A recent survey summarizes people's perception of Women as Leaders. Respondants were male and female, and the results weren't that surprising.
54% of people claim to have "no preference" what gender their boss was, but the majority of those who had a preference prefer a male boss - even women. The comments section were filled with the typical descriptors of women bosses "bitchy, emotional" and - most often, "catty."
One thing I found interesting is the analysis of women in their attempt to break ino leadership roles. The author points out that women of last generation tried to "out macho" men with varying degrees of success. This may have contributed to aggressive "bitchy" stereotype of women leaders.
My take is that women can be wonderful, effective leaders without imitating men to do so. Every person, no matter their gender, has varying characteristics that may make him or her a great leader in various situations. Traditional (male) leadership characteristics such as "strong" and "commanding" are not better or worse than more modern leadership traits such as "flexible" and "collaborative." Each has its place in various situations (a good military general has very different leadership traits than a campaign manager).
Interesting, though, that the "new leadership" traits now being stressed in business schools and leadership summits sound more like feminine traits than male ones...
February 4, 2008
Perception of Women as Leaders
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I was just looking today at the latest World Economic Forum report on gender gaps in various countries. The United States was 23rd on the list for narrowing the gender gap. I thought it was interesting since we tend to think of the U.S. as being the best place to live if you're a woman. Having people be 100% comfortable with women in leadership is something I wish our country could achieve.
Well, it's interesting right now what is happening in the U.S. politics. Hillary is a very smart, strong and forceful woman but the way she turned it around was by showing emotion. I think man or woman, they just want to see their leaders as competent but... human and relatable.
I think the point is that the same traits are looked at differently when they are embodied by men rather than women. For example, the idea that men who are interpersonally direct and goal-focused are assertive; whereas women who exhibit those traits are bitchy, rigid, domineering. The experts MSN turns to to explain their results virtually all make this point in one way or another.
It's not about women working differently than men as leaders, it's about people being uncomfortable with the unfamiliar or with, as one of their commenters put it, the "lack of fit" between what is expected of women leaders and what women may deliver in those leadership roles.
FeministFinance - I definitely agree that women and men should be regarded similarly when displaying similar traits. This means women who are commanding should not be deemed "bossy" while men are regarded as "assertive." Also men who are subservient should not be deemed "wimps" whereas a woman might be considered a "team player."
There are also men who are seen as rigid or domineering when they are trying to be goal-focused and assertive. For that reason, you cannot say that women are simply being judged differently solely for their gender.
First, is it possible that women in leadership roles today really are more bitchy, rigid, and domineering, because that's just what it has taken to get ahead for a woman over the past 30 years?
Second, is it possible that certain characteristics of leaders are highly dependent on other characteristics in terms of success? For instance, large feet look fine on a large person, but look strange on a very small person, so "large feet" is highly dependent on "body size" when it comes to success. What set of characteristics is highly dependent on gender when it comes to success as a leader? I don't know, but the point is, perhaps the notion that it's bad that "the same traits are looked at differently when they are embodied by men rather than women" is incorrect. Maybe it's good, or at least natural. Maybe women just need to find a different set of traits that works specifically for women.
Jon - I do agree that men and women are separate and different creatures. Equality does not mean same-ness.
That's why I think women who try to succeed by imitating men-or women who are unlike themselves-will inevitably fail. Or at least they'll struggle mightily.
But I do wince when you ask if maybe women are "more bitchy" (compared to what, I might ask?). The point is that term is unfair and is used to negatively characterize things women do/say which may be perfectly normal, appropriate and acceptable. Things that, when men do them, ARE considered perfectly normal and acceptable. I
The point is than when women do/say something - say they interrupt a boss during a meeting to question his logic - it is viewed one (negative/bitchy) way whereas when a man does THE EXACT SAME THING it's viewed in another (positive/assertive) way. That's gender bias, and it's discrimination. You can't say it's "natural" because it's based on our collective ideas about how women "should" be. The whole point is that those ideas AREN'T natural - they're learned.
Sure, some women ARE what some would term "bitchy," and so are some men. We're not talking about personality here, though.
Meg, I'm right there with you. Which is why the most interesting part of this to me (and also the aspect I've seen explored the least, isn't that always the way?) is the generational aspect. How does this stuff change over time as ideas about gender roles change?
One of the sources in the article said that the first generation of female leadership "decided" to act masculine, but the upcoming generations are "better trained" than that--which ignores the context they're working in, both then and now. I think rather than being a question of good training versus bad, it's more likely that the reason women leaders even have the option of not being really aggressive and "male" (whatever that means, as you allude to) in their approach to leadership is that some of the rigid social ideas about how women are "supposed to" act have changed. Or at least, they've softened. Women might not have had the same level of leeway before if they wanted to be taken seriously. Which makes me want to see some longitudinal studies about these attitudes rather than just a snapshot, interesting as it is. I would expect to see some amount of fluidity over time.
Jon, good luck with, you know, everything.
I am a male working under two female bosses. I really have no preference. I like my bosses.
Post a Comment