It cannot be denied that Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Kay Ash were two very effective leaders. They led in completely different worlds, with different people and different situations. However, there do seem to be several similarities in their leadership styles on the basic level. First, they both used their femininity to their advantage to lead in a male-dominated world. They both used emotions to gain support although they differed in some ways of applying this. Elizabeth used emotions in flirtations with her court while Mary Kay used her woman intuition to appeal to her female sales force through emotions. Religion was also a major aspect of their leadership. They both openly talked about God and to an extent were guided by religious teachings. However, it seemed more often than not Elizabeth was just using religion as an excuse for her actions. Mary Kay was truly guided by her faith; she built an entire company following the Golden Rule. Lastly, as all great leaders do, they were able to motivate those around them. Both Elizabeth and Mary Kay would use speeches and personal contact, although Elizabeth relied much more on this. Mary Kay also used recognition to make her beauty consultants feel special and worthy by helping them set goals and giving lavish gifts. Therefore, Elizabeth and Mary Kay have fundamental similarities in leadership styles. They used what they were good at to overcome obstacles and to rally support. Differences between them are largely accounted for the different settings in which they led. Mary Kay was ethical more often than Elizabeth, but a monarch must be strict with followers to maintain obedience or she would risk an overthrow of the throne. As a businesswoman, Mary Kay was not in much danger, other than financially, if she lost support so she could be more caring and focus of the ethicality of business behaviors. Nevertheless, the span of 300 years and working in different fields, Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Kay Ash have more similarities in their leadership styles than would ever be expected. References
It cannot be denied that Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Kay Ash were two very effective leaders. They led in completely different worlds, with different people and different situations. However, there do seem to be several similarities in their leadership styles on the basic level. First, they both used their femininity to their advantage to lead in a male-dominated world. They both used emotions to gain support although they differed in some ways of applying this. Elizabeth used emotions in flirtations with her court while Mary Kay used her woman intuition to appeal to her female sales force through emotions. Religion was also a major aspect of their leadership. They both openly talked about God and to an extent were guided by religious teachings. However, it seemed more often than not Elizabeth was just using religion as an excuse for her actions. Mary Kay was truly guided by her faith; she built an entire company following the Golden Rule. Lastly, as all great leaders do, they were able to motivate those around them. Both Elizabeth and Mary Kay would use speeches and personal contact, although Elizabeth relied much more on this. Mary Kay also used recognition to make her beauty consultants feel special and worthy by helping them set goals and giving lavish gifts. Therefore, Elizabeth and Mary Kay have fundamental similarities in leadership styles. They used what they were good at to overcome obstacles and to rally support. Differences between them are largely accounted for the different settings in which they led. Mary Kay was ethical more often than Elizabeth, but a monarch must be strict with followers to maintain obedience or she would risk an overthrow of the throne. As a businesswoman, Mary Kay was not in much danger, other than financially, if she lost support so she could be more caring and focus of the ethicality of business behaviors. Nevertheless, the span of 300 years and working in different fields, Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Kay Ash have more similarities in their leadership styles than would ever be expected. References