the b word or stylistic differences
yesterday, during a casual conversation with a friend in which i mentioned the topic women in leadership, she added dejectedly:
"why is it that while men are praised and rewarded, women are often called b*****s for carrying out the exact same management behaviors which ultimately lead to success?"the cynicism caught me off guard, as she's generally a very positive person. yet the question deserved attention. it is, after all, a question rooted in the common experience of women who have received poor reviews or evaluations for the same job performance where men did not. it is a question whose examination and research has shown in fact that men and women are equally effective leaders overall.
yet while affirming the credentials of both men and women in leadership, the same research has also helped us identify important differences in the leadership styles of men and women. and while identifying these styles and classifying them as masculine and feminine, autocratic and democratic, task-oriented or interpersonally-oriented, the research has also shown that to a small extent, women and men are more effective in leadership roles that are congruent with their gender; to state it another way, women are less effective in roles which have been heavily masculinized, and vice-versa.
part ii
style, over time
tonight, another friend- an employee at a traditional Wall Street private equity group, offered a few relevant and interesting observations, somewhat coincidentally. she hadn't known that i'd been thinking about stylistic leadership differences between the genders, but only that I'd been thinking about women in leadership in general.
the very first thing she shared was an observation that among the relatively few women in management positions at her company, she had noticed a difference in their levels of friendliness, involvement and approachability that she described as generational*. prodding her further, she went on to acknowledge that along those same generational lines, the previously unheard of tendency for men to exude a participative and more "feminine" style of leadership (as opposed to the dominant "command-and-control" style) was more and more apparent.
in essence, her observations support the fact that in our society, styles of leadership deemed feminine have become more valued and accepted as effective over time and across gender lines.
*she elaborated on this observation, but i'm far too scared to offend in my attempt to accurately paraphrase.
***********************************************************************************
part iii
why the confusion?
fusing these conversations together sheds significant light on the subject for me. the truth is, i've never considered leadership style as feminine or masculine. i've never really considered the possibility that women may perceive their challenges in leadership efficiency as gender-based.
as a child of the 80s, i grew up with Sandra Day O'Connor; we sent American women to space; we got Oprah and when Madonna stared into the camera on MTV and declared matter-of-factly "i want to rule the world", i thought it non-controversial and believed that she ultimately would.
and while i must insist that i'm certainly not as naive as all that, perspective is key.
and so, from my perspective, why did it surprise me that my two women friends were so conscious of the inequities women still face as leaders today? did i assume that because women had achieved so much to date in education, politics and the labor market there should be no room for dissatisfaction? well, did i?
epi(b)logue
and if that question is interesting to you, then you should see the new (somewhat controversial) Huffington Post series by Marcus Buckingham What's Happening to Women's Happiness?
i'll be following along to see where he goes with this. maybe more entries down the line to this effect.
