consistent with stereotypic expectations about a different aspect of leadership style, the tendency to lead democratically or autocratically, women tended to adopt a more democratic or participative style and a less autocratic or directive style than men. This sex difference appeared in all three classes of leadership studies, including those conducted in organizations. These and other findings are interpreted regarding a social role theory of sex differences in social behavior (Eagly & Johnson, 1990) and mirror the ethical response of caring. Singhapakdi, Vitell, and Franke (1999) found that women are more apt to recognize moral or ethical issues in a business setting because of their increased ethical caring. This is particularly true for women who have not had significant business experience. “When individuals adopt the ethic of caring, they base their judgments and actions on their relationships with, and responsibilities to other individuals” (Forsyth, Nye, Kelley, 2001: 244). As I have shown through previously described research, this adoption of ethics and decision-making has been a part of women’s judgments and decisions in their legislative or policy considerations.
Therefore, if gender has a positive impact on ethical decisions in the workplace, one can consider that the impact of women’s mindful leadership will have a positive impact on sound policy decisions in times of critical issues and personal and political stress. One can further posit that there will be a difference in gender response and
115 decision through their ethical deliberations and mindful leadership. This research will
examine these possibilities, thereby furthering the discourse on this important topic.
Methods
This research used semi-structured interviews using two policy and decision-
making scenarios to develop grounded theory as the primary means of data collection and
analysis. Grounded theory approach in social sciences is a way to systematically organize data through which coding is used to better understand complex psychological and social scientific phenomenon. Grounded theory takes facts and constant comparative analysis and develops theory from the results. It reveals information and raises new questions
(Charmaz, 2006) that can also influence future research. This research method helps reveal the meaning of events, situations, experiences, and the comprehensive nature of the participant’s inner and outer worlds (Charmaz, 2006). Collections of narratives are analyzed to derive theory from lived experiences to discover new concepts and ideas that will help contribute to both the practitioner and academic communities.
Grounded theory is appropriate for this proposed research as there are no comprehensive studies in the U.S. about legislators being mindful while making decisions and voting on complex issues; particularly in the area of decision-making. To gain new and uncontaminated insights from the interviews, the research team will respect
the standard principles of grounded theory research. The interview process will not be
influenced by the reviewed literature and theories nor biased by preconceived notions or
opinions gathered through preliminary interviews or practitioner experience. Interviews
will include open-ended questions that will optimize the opportunity for compelling
insight and experiences from legislators.
116 The interview protocol can be seen in Appendix L.
Sample
This research included interviews with 31 current or former legislators, mostly
from the Mid-West. It includes a mix of political party, gender (nine women and 11 men)
and varied levels of leadership and experience. I used non-probability methods, which
included chain-referral methods such as the snowball method (Abdul-Quader et al.,
2006). This technique is used for hard-to-reach sample populations such as drug users,
respondents participating in studies regarding a sexual activity, or other challenging
sample populations, often reluctant due to privacy concerns (Abdul-Quader et al., 2006).
Legislators, particularly current legislators, leading up to and during the most contentious
Presidential race in history, are wary of such studies. Although they are guaranteed
anonymity, the public nature of their role increases skepticism and trust (Battaglia, 2015).
If the interviews were ever to become public, they might negatively affect the legislator’s
career or reelection.
Scholars describe the process of securing interviewees as a kind of cascading
gathering: “This data sampling technique originates with a small number of peers, (called
seeds) and expands through successive ‘waves’ of peer recruitment. First-wave
respondents recruit second-wave respondents, second-wave respondents, in turn, recruit
the third-wave, and this continues until the desired sample size is reached. Respondents
recruit those with whom they have a preexisting relationship” (Abdul-Quader et al., 2006:
1). This sample and technique started with my network and then moved forward using the snowball technique, which produced 31 interviews, within a 30-day timeframe. The
117 commitment of anonymity and consent forms were distributed and signed by the
respondents before all interviews.
To compare and analyze decision-making: effective legislators and other
mainstream legislators, I included an “exceptional or effective legislative” sample of ten
legislators in my study. These legislators were selected by their peers. After interviewing
20 respondents, the researcher asked them whom they regard as decision-making:
effective legislators and why? I then approached the legislative offices of those legislators
who were identified at least two times by their peers. Some of the recommendations were
for legislators that were coincidently interviewed. Those legislators and the additional
peer selections were used to create the “exceptional legislator” sample for comparative analysis. The sample demographics chart can be seen in Table 9.
Table 9. Mindfulness Sample Demographics
Men Women Respondent Classifications % Men % Women 16 total 15 total Democrat 11 10 52% 48% Republican 5 5 50% 50% Ohio House of Representatives 10 9 53% 47% Ohio Senate 6 5 55% 45% US House of Representatives 0 1 0% 100% Exceptional Leader 4 6 40% 60%
Data Collection
All interviews were collected between October 2016 and November 2016 and will be audio-recorded with permission and later transcribed for analysis.
In person or phone semi-structured interviews lasting approximately 60 minutes were conducted and audiotaped and guided by an interview protocol. The location of the
118 interview was determined by the proximity of the legislator and their personal preference.
The questions focused on mindful leadership during policy development and
deliberations. The questions were asked with reference to two different scenarios with
different intensity and complexity based on public policy issues. The responses to the
scenarios will inform my themes and in turn, findings. The first scenario involves the
issue of gun violence and the initial decision-making process a legislator would
implement after a shooting in their district. The second scenario is a request by a
colleague to identify additional budget funds for veteran’s services. Differences in the
initial decision-making process were analyzed, along with managing the stress of such a
contentious issue (gun violence) and the widely-supported issue (funding veteran’s
services). The analysis probed for mindful leadership attributes and analyzed any
differences in men and women.
Data Analysis
Consistent with a grounded theory approach, data analysis will begin
simultaneously with data collection. The analysis will involve both manual coding and
the use of qualitative data analysis software. Throughout this process, I will compose
interpretative memos (Charmaz, 2006) and notes reflecting “the mental dialog between
the data and the researcher” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
The audio recording of each interview was listened to several times, and the
transcripts of each interview read repeatedly. The first part of the coding process of the
transcripts is “open-coded,” a process that requires that I identify every piece of data with
potential interest. This process is also identified as “1st-order analysis, which tries to adhere faithfully to informant terms, we make little attempt to distill categories” (Gioia,
119 Corley, & Hamilton, 2013: 19). These are identified, labeled and compared to and
categorized with similar parts from other interviews. In the second phase of coding
(“axial coding”), these categories are further redefined as ideas and themes begin to emerge from the data. It is in this phase that “we start seeking similarities and differences
among the many categories, a process that eventually reduces the germane categories to a
more manageable number” (Gioia et al., 2013: 20). The third phase (“selective coding”),
also referred to as 2nd-order theoretical themes, and describes what is emerging from the
data (Gioia et al., 2013). This is the focus on key categories and emergent themes that
yield my findings. It is at this point in the analysis that aggregate dimensions develop.
Aggregate dimensions involve computing all the data relationships for one or more dimensions. A developed data structure table provides clarity and depth of the coding process. “The data structure not only allows us to configure my data into a sensible visual aid, but it also provides a graphic representation of how we progressed from raw data to terms and themes in conducting the analyses—a key component of demonstrating rigor in
qualitative research” (Gioia et al., 2013: 21). After this data is compiled, I created a Data
Structure Table which is seen in Figure 5.
120 Figure 5. Data Structure Table
121
122
123
124
My analysis of my coded results are twofold: a Data Results Table that shows the number of instances coded for each aggregate dimension, the calculated percentage and the bifurcation of data by gender. Furthermore, my analysis probed into the differences in my aggregate dimensions between all 31 of my respondents and ten peer selected exceptional legislators. The Data Results Table is shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Data Results
Total Total Findings by Instances All Women: All Men: 15 %Women %Men Gender Men and 16 Women: 31 Mindful Leadership 229 149 80 65% 34.9% Instances Managing Stress 152 68 84 44.7% 55.2% Instances Decision-Making Confidence 247 131 116 53% 46.9% Instances Effective Legislative Decision-Maker 431 251 180 58.2% 41.7% Instances Peer Selected Peer Peer Findings by 10 Peer Peer Peer Effective Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Legislators Effective Effective Effective Effective Exceptional Total: Men Legislators Legislator Legislators Legislators Legislators and and Women: 6 Men: 4 %Women %Men Gender Women: 10 Respondents Respondents Respondents Mindful Leadership 116 72 44 62% 37.9% Instances Managing Stress 30 18 12 60% 40% Instances Decision-Making Confidence 97 57 40 58.7% 41.2% Instances Effective Legislative Decision-Making 178 118 60 66.2% 33.7% Instances
125 Lastly, to neither confirm nor indicate significant statistical differences in men and women throughout my aggregate dimensions, I conducted a chi-square test based on gender and my study 3 qualitative code count occurrences. This analysis and counting of occurrences in each dimension adds to the rigor and analysis of testing of gender as I argue that mindfulness is more predominant with women (Hildebrand, Ott, & Gray,
2005). In testing for chi-square, I evaluated the p-value at the 90% and 95% confidence level. The significant results from the chi-square test are in Table 11.
Table 11. Chi-Square Test Significant Results
Mindful Decision- # Making: 31 Observed # Codes Expected # Codes People legislators
Women 16 149 118.19
Men 15 80 110.81
Total 31 229 229.00
Average Instances Per Person 7.39 Chi Square 0.005% 0.005< 5 (5%) Men and women differ in frequency of mindful Results decision-making with a 95% degree of confidence.
Mindful Decision- # Making: Managing Observed # Codes Expected # Codes People Stress: 31 legislators
Women 16 68 78.45
Men 15 84 73.55
Total 31 152 152.00
Average Instances Per Person 4.90 Chi Square 8.982%
Results 8.982>0.05 (5%) There is no observed difference.
126 Effective Legislators: # Observed # Codes Expected # Codes 31 legislators People
Women 16 251 222.45
Men 15 180 208.55
Total 31 431 431.00
Average Instances Per Person 13.90 Chi Square 4.806%
4.806<0.005 (5%) Men and women differ in frequency of effective Results decision-making with a 95% degree of confidence.
10 Peer Selected Exceptional # Observed # Codes Expected # Codes Legislators Effective People Legislator
Women 6 118 106.80
Men 4 60 71.20
Total 10 178 178.00
Average Instances Per Person 17.80 Chi Square 8.661% Results 8.661>0.05 There is no observed difference.
Findings
Finding 1: Mindful Leadership Increases the Effectiveness of Policy Decisions
Mindful leadership is the continuous practice of touching life deeply in every moment of daily life, to be mindful is to be present and at one with those around you and with what you are doing. Meditation practices, combined with an awareness of the suffering of the world and the need to position oneself with respect to it, is presented as a tool by which contemporary politics may reform and become more effective in creating policy for those who need it most (Karafin, 2009). 127 Applying mindful traits to the decision-making process enhances effectual
decisions within the legislative body. Peer-selected exceptional legislators in this study
focused on the depth of knowledge they developed while deliberating the points of
policy. These legislators had a different deliberation process. Respondents shared that
cultivating relationships, listening, leading with integrity, and being conscientious are
recognized personally, and through observation of others, as decision-making traits to
emulate.
NIDF5 “And I read my emails, I read the paper, I read other news sources that -- I tried really hard to make sure I am doing my job and knowing the facts. And there is no human way that any persons can have all that knowledge, so when you have constituents that approach you that have problems have concerns that just don’t seem right, you need to be willing to listen, you need to be able -- the follow up with the appropriate individuals to make sure that what you're doing will benefit the constituents and it's the right thing to do.”
NIDM10: “A lot of real training and knowledge and then the grassroots organization, you're communicating with voters about a position and activating them to make a change.”
These interviews reveal that legislators perceive that facts are the foundation for sound decision-making and define doing a good job. Gathering facts entails being a good listener and ensuring that constituents know they have been heard. Legislators do this through following up with their residents regarding any activities that may have developed due to the information or influence they provided. A mindfulness leadership quote tree showing increase in effectiveness can be found in Appendix N.
Finding 2: Mindful Leadership Increases Decision-Making Confidence
Decision-making confidence in the legislative body is the self-assurance that the legislator possesses and the ability to elucidate or defend the decision to any party or stakeholder. Decision-making confidence traits make a legislator successful and valuable
128 to their district and constituents. These traits include drive, the desire to lead,
honesty/integrity and self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business
(Kirkpatick & Locke, 1991).
Applying mindful traits intensifies confident decision-making. Legislators in this
study described these mindful traits that contribute to increased confidence as their
practice of spirituality, listening to stakeholders, having a well-reasoned justification for
their vote. Critical to these traits is legislative responsiveness. Legislators are more likely
to get constituent support if they are approachable and provide clear and direct answers to
concerns.
NIDF5: “I think it's really important always to be willing to listen, as a legislator, you're expected to have every expertise and everything from insurance to job and family services. And there is no human way that any persons can have all that knowledge, so when you have constituents that approach you that have problems, have concerns that just don’t seem right, you need to be willing to listen, you need to be able to follow up with the appropriate individuals to make sure that what you're doing will benefit the constituents and it's the right thing to do.
NDM9: “So, 90% to 95% of the votes were no-brainers. There was probably another 5% that would give you pause; you had to think about, you got to consider your district, you had to consider the state, you had to consider the politics of your vote. And once you did that -- I did that, I’ve never had a problem making decisions and living with it, for better or for worse. So, I never had a problem with that. I really -- I didn’t have any sleepless nights.”
These interviews reveal that as legislators know that listening and knowledge is
important to their constituents, that they are better able to represent their district as
informed policy-makers when they engage in this practice. Additionally, if they truly hear
their voters’ needs and ideas, they can make difficult choices and have no problem
defending their decisions. Under these conditions, legislators feel like they did the best
they could in their job. A mindfulness leadership quote tree showing an increase in confidence can be seen in Appendix O. 129 Finding 3: Mindful Leadership Decreases Decision-Making Stress of Policy Decisions.
Decision-making stress of policy decisions or power stress is the unique brand of stress that is a basic part of being a leader. This form of stress comes from leading and making choices that are not always clear and are complex in policy (Jack, Friedman,
Boyatzis, & Taylor, 2016). A way to counter the “negative incapacity of not just a democracy, but of our democracy, to solve social problems” (Boyatzis & McKee, 2013:
7). A legislator’s practice of mindfulness, promotion of calm, focused, and fact-based information may diminish stress and concentrate on the policy issue and constituents needs even in pointedly stressful moments.
Applying mindful traits to decision-making reduces stress and anxiety in policy deliberations, voting, and personal anxiety associated with the policy process. Legislators in this study described these traits as having a positive attitude, being authentic, aware of consequences, and adaptable.
NIDF5: “We're elected to make the hard decision, and you won't make everyone happy all the time, you just can't, but that's -- in your heart, you're doing what you believe is best for the people that you represent and you've done your research, and you have your facts, you have to be respected for what you're doing there.
“You do your best, but they follow you around. They install a camera on your face or track you from behind or try to get some unflattering angle. And they get your schedule, and they just -- they're showing up and following you. And you either are ignoring some of these questions and looking like you're ignoring it or you're answering it, which can usually get even worse. I just had to forge ahead and to try to keep the focus on the task at hand.”
These interviews reveal that legislators acknowledge that part of their job is to make tough choices, but it can be stressful, they know they can’t please everyone, and inevitably someone or group will be disappointed. That can cause a backlash for the legislator. It is part of their role, but if they are making decisions with the best intentions 130 for their constituents, they feel it is noble work, and their decision can be valued. A
mindfulness leadership quote tree showing a decrease in stress can be seen in Appendix P.
Finding 4: Female Legislators in this Investigation Have a Higher Rate of Frequency of Mindful Leadership
As previously stated, mindful leadership is the practice of touching life deeply and continuously in each of life's moments, to be mindful is to be present and at one with those around you and with what you are doing. Meditation practices, combined with an awareness of the suffering of the world and the need to position oneself with respect to it, is presented as a tool by which contemporary politics may reform and become more effective in creating a policy for those who need it most (Karafin, 2009).
Female respondents communicated more mindful traits than men in mindful leadership. These traits include communal deliberation, the ability to acknowledge anxiety, and letting go of negative feelings. Additionally, they address the importance of using internal and external points of information as well as environmental considerations.
NIDF4: “And many people that do call you up are emotional about something, and I learned early on you can't go with your heart, you have to go with your brain. And so I've tried to do that. So, naturally, people come to you and let's say, they want more laws on guns because you’ve used the example of guns. You have to look at the situation, the person that was killed, how were they killed, who had the guns? Was it an illegal gun that they had? Those kinds of things have to play a part in that, and so I would first talk to those people, but then I would also go and talk to the county sheriff who I have a good relationship with.”
EIDF2 “It may not be in your community today, but it could be there tomorrow, so you've got to stay up on the issues so that you can be proactive and prevent, or you can put up the reaction and prevent. Then I think you have to be willing, we have to be open enough to understand that there's not just one way to address issue A, B, and C. We're not all knowledgeable, you know. We are individuals just like our constituents who come with different skill levels, different areas of expertise, different passions. And so, we can't disrespect or disregard our colleagues simply because they don't have the same passions, the same areas of expertise, the same level of knowledge about an issue. We've got to understand
131 that all of us have learning to do and we can listen to each other. We may not agree, we can listen, and we can probably make our bills better if we come to compromise, you know, that way we don't go too far to the left, we don't go too far to the right.”
My chi-square test for mindful leadership supports my findings and indicates
significant differences at the a=.05 at the 95% confidence level. This means that men and
women differ in frequency of Mindful Leadership with women having a higher number of observed codes.
These interviews and analysis reveal through a female perspective that making intellectual decisions is particularly sound rather than making emotional decisions. This may include asking some questions related to the issue, the environment, the current law and understanding the opportunities available. Female legislators also offer that everyone is different and see issues through their lens. Respecting one another’s ideas by listening shows respect and can always add additional knowledge and better policy.
Finding 5: Female Legislators in this Investigation Have a Higher Rate of Frequency of Managing Stress Through Mindful Leadership
As previously stated, the decision-making stress related to policy decisions, which is also known as power stress, is the unique brand of stress that is a basic part of being a leader. This form of stress comes from leading and making choices that are not always clear and are complex in policy (Jack et al., 2016). A way to counter the “negative
incapacity of not just a democracy, but of our democracy, to solve social problems
(Boyatzis & McKee, 2013: 7). A legislator’s practice of mindfulness, promotion of calm,
focused, and fact-based information may diminish stress and concentrate on the policy
issue and constituents needs even in pointedly stressful moments.
132 Female respondents communicated more mindful traits than men in managing
stress. These characteristics include meditation, introspection, understanding constituent
needs, separating from chaos, and calming both internal thoughts and external responses.
EIDF1: “I have a meditation practice. Especially when days are very crazy in the legislature, I will take at least five minutes, step into my office and just try to ground myself and clear my mind and to be able to go on because there is way too much stuff that's coming at us, and sometimes the piece of it is so crazy especially in the moment you look back on it at the end of the week and go, well, why did that seem so crazy on Wednesday? But on Wednesday in the middle of it, it's like being in the middle of a tornado, and so there are definitely times when I just tell my aide I'm going to be in my office for five minutes, no phone calls, no nothing, and then I'll be out. And that is very, very helpful.”
EIDF2: “You understand that your constituents, particularly the family members and friends in the community where it happened are going to be more emotional and angrier and hurt, you don't want to exacerbate that in any way. So, you've got to think with a calm head and yes, you know, you're going to be angry too, you're going to be upset, you're -- particularly when there are children involved or innocent victims that are involved in a shooting. But you have to measure that anger, you have to measure that hurt, disappointment, you know, pain.”
My chi-square test for Managing Stress supports my findings and indicates significant differences at the a=.10 at the 90% confidence level. This means that men and women differ in frequency of managing stress through mindful decision-making with women having a higher number of observed codes.
These interviews and analysis reveal through female legislators’ perspective that meditation, a component of mindfulness, during stressful events helps clear their mind.
This allows these legislators to engage in decision-making without any emotional negative weight as an influence or distraction. Given the enormity of the decisions these female legislators need to make, keeping calm and focused, both the internally and externally, will not only help them but in turn, their constituents. Constituents who are
133 passionate about issues may present their case with an increased amount of emotion. A calm legislator can provide an important and necessary balance.
Finding 6: Female Legislators in this Investigation Have a Higher Rate of Frequency of Effective Legislative Decision-Making
As previously stated, meditation practices, in combination with an awareness of the amount of suffering of the world and one's need to position oneself with respect to it, is presented as a tool by which contemporary politics may reform and become more effective in creating policy for those who need it most (Karafin, 2009).
Female respondents communicated more mindful traits than men in mindful decision-making and effectiveness. These characteristics include time and attention to their district, voting on bi-partisan legislation, and understanding the political and process nuances of the decision-making process.
EIDF3: “I think somebody that is very committed to putting in the time and the work and the energy to get something done. I mean, we just have to work across the aisle, I was working across -- I mean, you just have to do that and build a reputation. The other thing though I think that sometimes is that you have to understand the process. So, there are opportunities that present themselves, and unless you know it when you see it, you lose it.”
My chi-square test for Decision-Making: Effective Legislator supports my findings and indicates significant differences at the a=.048 at the 95% confidence level.
This means that men and women differ in frequency of decision-making: effective legislator with women having a higher number of observed codes.
Additionally, I performed a chi-square test on Mindful Decision-Making:
Effective Legislators for my 10 Peer Selected Exceptional legislators. I found that chi- square indicates indicated significance at the α=.10 (90% confidence) level. This means that men and women within the 10 Peer Selected Exceptional legislators differ in the
134 process and frequency of decision-making: effective legislator with women having a higher number of observed codes.
These interviews and analysis reveal through female legislators’ perspective that a hardworking and willing legislator, with good intentions, can successfully work across party lines. In other words, creating a valuable policy that is for the greater good, not just for the benefit of the party, is a trait of an effective legislator. If a legislator is trusted, builds a good reputation and can knowledgeably navigate the legislative process that will play a significant role in their effectiveness. The Study 3: Qualitative Results Models are seen in Figures 6 and 7.
Figure 6. Mindful Decision-Making Legislative Benefits Model
Figure 7. Gender Differences: The Impact of Mindful Women in the Legislature Model
135 Discussion
The extent to which women who pursue office are incorporating mindful
leadership into their work as legislators suggests that mindfulness may be a quality that is even more disproportionately present among women than moral and ethical calculus.
Mindfulness is often shoehorned by mainstream society into activities like yoga
and meditation. Without question, these practices have tremendous impact on the lives of those who engage in them, but there is a much more practical way of looking at
mindfulness, as reflected in these results. Decisions made through mindful leadership
were less stressful for the people who made them, male or female. Legislators described
actions and traits of mindful deliberation unknowingly in their responses to complex
policy scenarios presented to them. Examples of these responses included getting exercise during stressful encounters in the legislature. Respondents expressed the importance of listening, considering all the facts, using intuition, past experiences, and internal and external experiences as cumulative factors in processing and making decisions. Additionally, respondents the importance for their consideration of many of the unknown outcomes resulting from policy that can’t be quantified prior to an assembly vote. They bolstered confidence. Perhaps most importantly, they got results. All of this suggests that mindful leadership can be discussed both as a spiritual practice in the way that legislators have reported using their religious belief systems in the past (Fernando &
Jackson, 2006) while at the same time helping them to achieve the practical goals that
constituents and colleagues expect from them (Battaglia, 2015).
While this study shows decision-making confidence, to be a critical part of
effective legislative decision making, I do not see differences in gender. I found that
136 decision-making confidence arose from themes that include legislative preparation or
“homework,” the impact of faith or spirituality and having an efficient administrative system ensuring legislative responsiveness. These elements of confidence in decision- making were widespread between men and women. Both men and women trust that their
“I can sleep at night” decisions are uncomplicated, spiritual, and developed with earnest curiosity that safeguard and defend their policy decisions.
Women must be at the forefront of this effort. Not only are women legislators more likely to engage in mindful practice in the process of reaching decisions, but the emphasis that many women put on moral and ethical decision-making means they can reach out to those colleagues who are making decisions with some spiritual guidance already and focus that guidance into a more ethical and practical direction. The tendency of men to use relationships and pedigree to navigate their careers (Flammang, 1985) suggests that a shift in worldview would be necessary for men as a group to give appropriate priority to mindful leadership, regardless of its benefits.
137 CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
Discussion
Improvements to the beleaguered legislative process are sometimes hiding in plain sight. The arc of research encompassed in this dissertation suggests that religious practices among legislators, often considered more symbolic than substantial, could be part of a decision-making calculus that is leading some lawmakers to a closer approximation of the ideal deliberative process. Mindfulness is identified as a valued component in decision-making among legislators, and it is reasonable to posit a connection between religious practice, prayer, and mindful deliberation. The politician who invokes faith and family values in speeches may have a desire for optimal legislative outcomes based on thoughtful consideration. The legislators I interviewed, self-reported the impact of religion and the use of mindfulness when making policy decisions. They
did this through describing characteristics of mindful behavior and the benefits of
employing traits of mindful deliberation. I found the influence of religious beliefs,
practices and the use of mindfulness specific to the U.S. Although as a nation, the
political system in the United States represents a separation of church and state, the
political tradition is equally reliant on a robust political life of Americans. This reliance
ensures values that are considered unique to other countries and are not lost to mutual
concessions and compromises of politics. This freedom and acceptance of openly talking
about religion and its impact on the legislative process is unique to our political system.
Religion has a unique place in the American tradition. While Americans have a
contentious relationship with the political system, religion is often used as a mediated
138 influence to help reassure citizens that their value system sis represented in the deliberations legislators.
Women are another group of lawmakers who have a special relationship to careful decision-making. Just as previous scholarship has demonstrated a higher propensity for moral decision-making, women also seem to be more likely to engage in mindful decision-making practices. This finding suggests that there are unique benefits to engaging with and promoting women legislators. It also suggests that the qualities of leadership and decision-making that are known to be prevalent among women should be more carefully considered in order to produce optimal results in legislative settings.
The meaning of mindfulness was explored and refined throughout this dissertation. Spirituality and the practice of mindfulness are related as mindfulness came from the spiritual practice of Buddhism and Christianity. It includes religious values such as discipline, thoughtfulness, being present, caring, information gathering and introspective intellectual digestion of the issue and the consequences of the decision.
These traits are associated with mindful decision making. To fully appreciate the relationship between mindfulness and political leadership, it will be necessary to overcome the prejudices against official politicians lodged in the average person's mind.
The idea that the decision-making process of elected officials should be taken seriously is a central assumption of this dissertation and essential to any serious engagement with the political process.
Mindfulness practice by legislators can deepen clarity and wisdom and improve upon and start a renewed sense of civility as legislators grapple with vital issues affecting our society. This change more than ever is desperately needed in our country. I found that
139 mindful legislative decision-making has an important impact on the outcomes of policy deliberation. Mindful leadership increases legislative effectiveness, decision-making confidence, and decreases the legislative stress that comes from diverging policy decisions. These findings also demonstrated differences in the process used by male versus female legislators in the deliberative process.
There is a tacit connection made throughout this dissertation between effective decision-making and leadership. One assumption is that leaders in legislative assemblies and other groups ought to be encouraged to make the best possible decisions. Another assumption is that citizens should consider the components of decision-making among legislators that produce the best outcomes and calculate their political behavior in part based on that information. In this respect, the finding that mindfulness is important to legislators provides a clear path to thoughtful engagement.
These findings intersect in a place where there is clearly a great deal of interest among scholars and practical value for ordinary citizens and advocates, but there is also clearly a dearth of literature speaking to these dimensions all at once. The mindful decision-maker has been the subject of scholarly investigation, as has the female politician. Leadership is very likely among the most common subjects of writing, both academic and otherwise. Politics and politicians are likewise very popular topics in and of themselves. Recognizing that mindfulness is neither uniform among politicians nor rare but is instead a common attribute among more than one category of lawmakers amounts to a substantial step forward in scholarship but also introduces any one of a number of further research opportunities, which will be enumerated below.
140 There is a need for a more serious and sustained conversation among legislators
about how they make decisions and what factors influence that process. That
conversation must include a recognition that these people are neither malevolent nor
angelic, but are ordinary human beings trying to advance themselves, provide for their
families, and do some good in the process. Embracing the idea that their process of
deliberation could be nuanced and seeking out the elements of that complexity is an
essential component to that much-needed conversation. It is my hope that this research
demonstrates at least one path to that goal.
These findings do not create a pecking order for legislators, from the most
mindful to the least mindful. It does, however, suggest that certain groups might be
predisposed to a method of reaching thoughtful decisions in a way that deserves further
study and that might even influence the way in which other legislators make their
decisions. It also does suggest that policy advocates can anticipate certain habits of
thought when engaging with particular lawmakers. Ultimately, the intent of this work is
to find ways to build bridges between ordinary people and their elected officials so as to
improve the quality of civic life for everyone. Exploring ways of making good decisions
and identifying those people most likely to make them serves to clear a path of least
resistance for citizens in an environment that can sometimes be daunting to negotiate.
The question of how to adjust behavior among politicians is a common theme among reformers, and it tends to reach an impasse when it comes to changing the way in which politicians and their fellow travelers think about politics. Mindfulness changes the
brain and how people think for the better are plentiful and as a result, integrating the idea
of mindfulness with the contemporary political landscape becomes urgent. The benefits
141 of mindfulness in political leadership in this dissertation show a need for more politicians to adopt an attitude of mindfulness and for citizens need to select people who are predisposed to this frame of mind because the foundation of democracy depends upon careful and sober judgment.
Limitations
The limitations that should be considered in future investigations using legislators as the sample demographic include the research design (qualitative vs. quantitative) that is most effective for sample size, an equitable gender sample, and self-evaluation encumbrances.
Qualitative vs. Quantitative
The mixed method research design is important in this dissertation because qualitative work consists of interviews which reveal the most meaningful results, while the statistical data in the quantitative study objectively enhanced the qualitative findings.
The methods in each study are directly related to sample size. Legislators were forthcoming with both phase one and three of the qualitative investigations and trust face- to-face or phone interviews. These respondents explained the risk of exposing their identity was significantly reduced due to the direct connection with me and the anonymity and consent documents that were executed. These qualitative inquiries were valuable because they provide a deep understanding of the nuances that are associated with policy makers and the legislative process. This research method allowed me to probe into areas of critical importance to the inquiry, which in turn helped me learn respondents' influences, intentions, and mindful behavior in policy making. Not only did I have their focus and time, but I also have confidence the responses were honest. These respondents
142 also assisted in encouraging their colleagues to participate in the study which increased the sample size. Additionally, they committed to participate as respondents for future research.
The advantages of quantitative research using this demographic are twofold. First, it iss an important method of collecting data (descriptive statistics), and second, it allows me to capture a view of the population being surveyed. This method permits me to use an automated survey which took considerably less time to administer than the time- consuming hour-long qualitative interviews. Unfortunately, due to blocked legislature e- mail servers, decreased legislative interest and trust in electronic surveys, and lack of personal contact, quantitative surveys are not the preferred method for legislative inquiry.
Consequently, the sample size was too low to analyze for statistical significance in some constructs.
There are additional challenges to each of these approaches used on its own.
Journals and institutions can oversimplify design preferences, which often lean towards quantitative or objective results and may dismiss the qualitative work because of a perceived subjectivity. On the other hand, a quantitative study in isolation will not always elucidate the impetus for legislative behavior or reasoning in legislative behaviors. It is my contention that due to the complexity of the legislative process, and the guarded way in which legislators respond to an interpersonal and legislative inquiry, qualitative research affords the investigator the most in-depth responses. It provides additional opportunities to delve into responses that identify insights and findings that can be impossible to capture in a quantitative inquiry. There is some value to the quantitative component, especially in terms of the reception that the scholarship can expect, but a
143 qualitative dimension is essential to accurately capture the nuance of the material. This was a consideration for this mixed methods study and an issue that needs to be considered in the future.
Gender Sample
My first qualitative study had an appropriate representation of both men and women based on the gender distribution of the legislative body, but it was not an evenly balanced data set. In my third sample, I focused on an equal number of men and women as a primary focus of the data sample and therefore increased the credibility of the gender findings. Although the distribution for men and women increased, it is important to get an overall larger sample of legislators with a balanced number of men and women. A few opportunities that may prove fruitful in the future to overcome small sample sizes include developing regional research teams throughout the U.S. starting with personal and professional contacts. Additionally, leveraging professional membership organizations, including the Midwest Public Affairs Association, the National Conference of State
Legislators, and the American Political Science Association, as well as working with supportive legislator contacts may be strategies that could provide a broader range of legislators willing to participate in research inquiries.
Self-Evaluation
Lastly, there is concern that when self-evaluating, legislators answer questions the way they believe they ought to make decisions, not the way they actually made a decision. Respondents may be hesitant to be entirely truthful when being interviewed in fear of being judged.
144 When talking about politics at home, at work, or with friends, we often encounter the cynical side of constituents’ feelings about legislators. When we talk to legislators, we often hear the good work that is getting accomplished. Although the reality is usually somewhere in the middle, it is the role of the legislator to frame every policy they are
promoting as effective. It is their role to persuade constituents that the decisions they
make are being well thought out and put a positive perspective on their practices. It is
their role to show their ability to be a part of the solution for the greatest concerns to
constituents. Legislators need to project an image that they are making decisions and
voting primarily according to either their values or those of their constituents, rather than
other factors like campaign contributions, party leadership opportunities or recognition.
This is why it is probable that sometimes their self-reporting may be a nuanced reality.
This may lead to idealistic results. My goal was to understand how legislators deliberated
from them directly, but it does come with concern that they may be presenting an
optimistic view of themselves. Furthermore, online surveys with a lack of monitoring do
not provide any opportunity to clarify questions or encourage respondents and keep them
motivated. Problems with self-evaluation need to be discussed or accounted for in these
examinations.
Implications
The primary implication of this research centers on the value of mindful decision-
making and the interest that legislators have in deliberating in this fashion. For some, this
may come as something of a surprise, as politicians are in many cases not presumed to
have an interest in optimal decision-making but instead are often associated with purely
pragmatic choices. The simple truth is that politicians, like everyone else, are often
145 interested in doing their jobs well and being recognized for the good work that they do.
This research demonstrates that these lawmakers recognize the value of mindfulness and
that many of them seek it out as a process when they deliberate. Simply put, it is clear
that mindful decisions are desirable and that politicians often aspire to achieve them.
This means that advocates have a point of access in cases where they are
interested in getting the best possible decision from a politician. Rather than thinking they
must use arguments that are purely pragmatic or superficial in some way, people seeking
policy change can approach some politicians with a desire to see the best decision
reached and find an ally in that aspiration. Recognizing that this is possible can radically
change the level of discourse between advocates and lawmakers and can also dramatically increase the chances of quality outcomes.
Of course, one should not assume that all public policy advocates are looking for
the best possible decision at all times. This is another important implication of the study
in that it calls everyone to the place of mindful decision-making. Said differently, these findings are powerful as a source of influence only to the extent that everybody is seeking the best possible decision, as opposed to an expedient decision, or one that scores points in the political sense. This suggests that the public discourse is heightened on all sides to
the extent that these findings are influential.
The implications of this research in terms of women legislators are that they are
more closely associated with optimal decision-making. Women appear to be more likely
to make mindful decisions in a legislative context, which means that there is much to
learn from these lawmakers. It is quite possible that their male peers do not feel this way,
as some studies suggest that women are less effective as lawmakers in certain adversarial
146 environments. This dissertation's findings suggest that, while other approaches may lead
to more victories, they are compromised victories in that they are not based on the best
possible deliberative process. In other words, the techniques used by women ought to be
promulgated in order to make the highest quality outcomes more likely, which means that
women should be recognized as leaders in deliberative processing.
This idea questions, to a certain extent, the typical process used by pragmatic
legislators to achieve their goals. Those politicians who act in ways that are more in
keeping with the stereotypes associated with them when crafting policy could be
increasingly recognized as engaging in undesirable decision-making. Approaches that embrace mindfulness could eclipse those that are more interested in scoring points or getting bills passed at any cost. Such a standard might create a more balanced playing field in terms of how men and women are judged in terms of efficacy and could transform the culture of legislative decision-making.
Overall, the implications of this dissertation extend to advocates, citizens, and legislators. As advocates are developing their strategies and approach for support of issues, understanding the core values of legislators, their decision-making process, and gender differences will help guide stakeholders, including voters, to understand the philosophy of policy makers on complex and divisive issues. Practitioners will be able to
employ strategies that reflect a better understanding of a legislator’s deliberative process
and how to best influence or embrace the legislator's style, effectiveness, and gendered
differences. Additionally, these findings force advocates and citizens to examine the
importance of elections and voting and how policy may be affected by a long-term
candidate’s representation.
147 Just as understanding the policy maker’s decision-making process offers new
insight to all stakeholders, it is equally important for the legislator to understand these conclusions as they relate to the use and positive consequences of mindful decision- making. Education regarding an issue, including gathering facts, convening open
discussions with constituents, valuing accessibility, and engaging in active listening are
central to legislator’s ability to be effective. Mindful decision-making can be used as a
strategy for calm, focused, informed, and collaborative policy undertakings. This practice
and the legislators who commit to it are more effective in developing common ground
and are emotionally resilient. This is central to the success of the community, the
constituents and the longevity of the legislator’s career.
Future Research
Potential research may recapture both my qualitative studies and provide a deeper
understanding of how women can overcome effectiveness in a minority environment. I
know through my research and other scholarly work that women lead with a communal
style. That is, female legislators adopt a collaborative or inclusive style of decision-
making that is labeled as communal decision-making. This style shows more developed
attributes in areas such as concern for others, emotionally expressive, friendly and
unselfish (Eagly et al., 1995). Female legislators show a collaborative style of bringing
people together. I hope to explore their professional hurdles, techniques of overcoming
those barriers to sponsoring and passing legislation. Furthermore, I would like to
investigate having women become a stronger presence in leadership as a committee chair
and party leader, all within the context of their unique leadership approach and their
148 method of decision-making. This research may include how gender stereotypes increase
effectiveness in women’s legislative leadership.
Mindful decision-making is prevalent among women legislators but not limited to
them. Research that tackles the ways in which men employ mindful decision-making
could help to bridge the gap between leadership styles and approaches and might increase
appreciation of the methods employed more often by women but equally available and
effective to men. Additionally, research that distills the elements of mindful decision- making in a legislative context might facilitate its use among men and women who have not availed themselves of the practice.
Conclusion
The research that culminated in this dissertation began with a desire to enrich the lives of citizens and the health of communities through a more comprehensive understanding of how legislators make decisions about policy and how they can be encouraged through new techniques to make the best decisions. Through a process of systematic research, key insights have been gleaned from interviews and other forms of data collection which affirm the idea that these decisions can be influenced through such understanding. A central tenet of this dissertation's findings is that legislators reach some of their best decision-making moments when they deliberate in a mindful fashion.
Understanding this can be the beginning of a deeper understanding for policy advocates, ordinary citizens, and others seeking to influence the political process.
This dissertation has been a journey through both civic pragmatism and aspiration. It has sought to clear the air of talking points and broad-brush cynicism and to find a middle ground in which one might understand how things get done in the
149 legislative environment and how they might get it done more effectively. Two central findings of this dissertation are that legislators make good decisions when they are able to do so mindfully and that women legislators are more likely to make mindfulness part of their deliberation process than men. While this second implication of the research might appear controversial, it should be clear that the evidence does not point to some inherent superiority in women but to a consequence of the difference in decision-making patterns between the genders that has been well-established in research. The way in which women practice mindful deliberation is one that can be replicated by men—and ought to be.
The impact of policy decisions on ordinary people everywhere is the motivating force behind this unique investigation of the effects of mindfulness on both legislators on a personal level and the wider-ranging effects within the state and country. Understanding what influences legislative decisions will help advocates engage with legislators in ways that resonate with them and therefore improve the capacity for influence. Recognizing that optimal decisions can be achieved in a thoughtful, deliberative space should aid policy advocates as they consider the ways in which they will approach legislators as well as understanding the mindset of those decision-makers. Importantly, for example, the preference of legislators to have the opportunity to make thoughtful decisions can run counter to the cynical narrative of the politician as pure opportunists. This could lead a person attempting to persuade a politician to vote a certain way or support a certain issue to engage more thoughtfully and more sincerely than that person might if he or she assumed that the politician in question would not be interested in thoughtful engagement.
These considerations speak to the broad question of how leaders ought to be selected and what people hope they will do once they are in power. It should be a relief,
150 to some extent, to know that many politicians are as eager to be the careful decision-
makers that their constituents want them to be. It is also a little bit daunting to realize that
the environment within which they operate is so toxic at times that those same people end
up making hasty decisions or horse-trading for political advantage once one realizes that
they still retain the desire “to do what is right, what is fair and what is just.” What this
dissertation reveals is that there is a path to high-quality decision-making in a legislative
context, and that lawmakers are predisposed to make decisions in just the way that
citizens would hope. The question remains how to speak to that aspiration in a legislator
in such a way as to transcend the challenging context within which decisions have to be
made. In other words, knowing how to draw out the leader in a politician continues to be
a topic in need of sustained research.
I began by investigating what lawmakers considered when they were making
decisions. In the process, I discovered that religion was connected to the decision-making
process. I also discovered that men and women make these decisions differently.
Subsequent research was informed by these insights, and I proceeded to broaden my
understanding of the differences between men and women as they make decisions and lead. I also sought a more accurate characterization of the way in which religion might influence decision-making.
It is clear that the communal, consensus-taking and consensus-building approach to reaching decisions that is preferred by women is also a process that is more likely to involve mindful decision-making. Women legislators are inclined to make decisions in this way, and their deliberative process seems to lead them more often to this point.
Unfortunately, extant research suggests that the more aggressive, winner-take-all
151 approach continues to be reinforced in the legislative structure and political circles, which marginalizes higher quality decision-making approaches.
This is by no means a static position. It is possible for decision-making in legislative bodies to be steered toward a process that is more mindful more often. This research suggests that, for citizens interested in the best quality outcomes, endorsing mindful decision-making and encouraging it among legislators would be an important step. One can also anticipate that many legislators would welcome this encouragement. It is often the case that a lawmaker will cut corners to succeed in achieving goals that have been set out before the electorate. If these politicians came to understand that the electorate was more interested in a high-quality decision-making process than a wins- and-losses chart, the very nature of the political process would be transformed.
Of course, this is not the approach that all citizens want. Some are winning, by their own reckoning, through the existing system, dysfunctional as it is, and therefore would not endorse this approach. The idea of a higher-quality political process will not appeal to all people engaged in the process and may even only appeal to a minority. This is not a reason to abandon the effort or to consider research on its various aspects unimportant. Just the opposite is true. The fewer the number of people looking for a political system with integrity, the harder they have to work to achieve that goal, and the more satisfied they have to be with small victories.
This research did not only reach conclusions regarding gendered decision-making.
The findings related to mindfulness emerged from a process in which the spiritual element of deliberation was explored. Legislators described prayer and other aspects of their decision-making process that could be deemed as religious in nature as extremely
152 important to them. This led me to consider what in that aspect of their lives might have a
positive impact on deliberation. One element of spiritual consciousness that transcends
particular religions and is associated with care in contemplation is mindfulness. I, therefore, explored this as a possible component of decision-making that could help explain how the best decisions were made, and the research confirmed its value.
This, too, might confound the cynical and certainly gives the advocate food for
thought. It appears that politicians do not simply use religion as a way to get votes, as
some people suggest. Instead, it is a tool for augmented contemplation. Consequently,
when encountering a political figure who claims a religious foundation, it is important that advocates are willing to engage on this level. It is possible that, absent research such as this, opportunities for improved deliberation could be lost in the fog of pessimism.
There's a great deal more research to do in the space carved out by exploring the underappreciated intersection of leadership, gender, and mindfulness in the political arena. It is not clear when politicians might be persuaded to make more mindful decisions, nor does this research elucidate the difference between moments when such a practice is or is not reached by lawmakers in making choices. The heightened capacity of women to achieve this position is not understood sufficiently through the study to indicate how to increase instances of mindful deliberation among men, although it is clear that it is possible. There are many other questions that are also left unanswered but that are raised as result of these findings. It is hoped that these first steps will lead to many more for me and other fellow travelers seeking optimal legislative outcomes through engagement between legislators and ordinary citizens.
153 Appendix A. Theory Literature Review Table
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS Social Role Theory A social role Diekman and To examine gender The influence of Previous literature Gender differences in political theory Schneider gaps in political gender stereotypic attitudes align with social roles of perspective on (2010) attitudes and voting expectations. men and women, especially as gender gaps in agency and status for men contrast political Internalized traits with communion and lower status for attitudes and goals (M/W) women. Integration across levels of analysis is recognized as a challenge variations of to this type of analysis. In every status and aspect, however, it is recognized that resources gender roles have influence because of gender-based expectancies. While social role theory suggests that these views would converge as social roles become similar, there is reason to qualify this observation. The same role can mean different responsibilities based on gender. More research is needed, and it should take an integrated approach in terms of various disciplines working together to advance understanding. Sex Differences Eagly (1987) To examine gender- Social role theory Extant research in The book uncovers a pattern of in Social based differences in aggression, social flawed analysis in the exploration of Behavior: A social behavior Meta-analytic influence, helping, gender stereotypes. As a result of Social Role techniques nonverbal, and narrowly focused research and Interpretation. group behavior, all shoddy methods, a belief had been 154
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS within the context of promulgated that differences between gendered behavior men and women were virtually nonexistent and that popular belief to the contrary was in error. The book concludes that differences in social position of the sexes account for real differences between men and women and that the motivation behind those differences is differential role expectation. Gender and Eagly and To compare the Meta-analytic Extant research, In organizational studies, men and Leadership Johnson (1990) leadership styles of techniques with an emphasis on women do not differ in terms of task Style: A Meta- men and women studies that focused and interpersonal elements of Analysis on task leadership. In laboratory experiments accomplishments and assessment studies, however, and maintenance of results did hew to gender stereotypes. interpersonal In terms of the other two qualities, in relationships and all of the three methods, women studies that tended to lead in a more democratic emphasized the and participatory fashion. democratic vs. autocratic contrast in leadership styles The leadership Eagly and Causes of leadership Social role theory Previous research Builds on the 1990 Eagly & Johnson styles of women Johannesen- differences between study by investigating and men. Schmidt (2001) men and women transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles. Experimental settings tended to reproduce gender stereotyped 155 behavior, while assessment studies
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS produced smaller evidence of the same.
Role congruity Eagly and To test whether forms Role congruity Previous research Two forms of prejudice are proved. theory of Karau (2002 of prejudice against theory The first is perceiving women less prejudice women as leaders favorably as leaders than men. The toward female exist second is viewing a leadership leaders position less favorably when held by a woman. These prejudices result in less positive and even negative attitudes toward women leaders. They also result in reduced efficacy of women leaders and more difficulty in achieving leadership positions in the first place. When there is a greater perceived incongruity between women in a specific leadership role, these outcomes are exacerbated in that case. Gender and the Eagly, Effectiveness of men Synthesis and Previous Analysis found that, across evaluation of Makhijani and and women in Social Role theory organizational and organizational and laboratory leaders: A meta- Klonsky managerial and laboratory research samples, men and women were analysis (1992) leadership roles samples equally effective. In instances where relative to one the qualities required of a leadership another position aligned more with the characteristics of one gender or the
156 other, however, effectiveness tended
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS to hew to the preferred gender. The analysis also revealed that men tended to be more effective in environments where the population of employees were largely male. Gender and Fowler (2005) Exploration of the Case law analysis, Previous research The review exposes some criticism of jury role of gender in jury social science the landmark J.E.B. vs. Alabama deliberations: deliberation research analysis case, which paved the way for The women to serve as jurors. It also contributions of concludes, following a review of social science. social science literature, that there are gender differences in the way people engage in jury deliberation. Gender Glover, Explores ways to Gender as variable Laboratory format The study concluded that women are differences in Bumpus, foster ethical climates and decision more likely to make ethical choices ethical decision Sharp, and in organization exercises that than men; that years of work making. Munchus through ethical simulate conflict experience affected ethical choices in (2002) decisions focusing on situations in two of the four choice scenarios; and gender as a variable business scenarios high levels of achievement and ethical choice were correlated in two of the choice scenarios Fundamentals Myerson Review of the basic Foundational Previously The paper concludes that there is of social choice (1996) elements of social components of developed value to the basic application of theory choice theory social choices mathematical social choice theory in elections and theory; binary models and theories suggests that the theory is effective in agendas and two- illuminating options for voting and party competition their strengths and weaknesses relative to democratic outcomes. 157
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS Exploring Poggione Interrogating asserted Gender Mail survey of state Study concludes that previous Gender (2004) link between gender differences in legislators asserted connections between gender Differences in and policy legislators' policy and policy preferences did not State preferences, preferences account for alternate explanations and Legislators’ especially the that policy preferences among Policy premise that women Impact of women legislators is more complex Preferences take more liberal constituency than previously thought, especially positions on policy concerns on when taking constituent concerns into matters because of decisions of consideration. their gender women legislators When Are Vo l d e n , Explores particulars Consensus- Analysis of 138,246 When women are in the minority Women More Wiseman, and of differences seeking style of bills introduced by party, the inclination to achieve Effective Wittmer (2013) between legislative women legislators men and women in consensus makes them much more Lawmakers styles of women and the U.S. House of effective than their male counterparts. Than Men? men Representatives Specifically, they are able to keep from 1973 to 2008 their bills alive through the legislative process through much later points. Majority party men are more effective, however, and are increasingly so as Congress is increasingly polarized. 158
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS The Politics of Boin (2005) Examines various Leadership and Case study research The authors conclude that leaders Crisis aspects of crisis using elements of crisis and analysis have five essential tasks to execute in Management examples to derive management every crisis. The first is to make general principles of sense of the crisis, for themselves, crisis management their response team, and the public. Next, they must engage in decision- making. Third, they must provide meaning making. This is slightly different from sense-making, as it goes beyond “what is going on?” to encompass “what can be done?” Fourth, there is the step of terminating the crisis. Finally, there must be a period of reflection in which leadership and the broader community learns from their response to the disaster. Mindfulness Theory The benefits of Brown and Attempts to establish Develops a Scale is Dispositional and state mindfulness being present: Ryan (2003) the role of Mindful Attention implemented with predict self-regulated behavior and Mindfulness mindfulness in well- Awareness Scale several groups, positive emotional states. Correlation and its role in being including a group of between mindfulness and well-being psychological 239 adults, 313 and also applied in a clinical context. well-being then 327 university students, and a group of practitioners at a Zen center. Additionally, cancer 159
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS patients were given the study in a clinical context.
Living Well Burch (2010) Seeks to establish Introduces new Uses personal Author asserts that new system of with Pain and method of method of experience as meditation and breathing, which she Illness: The overcoming physical breathing and meditation instructor deems “Breathworks,” will reduce mindful way to and psychic suffering meditation to and having suffered suffering, both physical and free yourself improve well- severe injury to psychological. from suffering being develop method Mindful Epstein (1999) Description of the Enumerates the Analysis By being self-aware but not self- practice value of mindful for components of involved, doctors can be more medical practitioners mindfulness and engaged in the present aspects of the ways in which patient care, including experiencing it can be more instances of empathy and manifested in deepened understanding of the effective doctor- feelings and needs of their patients. patient interaction Mindful Weber and Seeks to determine Presents a primer Previous research Although JDM research tends to be Judgment and Johnson (2009) the current state of and review of focused on specific phenomena, the Decision judgment and JDM research aggregate effect of research over a Making decision making long period of time has created an (JDM) research opportunity to reach conclusions in the field of psychology based on accumulated JDM research data Mindful Karafin (2009) An anthology of The book attempts Analysis The calm and centered space within Politics: A essays connecting to create a which Buddhist meditation practices
160 Buddhist Guide collective vision are intended to achieve, combined
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS to Making the Buddhist practice to of a way forward with an awareness of the suffering of World a Better contemporary politics in modern politics the world and the need to position Place based on spiritual oneself with respect to it, is presented tenets of as a tool by which contemporary Buddhism politics might be reformed. Spiritual Fry, Vitucci, Explores spiritual Endeavors to Survey; 181 soldiers Potential exists for spiritual Leadership and and Cedillo leadership theory assess its value as in initial survey, 189 leadership theory, and it is predicted Army (2005) a tool for in follow-up survey to be effective as long as Transformation improving five months later transformational and charismatic : Theory, leadership, and theories are also employed. Ethics- measurement outcomes such as and values-based theories must also and establishing physical and be employed. a baseline psychological health for teams following leaders using spiritual leadership theory Eight mindful Gunaratana Enumerates the Seeks to improve Description and Rather than examining mindfulness steps to (2001) Eight-Fold Path as lives of analysis through a societal lens, as many of happiness: explained by the individuals the other items on this list have done, Walking the Buddha through Buddhist this work attempts to provide Buddha's path. teaching individual lives through application of the Eight-Fold Path, one of the Four Noble Truths. Can Halliwell, Ed., Writes to support Describes Anecdotal Author concludes that the occasion of Mindfulness (2015) decision of U.K. proceedings to Group launch bodes well for the Transform Parliament to launch affirm value of growth of a sense of the value of Politics? an all-party Group and to mindfulness in British society;
161 gauge its meaning
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS Parliamentary Group relative to societal enumerates steps that must be taken on Mindfulness norms in Britain to ensure it has lasting impact. A Mindful Ryan (2012) Reviews application Makes argument Analysis; informal Author concludes that Buddhism's Nation: How a of Buddhism to that Buddhism can review of emphasis on greater awareness of the Simple Practice contemporary society have positive scholarship present and ability to focus on detail Can Help Us in the United States; effect on many can improve the capacity of Reduce Stress, reviews state of areas of American individual Americans to live more Improve research on related society and fulfilling lives in such a way as to Performance, phenomena already is to an also have a positive aggregative and Recapture extent impact. the American Spirit. Decision-Making Theory Behavioral Barron (1974) Seeks to provide Spotlights main Bibliography Sources are listed and summaries decision theory bibliographical threads of thought provided for a general category, the information on in the area of Subjective Expected Utility model, behavioral decision behavioral Multi-Dimensional Stimulus Models, theory decision theory and Human Information Processing. Being there: Ciulla (2010) Explores the role of Examples of Review of literature Article emphasizes the importance of Why leaders the leader in a time of physical presence and historical leaders being at the site of a disaster should not crisis and seeks to of leadership instances of the and the consequences in terms of “fiddle” while identify the key during crisis behavior of effective response and the morale of a Rome burns actions made by an leadership society when they do not. Articles use effective crisis specific historical instances from manager recent history to demonstrate the importance of “being there.” 162
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS Personal value Connor and Examines the Asking a series of 161 state Values of state government managers systems and Becker (2003). relationship between questions in two government – and, the authors assert, public decision-making personal values and formats to identify managers completed managers generally, therefore – are styles of public decision making for decision-making the Rokeach Value significantly related to their decision- managers state government styles Survey and the making style. managers and asserts Rowe Decision results apply to Style Inventory public managers
generally
Measuring the Hadley, Seeks to establish a Development of Previous literature C LEAD scale is found to be an efficacy of Pittinsky, method of assessment the Crisis Leader and studies effective tool and authors use analysis leaders to assess Sommer, and of effectiveness of Efficacy in to delineate situations in which it
information and Zhu (2011) leader during time of Assessing and would be best applied. make decisions crisis Deciding scale (C Studies involving in a crisis: The LEAD) target populations C-LEAD scale and decision making in which C LEAD is compared to existing measures
C LEAD tested in simulated crisis decision-making task 163
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS Decision theory Herriot, Ecob, Effort to predict Emphasizes and Questionnaires used Multiple models succeeded in and and Hutchison occupational intends to as longitudinal data predicting decisions, including occupational (1980) intentions using illustrate the occupation and predictive capacity choice: Some behavioral decision capacity of tended to increase over time (and, longitudinal theory behavioral therefore, as the models had more data decision theory to data). predict choice based on the beliefs of an individual Will Real Moline (2004) Attempts to define Explores effects of Analysis Leadership is contrasted especially Leadership the term leadership leadership, as well with aggressive forms of domination Please Step as examples of which the author believes are often Forward? what leadership is confused with leadership. More not encouraging and nurturing approaches are equated with leadership. Legislative Sabatier and Examines voting Explores effect of Data analyzed using Analyses conclude that legislators decision making Whiteman choices for legislators information on decision-making often bypass these sources of and substantive (1985) as they are influenced decision making models information; that administrative policy by legislative staff for legislators and agencies and interest groups were the
information: and information flow the capacity of most influential outside sources; and Models of decision-making Voting data from that constituents and other private information models to capture legislative body individuals were the next most flow that dynamic analyzed using influential outside group. decision-making model Values in Schnebel Integrates the ideas of Exploring well- Analysis The author develops a method by
164 decision-making (2000) Habermas and established which ethical values can be
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS processes: Luhmann into a intellectual effectively conveyed in economic Systematic model through which precedence in organization, i.e., corporations. structures of J. arbitrary human order to gird Habermas and preferences can be efforts to define N. Luhmann for distinguished from ethical corporate the appreciation rational ethical behavior of responsibility corporate decision in leadership making. Ethics matter: Schumaker and Attempts to confirm Conducting Interviews with 95 While economic Constraints were the morality Kelly (2012) hypothesis that ethics interviews to elected officials in above ethical considerations for and justice matter in urban identify patterns 12 cities officials, ethics played almost as principles of policymaking of behavior that prominent a role in their decision elected city reinforce the idea making. Officials reported routinely officials and that ethics are at relying on their own moral judgments their impact on play in municipal when casting votes or making urban issues decision making decisions. The role of ethics in decisions that were referenced in the interviews ranged from minimal to decisive but were reported as always present. Gender Reiter (2013) Testing if gender To identify 116 male students, Males had formed a routine and were Differences in influences decision patterns of choices and 116 female in their more natural environment, Decision making patterns which may students from two they were quicker to choose a line Making When influence the different campuses than females, but when in a less understanding of familiar situation, males and females Faced with gendered themes. did not significantly differ in the Multiple amount of time it took to choose their Options food line. 165
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS Mindful and Kawakami, To investigate the Variable: 2 studies: 1st. college Female leaders who are “mindful” Masculine: White, and double standard of Perception, age males can escape this double standard Freeing Women Langer (2000) genderized themes: commented on their perception paradox. Leaders from perception on the perception’s perception of a the Constraints respect of women influence on how woman leader, and of gender roles leaders. actions are valued 2nd the same through the experiment with gender lens older men. Why Mindful Karelaia Professor’s Variables: Culture, Sample of a book: Mindfulness helps leaders stay Individuals (2014) impressions of the gender. Themes: Jochen Reb, relevant. Make Better power of mindfulness training, Associate Professor Decisions in leadership application, of Organizational education. overcoming Behavior at stereotypes Singapore Mindfulness in Organizations Gender Glover, Making research on Individual the influence of Having an ethical framework differences in Bumpus, ethical decision variable on demographic empowers leaders of both genders to ethical decision Sharp, and making relevant gender’s influence factors, specifically deal well with conflict. making Munchus through updating on ethical choice. gender, and the (2002) research. moral intensity of the conflict situation on ethical decision making are examined in the light of workplace values 166
GOAL OF STUDY TITLE OF AUTHOR VARIABLES MAIN RESEARCH SAMPLE FINDINGS ARTICLE (YEAR) THEME USED QUESTIONS Factors that Sanz de Acedo Naturalistic Age, decision Decision-Making Found that many demographic affect decision Lizárraga, Sanz perspective task, various Questionnaire, features including gender did making: gender de Acedo investigating demographic DMQ was influence decision making. and age Baquedano, gender’s influence on influences on administered to a differences and Cardelle- decision making. context. sample of 589 Elawar (2007) participants (294 men and 295 women) of ages between 18-80 years old
167
Appendix B. Study 1 Qualitative Research Protocol
Interview Protocol: Legislators as Leaders: A study of how legislators listen and lead while making decisions on complex issues
Question 1: You have (or were) a legislator for xx years. You must have a lot of compelling stories about politics, specifically when dealing with complex issues. So, I would love for you to look at this as storytelling while answering my questions.
Before we get started with questions about listening, values, decision-making and leadership, will you share with me the moment that you were most proud during in your time in the legislature?
Probing Question: You can share anything at all, recognition, meeting some you admire or a story about legislative success.
Step 3: Listening, Values and Decision Making Question 2: Tell me about a time when you had to understand and vote on a truly complex. Question 3: How did you gather critical information on the vote you described and what groups did you use for expert information?
Probing Question: Did these groups come to you? Did you reach out to get the information?
Question 4: Now, tell me about a time when listening to an advocate changed your perception or vote on an issue.
Question 5: How did you realize the information you used previously was inadequate?
Probing Question: Can you elaborate on this?
Question 6: What values do you consider in your decision-making process
Question 7: Tell me about a time when your personal values or beliefs had an impact on how you voted.
Question 8. Tell me about how you get ongoing feedback directly from your constituents?
Question 9. What skills do you use when listening? Do you have an effective approach?
Probing Question: Tell me more about that.
168 Question 10: Tell me about someone you know who is skilled at listening and has shifted perspectives?
Probing Question: Tell me more about what attracted you to their listening style.
Step 4: Closing
That concludes our interview. Thank you for your time and sharing your experiences. Are there any other questions or insights you think I have missed regarding listening by legislators? If I need to clarify anything we’ve discussed, would it be okay for me to follow through with a brief phone call or email?
169 Appendix C. Agentic Decision-Making Quotes
170 Appendix D. Communal Decision-Making Quotes
Communal Decision-Making Inclusive, compromising, beneficial to many F28 “Well, I have found that the best way to F40 “My process has always been that I meet work through a problem is to put as many with the proponents, I meet with the opponents people in the room as possible and have them and I bring them in together. Especially around talk about it. Give them equal opportunity and subjects that are so essentially industry that respect and all voices are heard, and at the end I’ve never had any experience with. When you of the day, as a legislator, I have to pick and bring them in together though, that’s when we choose what I've heard and what I think is get to the truth of it. Because then I don’t have going to work. But I just find so often that just to say anything. I just enter the meeting and being at the table makes people feel like they listen to each side make their case, challenge need to accept the final solution even if it's not each other, receive the best support. I get to the the one they came in and offered, but it's okay.” nitty gritty of it. When everybody’s in the room at the same time.”
F27 “We sat in the room with each other and F34 “So you know, so that’s really how it actually more legislators from around the state started for me hours and hours of meetings got involved in crafting a compromise with different stakeholders and principals and language. I really felt in so many ways like it the education community, hours and hours of was one of the best. I felt so good as a reading and just trying to understand how this legislator that we were able to come to some plan would advance the goal of educating agreement that finally passed the legislation Cleveland’s children. So it was a lot -- I mean, because at the time I thought it wasn't going to I still -- even to this day, I’m still amazed happen.” because not a lot happens and in a truly bipartisan way in Columbus.”
F38 “There was no one that wasn't at the table F2 “And in that bill, I probably took at least represented that wanted to be represented, so half of the legislative session working on it everybody had a chance to be in it, and at the and basically did a mediation from the Chair end, you know, the decision was, we're going and we worked through it. Literally, at the to take it to the floor and if it loses, it loses. If end of the bill, we had both sides supporting it doesn't, it doesn't.” “I'm not going to take a the bill, which we never expected that to bill through at which I don't have some fairly happen. I never expected that to happen. But significant support from each group.” because they were at the table, at the same time they were listening to each other. They were fighting with each other, believe me, but we worked through it. In fact, the mediator folks, I think, gave me an award for that.”
171 Appendix E. Quotes for Pride in Passion Bi-Partisan Legislation
172 Appendix F. Quotes for Consequences for Passing Bi-Partisan Legislation
173 Appendix G. Quotes for Listening
174 Appendix H. Construct Definitions
175 Appendix I. Study 2 Quantitative Respondents Demographics
176 Final Quantitative Results Model (PLS)
177 Appendix J. Construct Table
Construct Definition Items Source Religious How much of The Centrality of Religiosity Scale Huber and Huber Beliefs and a role (CRS 15) (2012) Practices religion Scoring: 1=Never, 2=A few times a impacts year or less often, 3=Once a week or Reliability: legislators’ 1-3 times a month, 4=More than Cronbach’s alphas lives? once a week, 5=One a day or several ranged from 0.89 to times a day. (for questions 3 and 4 .094 in 8 studies. only) 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3= Occasionally, 4=often, 5=Very often (for 1, 5, 10 only) 1= Not at all, 2+ Not very much, 3=Moderately, 4= Quite a bit, 5= Very much so (for 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 only)
1. How often do you think about religious issues? 2. To what extent do you believe that god or something divine exists? 3. How often do you take part in religious services? 4. How often do you pray? 5. How interested are you in learning more about religious topics? 6. How important is it to take part in religious services? 7. How important is personal prayer for you? 8. How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that god or something divine wants to communicate or reveal something to you? Financial The money Contributions Scale Battaglia (2015) Contributions or in-kind Scoring:1 =Strongly agree, gifts that are 2=Moderately agree, 3=It depends given to the on the situation, 4=Moderately legislator’s disagree, 5=Strongly disagree campaign. 1. Campaign contributions from individuals are a factor when I make/made decisions as a legislator. 2. Corporate campaign contributions or PAC's are a 178 Construct Definition Items Source factor when I make/made decisions as a legislator. 3. My political caucus or party contributions are a factor when I make/made decisions in my role as a legislator. I consider the impact of special interest campaign contributions in my role as a legislator. 4. Issue based or special interest campaign contributions are a factor when I make/made decisions in my role as a legislator. 5. In-kind contributions are a factor when I make/made decisions in my role as a legislator. Impact and The Policy Impact Scale Battaglia (2015) Reach of importance, Scoring:1 =Strongly agree, Policy Issue number of 2=Moderately agree, 3=It depends people on the situation, 4=Moderately affected by, disagree, 5=Strongly disagree or public 1. I consider if there is going to be attention news coverage on an issue in my given to the role as a legislator. policy or 2. I consider constituent feedback piece of on an issue in my role as a legislation. legislator. 3. I consider the amount of controversy on an issue in my role as a legislator. 4. I consider the amount of political party interest on an issue in my role as a legislator. 5. I consider the impact of an issue on my re-election in my role as a legislator. Leadership The ability to The Crisis Leader Efficacy in Hadley et al. (2011) Decision- make Assessing and Deciding Scale (C- Making informed LEAD) Scoring from 1-5, Reliability: Performance judgments on 1=Strongly disagree-7=Strongly Cronbach’s alpha polarizing or agree ranged from .81-.88 complicated with 3 individual issues. 1. I can anticipate the political and studies. interpersonal ramifications of my decisions and actions. 2. I can summarize the key issues involved in a situation to others 179 Construct Definition Items Source regardless of how much data I have. 3. I can make decisions and recommendations even when I don’t have as much information as I would like. 4. I can assess how members of the general public are being impacted by my unit’s actions or inactions during times of adversity. 5. I can make decisions and recommendations even under extreme time pressure. Decision- The process The Leadership Attributes Inventory Moss Jr and Making of mapping Johansen (1991) Confidence and the likely Scoring on a 7-point rating scale, Leadership consequence ranging from 40%-100% in 10% Reliability: Attributes s of intervals to indicate the percent of Cronbach’s Alpha decisions, time attribute accurately describes ranged from .52-.82 working out the subject for each inventory. with 282 vocational the instructors. importance 1. I reflect on the relationships of individual among events and grasp the factors, and meaning of complex issues choosing the quickly. best course 2. I am comfortable handling vague of action to or difficult situations where there take with the is no simple answer or no greatest level of prescribed method for proceeding. sureness. 3. I am willing to try out new ideas in spite of possible loss or failure. 4. I make timely decisions that are in the best interests of the organization by analyzing all available information, distilling key points, and drawing relevant conclusion.
180 Construct Definition Items Source Decision- This is Political Party Decision-Making Battaglia (2015) Making Inside defined as Scale and Outside voting with Scoring:1 =Strongly agree, Party Lines or against the 2=Moderately agree, 3=It depends policies or on the situation, 4=Moderately dogma of a disagree, 5=Strongly disagree legislator’s 1. When voting on legislation, it is declared important to prioritize the issue political before political party loyalty. party, to 2. Depending on the particular which all issue, I will vote against my members are party's platform. expected to 3. I consider the professional subscribe. consequences when I vote outside party lines. 4. Loyalty to my political party is the highest priority as a legislator. 5. During your tenure (while you were in session) as a legislator, how often did you vote outside party lines? Family Values The moral Legislative Family Values Scale Battaglia (2015) and ethical Scoring:1 =Strongly agree, principles 2=Moderately agree, 3=It depends traditionally on the situation, 4=Moderately upheld and disagree, 5=Strongly disagree conveyed within 1. The values instilled in me by my a family, as family influence(d) my honesty, legislative decision-making loyalty, 2. I consider(ed) my family's integrity, and opinion in my legislative faith. decision-making. 3. My family's cultural background has/had an influence on my legislative decision-making. 4. Experiences within my family and upbringing have/had an impact on my legislative decision-making. 5. My family's values are/were a primary influence in my legislative decision-making.
181 Appendix K. Mindfulness Construct Definitions
Theme Definition Citation
Mindfulness The quality or state of being mindful; 2. The Merriam-Webster’s practice of maintaining a nonjudgmental state of heightened or complete awareness of one’s thoughts, emotions, or experiences on a moment-to-moment basis; also: such a state of awareness.” (n.d.). Thich Nhat Hanh’s Plum Village The energy of being aware and awake to the meditation center’s present moment. website
Mindful Legislators recognizing their influence or Mindful Leadership Leadership leadership in terms of service to others. It is Summit, 2017 website creating a setting to cultivate self-awareness and compassion, and leading with authenticity in a way that inspires others.
Managing Stress The way in which legislative members cope (Post & Preston, 2012) with “the serious impact of performance of policy makers.
Decision-Making “The process of mapping the likely (“Definition of decision Confidence consequences of decisions, working out the making - a practical importance of individual factors, and choosing variation.” n.d.). the best course of action to take.” Effective This phrase is defined as the advancement of a (Volden & Wiseman, Legislative member’s agenda items through the legislative 2009: 237). Decision-Making process and into law. Spirituality Spirituality is not confined to religion. The (Paloutzian & Park, word “spirituality” has evolved in a way that 2014) transcended formal religious tradition and is used in a broader sense.
182 Appendix L. Using Mindfulness and Legislative Decision-Making Process Qualitative Interview Protocol
Legislators as Leaders: Understanding Mindful Decision-Making Process in the Legislature Qualitative Interview Protocol
Step 1: Introduction and Explanation
Welcome: “Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. I am currently a Ph.D. Candidate at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University.”
Purpose of meeting: “I am exploring how legislators deal with difficult choices and challenging decisions in the legislative process.” This includes not only the process but the effects of tension and stress given a contentious issue “I would like us to focus on your decision-making processes and experiences. Please be as specific as you can and provide as much detail as you can remember.
Format of Interview: “I will describe two legislative scenarios and ask a series of open- ended questions related to your decision-making process. I will also ask a few follow- up questions, if necessary, as you respond. The hypothetical decision-making scenario I describe will serve more as a guide to our conversation. The interview will last approximately 60 minutes. I am looking forward to our conversation together.”
Step 2: Scenario One: You are inundated with pleas to maintain the right to bear arms while a recent shooting was in your district. Advocacy groups, lobbyists, and survivors are putting pressure on you and your office to vote new laws into place. As gun violence in the US continues to dominate as a national policy issue, particularly as mass shootings have been increasing, new legislation is drafted. What are the first steps you would take in tackling this decision-making process? Your constituents are contacting your office to voice how they want you to vote. You are the deciding vote for this public and contentious issue. Step 3: Scenario Two Caring for our veterans and ensuring rights for their service to our country is an issue that Americans support. All critical stakeholders are supporting upcoming legislation to increase budgetary support for supportive and job development services. You have been asked by a colleague if you will vote for this increase in services.
183 Questions for Scenario One and Two: What are the first steps you would take in tackling this decision-making process? 1. Tell me about how you would begin to concentrate and become engaged in the issue. 2. How would you respond to unpleasant experiences that develop during these hard decisions (e.g., Disagreements with colleagues, threats, wanting to please everyone, and the unknown results of your decision, other important work for your constituents)? 3. What would you do to balance the political and policy stress of it all? What do you do to mitigate the physical or emotional stress that comes with navigating such emotionally charged issues?
Probing questions: In the above scenarios, 4. When knowing the details are important and understanding the needs of your constituents is always on your mind, how would you look at the full picture at a high level? Can you also give me a real life example of this? 5. What do you do to feel more confident in your decision-making process? 6. What in your opinion makes an effective legislative decision-maker? 7. Who do you think is the most effective legislator with whom you have worked? 8. Can you tell me about a time when your faith helped manage the stress or anxiety?
Step 4: Closing
That concludes our interview. Thank you for your time with me. Are there any other questions or insights you think I have missed regarding mindful decision-making? If I need to clarify anything we’ve discussed, would it be okay for me to follow through with a brief phone call or email?
184 Appendix M. Coding Results
185 Appendix N: Quote Tree: Mindful Decision-Making in the Legislature: Results
Mindful Decision-Making: Mission Driven Process
NIDF4: “And many people that do call you up NIDM1: “So, as you're working through are emotional about something and I learned legislation, you're possibly wondering if early on you can't go with your heart, you have you’re on the right side of your conscience if to go with your brain. And so I've tried to do you're on the right side of history and on the that. So, naturally, people come to you and let's right side of your constituents because this is say, they want more laws on guns because an issue that you could lose your job over. you’ve used the example of guns. You have to You think about this thing, you think through look at the situation, the person that was killed, it, you think of the consequences of how were they killed, who had the guns? Was it amendments that are being offered. I think an illegal gun that they had? Those kinds of that the most important thing is that you are things have to play a part in that and so I would comfortable personally that you have sought first talk to those people but then I would also the information you need to make a decision go and talk to the county sheriff who I have a that you've gotten a pretty reasonable and good relationship with.” fair amount of information that will allow you to make the proper decision.
NIDF5: “We're elected to make the hard decision and you won't make everyone happy all the time, you just can't, but that's -- in your heart, you're doing what you believe is best for the people that you represent and you've done your research and you have your facts, you have to be respected for what you're doing there.
NIDM3: That's internal stuff that you wade through with your staff with yourself and I talk to my wife a lot, I talk to my parents a lot, I talk to my neighbors a lot and you make a decision. Once you make that decision there are times where you can look back and say, maybe I didn’t make the right decision but you can't drive yourself insane by constantly second guessing your gut instincts and your ability to make a decision after being thoroughly educated on the issue.
NIDF6: “The first thing I would do is evaluate NIDM4:“And so, certainly my faith would the actual situation and try to get as much come into play. The -- you know, looking very information and facts about what happened? directly at issues around that -- young people Where was it? Was is a school zone? Was it a and that issue of violence and too many guns gun free zone? Was is, you know in an open in the street and I would try to look at how carrying area? What was the circumstance in best I can work with colleagues around that which the act took place? I would know and issue in drafting the legislation. How I might understand who the offender was, if they had be able to identify opponents or rather some type of violent aggression or mental health proponent on drafting that legislation, so it's history. I would try to get as much information my internal clock, much of my life as possible before doing anything. But also experiences, you know, certainly how my exercising compassion in the meantime as I'm faith informs that decision and how best we receiving inquiries.” can implement a policy effectively. Because you can introduce it but how do you -- be
186 able to collaborate with others to make sure that the legislation could be passed. So, there's a whole lot of stages to that.”
NIDF2: “[After the shooting] I did not want to NIDM6: “I feel that this is the best decision. come up as an opportunistic or preying upon a I've looked at the facts, I've looked at tragedy because I was running for office and I everything, I've taken emotion out of this in was new to that community and my opponent trying to make a good decision for the was also there. And so we followed the lead of country and for people I'm representing. If it the community basically. Now, I also have been costs me my job, then it costs me my job.” endorsed by the NRA for my entire career as a Democrat. So, really it was about following beliefs of the community. I became very involved in helping the community get trauma and homecare in school.”
NIDF7: “Even though everybody may be telling NIDM8: “I always want them to see me as me something and I do something else, but it being professional and I'm not letting my was because in my spirit I have to just let it go personal views or my personal emotions get and it's hard for me to let go of things. But I let in the way of doing my job which is to it go you know because I always go back to -- represent my district and do what I feel is in when I think about just being here in this stage, the best interest of my district. And then also, I know it was God. I know who got my back, and you know, in a way of never trying to make it the lessons come from and I'll never take it for personal.” granted and the moment that I take it for granted I know, you know, God reminds me, he has ways that reminded me don’t get too carried away, you know what you got.”
NIDF8: “I mean, I just try to envision how it would affect the most vulnerable people. I know that I am serving in some way, either as an advocate or a legislator. So, a lot of times, it’s just that. I just kind of imagine and I feel good about how it will impact them or if I don’t feel good about it then, I fight like hell. Or if I do then I can vote with a clear conscious and come home and go to bed.”
NIDM12 ”I don't know if the decision I made was the right one or the optimal one, could I have done a little bit better and I've done enough research and not frequently, but many times, several dozen times a year, I have walked out on the senate floor not fully convinced that I was ready to vote on the bill and still wondering whether I would be a yes vote or no vote, and that part has surprised me before I ran I thought that you would just sort of know what was -- what you were -- what you supported and what you didn't support but what I found is that there are so many shades of grey and very little that we do is black and white and it's in those gradients of grey that things get really complex, a bill that 60% good and 40% bad for example, well pragmatically, I guess on a yes vote, if it's 60 percent good and 40 percent bad, unless I can make more changes to it, that kind of thing. So, I mean that's -- those were the tough decisions that I've had or the impact that those tough decisions have had on me from the work that I remember distinctly.” 187 Appendix O: Quote Tree: Decision-Making Confidence
Decision-Making Confidence
NIDF2: “I think it's knowing the efficacies of NIDM2: “You need to step back sometimes the policy, understanding all of its and listen to some of the contrarians and you implications and how it functions. And know. The lesson learned there was to sit back knowing that because I understand the and say you know, maybe the experts are complexity as of how to follow key functions always right. What's the problem with this and that -- you know, I decided to go forward that why -- where do you see this going.” this is the best option we have available to us for the people.”
NIDF3: “You just have to -- I guess, I don’t NIDM3: “I think being very knowledgeable even know how to say it exactly but a spirit of about the issue as you gain knowledge by of resilience that you know that you're doing -- course reading data and discussing it with you have to be 100% sure that what you're different policy experts but you really get doing is something that you can look yourself knowledge of passion by going and looking at in the mirror and live with. And that's -- first the stuff with your own eyes. That’s the way and foremost, I, regardless of the consequences that you get passion and you get respect from or in the short-term, if you can’t live with the people you're fighting for because they yourself whether that being silent or being in know that you're not just like talking head -- favor of something, I mean, because it goes you know, talking point for a machine, both ways. Like there are moments where I anybody can do talking points.” don’t think I could live with myself if I didn’t speak up or having this opportunity.”
NIDF4: “So I think it's really important to just do a lot of reading and your skills as a mom comes in as far as you realize that when people tell you things they -- when your children would tell you that if they were fighting, you only believe half of each kid, you know? And that's kind of what I do when people come into my office, I realize they’re representing a certain company or a certain group of people and they’re only telling me half of the truth. So, I always make sure I often ask them who's going to be against this and then I reach out to those people and find out why are you against it. And then I usually try to go back to the district and find people that would have interests of both sides but more people that I would trust than I would in Columbus.”
NIDM7: “The one that stands out is this Meningitis Bill because it was so personal. We had 100 witnesses come in and I let every one of them testify. I listened. Then we came up with a policy.”
188
NIDF5: “I think it's really important to always be willing to listen, as a legislator, you're expected to have every expertise and everything from insurance to job and family services. And there is no human way that any persons can have all that knowledge, so when you have constituents that approach you that have problems, have concerns that just don’t seem right, you need to be willing to listen, you need to be able to follow up with the appropriate individuals to make sure that what you're doing will benefit the constituents and it's the right thing to do.
NIDM8: “Generally speaking, it's being exhaustive in your methods, in your outreach in gathering information, making sure that you're talking to all the stakeholders that are affected, talking to different lawmakers, both at the state and the local level and then ultimately doing what -- I mean, doing what you felt was the right decision. There is one, doing your homework that you feel like that you've talked to everyone that you needed to talk to and that you're as informed as you possibly can be So, there's that part of the ‘peace of mind’ feeling like you did everything you could to make sure that you're informed. And so, the other part of ‘peace of mind’ is like you're doing something that you feel comfortable with personally and you’re not sacrificing your own principles or ideals. And this goes along with considerations as well, like it keeps you up at night if you made a vote that you think is going to cause you to lose your seat. Those are the kind of the three factors you would have to consider to make sure that you're thinking about to make sure that you had a peace of mind.”
NIDF6: The more educated you are on your NDM9: “So, 90% to 95% of the votes were no- issues, the better you feel about presenting brainers. There was probably another 5% that and the easier you have. what I do is I try to would give you pause, you had to think about, educate myself as that as possible, knowing you got to consider your district, you had to that at any moment somebody could enquire consider the state, you had to consider the about what I'm working on and question me politics of your vote. And once you did that -- I or cross reference or analyze what I'm doing did that, I’ve never had a problem making and I think, this is my role on my decisions and living with it, for better or for responsibility to be well thought out on many worse. So, I never had a problem with that. I measures that I think would be important really -- I didn’t have any sleepless nights.” enough to move forward for all Ohioans. NIDF7: “I've come to realize is that whatever NIDM11: You know, without even asking that. is that you do and whatever is that you So, you talk it out and you research, you try to support you need to be accountable and be look at -- if there's data available, I like able to answer the questions because again I seeing what other states have done, you know, go through a lot of schools and the kids that that sort of democracy model of state do research they can be like "well can you tell governance but a lot of it is just -- you know, me about how you voted on the bill and you'd at this point in my career, I do try to look back be like, "What I have no idea what you're on what I've seen as well. talking about". And so with that in mind -- and I'm giving you a context. For me I will not-- I cannot and I've just taken a stand that I am not co-sponsor in anything support in anything when I don’t know what obvious answer was.” 189 Appendix P: Quote Tree: Mindful Decision-Making: Managing Stress
Mindful Decision-Making: Managing Stress
NIDF1: “You do your best, but they follow NIDM1: “She said, well, I want to thank you. I you around. They install a camera on your said, oh, okay and I get quiet and she said, I face or track you from behind or try to get want to thank you for putting guns in babies some unflattering angle. And they get your carriages, I want to thank you for putting guns schedule, and they just -- they're showing up in schools, I want to thank you for putting guns and following you. And you either are in nursing homes. I knew that this was an issue ignoring some of these questions and looking that really could cost me my job and so, yeah, it like you're ignoring it or you're answering it, created some stress. So, as you're working which can get usually even worse. I just had through legislation, you're possibly wondering to forge ahead and trying to keep the focus on if you’re on the right side of your conscience if the task at hand. you're on the right side of history and on the right side of your constituents because this is an issue that you could lose your job over. And hey, yeah, losing your job is -- it gives a lot of stress. So, yeah, you think about this thing, you think through it, you think of the consequences of amendments that are being offered.”
NIDF3: “I truly believe that at the end of the day, the good guys win and the best policy comes forward, and that policy is the policy that is reflective of the majority of people and takes care of people. And based on all the information we have, based on the statistics we have based on the collective data, I feel confident that we're on the best side of this issue or the correct side of this issue. And so I don’t get mad about it but I don’t hold that stress because I know how cyclical Ohio is and how quickly politics changes in Ohio, that you can't -- you just can't allow yourself to drowned out by the -- when you have a lost and you have a -- when something doesn’t go your way.”
NIDM3“So, I like to work out in the mornings if I can and it's a good way to start the day and it is a lot of stress release to be able to do some physical whether it's going to the gym or whether it's run or whether whatever it might be. That's very, very helpful for me and when I don’t do that I feel very tense and stressed.”
NIDF4: “Oh, yeah, there were times I went into my office and just shut the door and cried. I mean, this was extremely stressful not anything that I planned on getting involved in. I remember going to the President and saying, I had to be a no-vote, that I had to talk to people in my district and I didn’t think this was good and this is why. You need to do what you think is right for them [constituents]. So, you find that you have strength. I remember somebody saying to me, you need to remember who put you here [leadership] and you need to be a yes-vote. And I said I’ll tell you what, if that's what you think I should do, I’ll be in a yes-vote but I will
190 resign the day after because I am not doing this because of who put me here. I'm doing this because of what's best for my district. That was very, very stressful.”
NIDF5: “Well, I'll go back to being a NIDM6: “The hardest vote I had to take was to woman, there are different expectations on keep men and women who I've served with in us than men. I inherited a good old boy harm's way. And I have spent sleepless nights system as they pretty well called the shots tossing and turning with a decision to keep them and I am known for being strong and what I in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and believe is right and what's moral and what's knowing that some of them may not come home. ethical. And if you just let them win with So that was a heavy, heavy decision that you those tactics one time, you lose everything so have to weigh on what our priorities are, where I stay pretty strong on what I think it's right, the national priorities are, what our national I really, really do.” interests are and you go forward from there. “
NIDF7: “For contentious issues, well, you NIDM7: “I had people just berating me on know, I'm a person that starts off emotionally YouTube and online and Facebook. I mean, I because I'm one of what they call a didn’t go to my class reunion because there passionate person, which means very was a bunch of police and firefighters expressive, but you know I take that stuff but attending. We were lucky, we actually had I try to release things because I'm not trying scheduled a vacation. It’s your attitude, your to keep things bottled up, and really just personal attitude of what you think your job is. trying to talk about my truth, you know.” I was a teacher and a coach, and I was pretty thin-skinned, but as a politician, you just can't take it personally. So if people write bad things about you in a letter to the editor or people yell at you in public, you just have to just do the best you can and try to stay calm and not turn it into a big issue. And, it’s not really that hard to do once you start practicing that. It really isn't, at least for me, it has not been.”
NIDF8: “I love to cook healthy. So, I'll cook a good healthy dinner for my family. So, I feel I’m very connected. So, I like -- connecting which helps me and when I need time to process, I'll start cleaning or working out and so, that's my down time where I just need to not talk to anybody…and, I am processing.”
191 REFERENCES
Abdul-Quader, A. S., Heckathorn, D. D., McKnight, C., Bramson, H., Nemeth, C., Sabin, K., Gallagher, K., & Des Jarlais, D. C. 2006. Effectiveness of respondent-driven sampling for recruiting drug users in New York City: Findings from a pilot study. Journal of Urban Health, 83(3): 459-476.
Alakent, E., & Ozer, M. 2014. Can companies buy legitimacy? Using corporate political strategies to offset negative corporate social responsibility records. Journal of Strategy and Management, 7(4): 318-336.
Anderson, S. 2014. State legislative institutions, party leaders, and legislators’ weighted preferences. Evanston, IL: Expanded Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
Anzia, S. F., & Berry, C. R. 2011. The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson effect: Why do congresswomen outperform congressmen? American Journal of Political Science, 55(3): 478-493.
Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. 2003. Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1): 43-51.
Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. 2010. Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3): 157.
Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. 2006. The emotional intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1): 51-64.
Barron, F. H. 1974. Behavioral decision theory: A topical bibliography for management scientists. Interfaces, 5(1): 56-62.
Battaglia, A. J. 2014. How do they do it? Legislators as leaders: A study of legislators’ values and decision-making. Unpublished Qualitative Research Report, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Battaglia, A. J. 2015. How do they do it? Legislators as leaders: A quantitative study of the influencers of legislators’ decision-making. Unpublished Quantitative Research Report, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Battaglia, A. J. 2016. Does mindful leadership matter? A study of legislators’ decision making. Unpublished Qualitative Research Report, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Bawn, K. 1995. Political control versus expertise: Congressional choices about administrative procedures. American Political Science Review, 89(01): 62-73. 192 Bergan, D. E. 2009. Does grassroots lobbying work? A field experiment measuring the effects of an e-mail lobbying campaign on legislative behavior. American Politics Research, 37(2): 327-352.
Berger, T. A. 2014. Servant leadership 2.0: A call for strong theory. Sociological Viewpoints, 30(1): 146.
Bilimoria, D., & Piderit, S. K. 1994. Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6): 1453-1477.
Bishin, B. G. 2000. Constituency influence in Congress: Does subconstituency matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(3): 389-415.
Boin, A. 2005. The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure. Boulder, CO: Cambridge University Press.
Borchardt, J. 2017. $7.8 billion Ohio transportation budget bill passes without local government earmarks: Cleveland.com, March 29, 2017. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/03/78_billion_ohio_transportatio n.html.
Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. 2013. Resonant leadership: Renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope and compassioncompassion. Harvard Business Press.
Bozeman, B. 2007. Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press.
Brescoll, V. L. 2016. Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3): 415- 428.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. 2003. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4): 822-848.
Burch, V. 2010. Living well with pain and illness: The mindful way to free yourself from suffering. Sounds True.
Burstein, P. 2003. The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1): 29-40.
Buse, K., Bilimoria, D., & Perelli, S. 2013. Why they stay: women persisting in US engineering careers. Career Development International, 18(2): 139-154.
193 Canfield-Davis, K., Jain, S., Wattam, D., McMurtry, J., & Johnson, M. 2010. Factors of influence on legislative decision making: A descriptive study-updated August 2009. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 13(2): 55-68.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. 1990. Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1): 55-81.
Chisholm, S. 1969. Equal rights for women: Available from http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/wlmpc_wlmms01015/.
Ciulla, J. B. 2010. Being there: Why leaders should not “fiddle” while Rome burns. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40(1): 38-56.
Connor, P. E., & Becker, B. W. 2003. Personal value systems and decision-making styles of public managers. Public Personnel Management, 32(1): 155-180.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davis, M. H. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1): 113-126.
Diekman, A. B., & Schneider, M. C. 2010. A social role theory perspective on gender gaps in political attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4): 486-497.
Dolšak, N., & Houston, K. 2014. Newspaper coverage and climate change legislative activity across US states. Global Policy, 5(3): 286-297.
Doty, E., Tomkiewicz, J., & Bass, K. 2005. Sex differences in motivational traits and ethical decision making among graduating accounting majors. College Student Journal, 39(4): 817.
Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2003. The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 807-834.
Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. 2010. Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65(3): 216-224.
194 Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen‐Schmidt, M. C. 2001. The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4): 781-797.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. 1990. Gender and leadership style. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2): 233-256.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. 1995. Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1): 125-145.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1): 3-22.
Easterling, D., & Millesen, J. L. 2012. Diversifying civic leadership: What it takes to move from “new faces” to adaptive problem solving. National Civic Review, 101(2): 20-26.
Embry, A., Padgett, M. Y., & Caldwell, C. B. 2008. Can leaders step outside of the gender box? An examination of leadership and gender role stereotypes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(1): 30-45.
Epstein, R. M. 1999. Mindful practice. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 282(9): 833-839.
Fabre, E. F., Causse, M., Pesciarelli, F., & Cacciari, C. 2016. The responders’ gender stereotypes modulate the strategic decision-making of proposers playing the ultimatum game. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(Article 12): 1-9.
Fernando, M., & Jackson, B. 2006. The influence of religion-based workplace spirituality on business leaders' decision-making: An inter-faith study. Journal of Management & Organization, 12(01): 23-39.
Flammang, J. A. 1985. Female officials in the feminist capital: The case of Santa Clara County. Western Political Quarterly, 38(1): 94-118.
Forsyth, D. R., Nye, J. L., & Kelly, K. 2001. Idealism, relativism, and the ethic of caring. The Journal of Psychology, 122(3)” 243-248.
Fowler, L. 2005. Gender and jury deliberations: The contributions of social science. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 12(1): 1-48.
Frick, W. C. 2009. Principals' value-informed decision making, intrapersonal moral discord, and pathways to resolution: The complexities of moral leadership praxis. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(1): 50-74.
Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. 2005. Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establishing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5): 835-862. 195 Gailmard, S. 2002. Expertise, subversion, and bureaucratic discretion. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 18(2): 536-555.
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. 2008. Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19(4): 378-384.
Gill, S. K. 1985. Attitudes toward the equal rights amendment: Influence of class and status. Sociological Perspectives, 28(4): 441-462.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15-31.
Glover, S. H., Bumpus, M. A., Sharp, G. F., & Munchus, G. A. 2002. Gender differences in ethical decision making. Women in Management Review, 17(5): 217-227.
Gray, V., Lowery, D., Fellowes, M., & McAtee, A. 2004. Public opinion, public policy, and organized interests in the American states. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3): 411-420.
Greenawalt, K. 1994. The use of religious convictions by legislators and judges. Journal of Church and State, 36(3): 541-555.
Gunaratana, H. 2001. Eight mindful steps to happiness: Walking the Buddha's path. Simon and Schuster.
Hadley, C. N., Pittinsky, T. L., Sommer, S. A., & Zhu, W. 2011. Measuring the efficacy of leaders to assess information and make decisions in a crisis: The C-LEAD scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4): 633-648.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. 2010. Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall
Hammond, K. R. 2000. Coherence and correspondence theories in judgment and decision making. In T. Connolly, H. R. Arkes, & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader, 2nd ed.: 53-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herrera, R., Duncan, P. A., Green, M. T., & Skaggs, S. L. 2012. The effect of gender on leadership and culture. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 31(2): 37-48.
Herrick, R. 2010. Sex differences in constituent engagement. Social Science Quarterly, 91(4): 947-963.
196 Herrick, R. 2013. Listening and representation. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 13(1): 88-106.
Herriot, P., Ecob, R., & Hutchison, M. 1980. Decision theory and occupational choice: Some longitudinal data. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(3): 223-236.
Hildebrand, D. K., Ott, L., & Gray, J. B. 2005. Basic statistical ideas for managers (Vol. 1). South-Western Publishers.
Hird, J. A. 2005. Policy analysis for what? The effectiveness of nonpartisan policy research organizations. Policy Studies Journal, 33(1): 83-105.
Hogan, R. E. 2012. Factors conditioning the representational activities of state legislators. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2012 State Politics and Policy Conference at Rice University in Houston, TX, February 16–18. Available from http://2012sppconference.blogs.rice.edu/files/2012/02/Factors-Conditioning-the- Representational-Activities-of-State-Legisaltors-HOGAN-Feb-2012.pdf.
Huber, S., & Huber, O. W. 2012. The centrality of religiosity scale (CRS). Religions, 3(3): 710-724.
Jack, A. I., Friedman, J. P., Boyatzis, R. E., & Taylor, S. N. 2016. Why do you believe in God? Relationships between religious belief, analytic thinking, mentalizing and moral concern. PloS one, 11(3): e0149989.
Karafin, B. 2009. Mindful politics: A Buddhist guide to making the world a better place (review). Buddhist-Christian Studies, 29(1): 160-163.
Karelaia, N., & Reb, J. 2014. Improving decision making through mindfulness. In J. Reb, & P. W. B. Atkins (Eds.), Mindfulness in organizations: Foundations, research, and applications: 163-189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kark, R. 2004. The transformational leader: who is (s) he? A feminist perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2): 160-176.
Kawakami, C., White, J. B., & Langer, E. J. 2000. Mindful and masculine: Freeing women leaders from the constraints of gender roles. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1): 49-63.
Keeney, R. L. 2009. Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press.
Kennedy, J. A., Kray, L. J., & Ku, G. 2017. A social-cognitive approach to understanding gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 138: 28-44.
197 Kirkpatick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. 1991. Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executive, 5(2): 48-60.
Lancaster, S. L., Klein, K. P., & Knightly, W. 2016. Mindfulness and relaxation: A comparison of brief, laboratory-based interventions. Mindfulness, 7(3): 614-621.
Livingston, R. W. 2013. Gender, race, and leadership: An examination of the challenges facing non-prototypical leaders. From Gender and work: Challenging conventional wisdom. Harvard Business School Research Symposium.
Lord, M. D. 2000. Corporate political strategy and legislative decision making: The impact of corporate legislative influence activities. Business & Society, 39(1): 76- 93.
Luk, J., Holman, G., & Kohlenberg, R. 2008. Contextual Variations of Mindfulness Across Interpersonal and Task-Oriented Contexts: The Roles of Gender and Ethnicity. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 13(4).
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. 1994. Who controls? Information and the structure of legislative decision making. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19(3): 361-384.
Magnani, R., Sabin, K., Saidel, T., & Heckathorn, D. 2005. Review of sampling hard-to- reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. Aids, 19: S67-S72.
Martin, S. A., & Morehead, E. 2013. Regional indicators as civic governance: using measurement to identify and act upon community priorities. National Civic Review, 102(1): 33-42.
Miller, S. M., Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Nicholson-Crotty, S. 2011. Reexamining the institutional effects of term limits in US state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(1): 71-97.
Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. 1963. Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review, 57(01): 45-56.
Moline, L. 2004. Will real leadership please step forward? Government Finance Review, 20(3): 48-49.
Moss Jr, J., & Johansen, B.-C. 1991. Conceptualizing leadership and assessing leader attributes. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Available from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED333178.
Myers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. 2003. Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimilation: Creating and validating a measure. Communication Quarterly, 51(4): 438-457.
198 Myerson, R. B. 1996. Fundamentals of social choice theory. NorthWestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Sciences.
Northouse, P. G. 2012. Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
O'Neil Deborah, A., Hopkins, M. M., & Diana, B. 2008. Women's careers at the start of the 21st century: Patterns and paradoxes. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4): 727- 743.
Oldmixon, E. A. 2009. Religion and legislative politics. Oxford Handbooks Online.
Page, S. 2007. Diversity powers innovation. Center for American Progress, January 26. Available from http://inclusive.nku.edu/content/dam/Inclusive/docs/diversity_powers_innovation. scot%20page.pdf.
Paloutzian, R. F., & Park, C. L. 2014. Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. Guilford Publications.
Petry, G. 2012. Don’t be afraid to reach out to your legislators. Parks & Recreation, 47(4): 19-20.
Poggione, S. 2004. Exploring gender differences in state legislators’ policy preferences. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2): 305-314.
Post, J., & Preston, L. 2012. Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility. Stanford University Press.
Potters, J., & Sloof, R. 1996. Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence. European Journal of Political Economy, 12(3): 403-442.
Powell, L. W. 2012. The influence of campaign contributions in state legislatures: The effects of institutions and politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Reiter, K. R. 2013. Gender differences in decision making when faced with multiple options. Collegeville, MN: Saint John's University.
Remmers, C., Topolinski, S., Dietrich, D. E., & Michalak, J. 2015. Impaired intuition in patients with major depressive disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(2): 200-213.
Rezek, C. 2013. Brilliant Mindfulness: How the mindful approach can help you towards a healthier mind and body-and a better life. Pearson Life.
Ridgeway, C. L. 2011. Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
199 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.
Riskin, L. L., & Wohl, R. A. 2015. Mindfulness in the heat of conflict: Taking stock. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Vol. 20, p. 121, 2015; University of Florida Levin College of Law Research Paper No. 16-12. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2754646.
Ryan, T. 2012. A mindful nation: How a simple practice can help us reduce stress, improve performance, and recapture the American spirit. Hay House, Inc.
Saaty, T. L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1): 83-98.
Sabatier, P., & Whiteman, D. 1985. Legislative decision making and substantive policy information: Models of information flow. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10(3): 395-421.
Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, M. L., Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, M. T., & Elawar, M. C. 2007. Factors that affect decision making: Gender and age differences. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(3): 381-391.
Schnebel, E. 2000. Values in decision-making processes: Systematic structures of J. Habermas and N. Luhmann for the appreciation of responsibility in leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1): 79-88.
Schulenberg, J. L. 2007. Analysing police decision‐making: Assessing the application of a mixed‐method/mixed‐model research design. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(2): 99-119.
Schumaker, P., & Kelly, M. 2012. Ethics matter: The morality and justice principles of elected city officials and their impact on urban issues. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34(3): 231-253.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. 1999. Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1): 19-36.
Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk‐ assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4): 689-701.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. 1977. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 28(1): 1-39.
200 Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Burke, M. J., Christian, M. S., Smith, C. E., Hall, A., & Simms, S. 2013. Gendered influence: A gender role perspective on the use and effectiveness of influence tactics. Journal of Management, 39(5): 1156-1183.
Stephenson, W. 1987. Sir Geoffrey Vickers and the art of judgment. American Psychologist, 42(5): 518-520.
Tatalovitch, R., & Schier, D. 1993. The persistence of ideological cleavage in voting on abortion legislation in the House of Representatives, 1973-1988. American Politics Quarterly, 21(1): 125-139.
Tausanovitch, C., & Warshaw, C. 2013. Measuring constituent policy preferences in congress, state legislatures, and cities. The Journal of Politics, 75(2): 330-342.
Teater, B. 2008. “Your agenda is our agenda”: State legislators ‘perspectives of interest group influence on political decision making. Journal of Community Practice, 16(2): 201-220.
Tsebelis, G. 1995. Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(03): 289-325.
Tucker, H. J. 1985. Legislative logjams: A comparative state analysis. Western Political Quarterly, 38(3): 432-446.
Van den Brink, R., Rusinowska, A., & Steffen, F. 2012. Measuring power and satisfaction in societies with opinion leaders: an axiomatization. Social Choice and Welfare, 41(3): 671-683.
Van Doesum, N. J., Van Lange, D. A., & Van Lange, P. A. 2013. Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1): 86-103.
Vickers, G. 1983. The art of judgment: A study of policy making. London: Harper & Row.
Volden, C., & Wiseman, A. E. 2009. Legislative effectiveness in Congress. Manuscript, The Ohio State University.
Volden, C., Wiseman, A. E., & Wittmer, D. E. 2013. When are women more effective lawmakers than men? American Journal of Political Science, 57(2): 326-341.
Walker, E. T. 2012. Putting a face on the issue: Corporate stakeholder mobilization in professional grassroots lobbying campaigns. Business & Society, 51(4): 561-601.
Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. 2009. Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual review of psychology, 60(1): 53-85.
201 Weingast, B. R. 1979. A rational choice perspective on congressional norms. American Journal of Political Science, 23(2): 245-262.
Welch, S. 1985. Are women more liberal than men in the US Congress? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10(1): 125-134.
Westbrook, K. W., Steven Arendall, C., & Padelford, W. M. 2011. Gender, competitiveness, and unethical negotiation strategies. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 26(4): 289-310.
Wilson, D. S., Talsma, A., & Martyn, K. 2011. Mindful staffing: A qualitative description of charge nurses’ decision-making behaviors. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 33(6): 805-824.
Witesman, E. M., & Walters, L. C. 2015. Modeling public decision preferences using context-specific value hierarchies. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(1): 86-105.
Wolvin, A. D. 2005. Listening leadership: Hillary Clinton's listening tour. International Journal of Listening, 19(1): 29-38.
202