Women in Leadership Roles in the U.S. Military: A History

Women in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars

Since the revolutionary period, women took center-stage positions in military leadership roles. This was unlike earlier periods, when they had to adopt disguises in order to serve alongside men (Taber, 2011). During those times, the acceptance of women into the military permitted them only into auxiliary positions. The prevailing belief was that the methods and weapons of war did not suit women; however, as circumstances changed, the military had to incorporate women into more challenging positions. There came a growing recognition that gender held no inherent importance on the battlefield, and women began receiving leadership positions within the United States military (Fredriksen, 1999).

During the Mexican, Civil, and Revolutionary Wars, remarkably few women participated in combat. Those who did had to disguise themselves as men to have any chance of enlistment, and they served only under aliases (Zenor-Lafond, 2008). One of the first American women on the battlefield was Deborah Sampson Gannett, who came from Plymouth, Massachusetts. She seized the opportunity to serve by enlisting under her brother's name in 1782, served in the Continental Army for two years, and was wounded twice. The Revolutionary War also saw Margaret Corbin fighting alongside her husband in the defense of Fort Washington in New York (Bloom, 2011). At Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Elizabeth C. Newcome joined the military to fight against Native Americans in 1847 in Dodge City. Her gender was discovered ten months after enlisting, and she was discharged from service.

Many women similarly disguised themselves as men to serve in the Civil War, and some managed to complete their service without ever having their gender discovered. This trend began to change during World War I, when rising interest among women in military service led to over 12,000 women enlisting in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. By World War II, the total number of women serving in the military rose to 350,000, with many serving as Army or Navy nurses. The military created the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) in 1942, which served in North Africa. One year later it was redesignated the Women's Army Corps (WAC), with members serving in France, England, New Guinea, Australia, and the Philippines. World War II also saw the Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard establish women's reserve units (Sarnecky, Borden Institute (U.S.) & Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 2010).

The Navy established the Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES) in 1942, and women began receiving acceptance into various administrative, communications, and medical positions. In the same year, the Coast Guard created the SPARS, and the Marine Corps Women's Reserve was established one year later. Most military women served stateside, but by the end of World War II, female personnel comprised 85% of those serving at the headquarters of the Marine Corps (Mulrine, 2012).

The creation of these reserves was intended to free men to concentrate on fighting overseas. The Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) was created by the Air Force to ensure enough personnel to fly domestically while men flew overseas. This was a critical opportunity for women like Jacqueline Cochran, who took responsibility for advocating on behalf of women pilots. She wrote letters to several military leaders requesting that women be permitted to fly non-combat aircraft. She became the director of WASP and was awarded both the Distinguished Service Medal and the Distinguished Flying Cross. Despite such achievements, many women also served in key positions on the home front to support the war effort (Mulrine, 2012).

In the 20th century, women's roles shifted further, and they began taking on more challenging positions related to warfare. Despite a long-standing congressional mandate barring women from military service, they found ways to enlist and gradually began taking up leadership positions within the United States military. Changing circumstances — including new forms of warfare such as roadside bombs and scud missiles, which blurred traditional front lines and put all soldiers at risk — made the presence of women in leadership roles partly a necessity that the military could not ignore. During the Gulf War, there was unprecedented engagement on new levels. When forces deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1990, women served alongside men in a war zone for the first time, with both taking on comparably challenging roles (Bomb, 2011).

Several genuine motivations drew women to military service. Many were attracted by the desire to defend their country and found the profession meaningful. For others, growing economic demands made military employment an attractive way to provide for their families. The military offered substantial training opportunities that appealed to women seeking to build their futures (Alfonso, 2010). Pay was also a factor: military remuneration was relatively competitive, and men and women in equivalent positions received equal pay — compensation that often exceeded what was available in civilian offices. This combination of factors encouraged more women to enlist and to pursue advancement through the ranks. As more women joined, their responsibilities also expanded, and the military began placing women in leadership positions across its operational units.

Reasons Women Entered the Military

There was significant attrition built into the legal system that prevented women from ascending the military leadership ladder. The policies permitting women's enlistment limited them to specific professions and created frameworks that deterred them from other roles they might have wished to pursue (Alfonso, 2010). This effectively slotted the few women in the military into lower sections, leaving leadership positions to men. Female soldiers tended to be young, and given the limited numbers of women in service, few were available to compete for leadership roles. These young servicewomen lacked role models, and given the degree of gender stereotyping at the leadership level, advancement was extremely difficult.

The decision-making processes within the military did not favor women in any meaningful way. Women who married or became pregnant risked dismissal, which severely curtailed opportunities for growth and advancement (Taber, 2011). There was also the institutional belief that women were more costly to employ — one example being the insinuation that a single male typist could do the work of two female typists — a claim contradicted by the actual performance of women in comparable roles (Alfonso, 2010).

Women were also regarded as incapable of handling the hardships and violence of the battlefield, and it was widely assumed that men would be unable to take orders from women. This perception kept women in subordinate positions for a long time. The greatest suppression of women's advancement came from the top of the military hierarchy, where leaders offered little support for women's leadership ambitions. Without that upper-level endorsement, institutional change was slow (Skaine, 2011). Evidence of women's leadership capabilities was often overlooked or deliberately ignored. Despite all these challenges, women demonstrated a clear and enduring tradition of leadership, and their participation in wartime gave male counterparts direct evidence of women's strengths (Taber, 2011).

Several leadership concepts, theories, and strategies are relevant to understanding the history of women in military leadership. Leadership can be defined as the capacity to influence people positively toward the completion of tasks aligned with established goals and objectives. Effective leadership requires skills such as communication, interpersonal relations, supervision, planning, decision-making, and counseling (Skaine, 2011). Moving into leadership positions requires combining these skills in ways that help an organization achieve its objectives efficiently and effectively.

The theoretical constructs of leadership have evolved considerably, moving from early "great man" theories to more nuanced personal, environmental, and situational frameworks. These newer models require positive environments, cooperation from subordinates, organizational structural support, and leaders who possess both strong values and expert knowledge. The predominant leadership style associated with the military has historically been authoritarian (LaGuardia-Kotite, 2012). Even within an authoritarian structure, however, leaders are still expected to perform their roles effectively rather than simply exercise power arbitrarily.

For women, the traditional expectation of their role as homemakers made it extremely difficult to navigate military leadership hierarchies. Gender stereotyping undermined their capabilities in the eyes of both male and female colleagues, making it difficult for anyone to accept orders from women (Klenke, 2011). Because women had been excluded from leadership positions for so long, they also faced the challenge of understanding a leadership structure designed entirely by and for men. A number of women nonetheless worked to understand that structure and found competitive pathways into leadership roles.

Conclusion

Zenor-Lafond, H. (2008). Women and combat: Why they serve. Inquiry, 32–38.