Does Gender Really Count In Leadership

Non-hierarchical style and relational skills make women better bets than men in the modern era of knowledge-based organisations

Would the world be more peaceful if women were in charge?  A challenging new book by the Harvard University Psychologist Steven Pinker says that the answer is YES.

Pinker presents data showing that human violence, while still very much with us today, has been gradually declining.  Moreover, he says, “over the long sweep of history, women have been and will be a pacifying force. Traditional war is a man’s game: those who study history and social anthropology vouch that tribal women never band together to raid neighbouring village and claim territory for gathering roots, wood and vegetables.

As a mother, women have evolutionary incentives to maintain peaceful conditions in which to nurture their offspring and ensure that their genes survive in to the next generation.

Sceptics immediately reply that women have not made war simply because they have rarely been in power.  If they were empowered as leaders, the conditions of an anarchic world would force them to make the same bellicose decisions that men do.  Cleaopatra, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, ‘Manthatisi oa Batlokoa, and Indira Gandhi were powerful women and all of them lead their people and countries to war. Haebo!!!

What would Social Psychology say about this?  

But it is also true that these women rose to leadership by playing according to the political rules of ‘a man’s world order.’  It was their success in conforming to male values that enabled their rise to power in the first place.  In a world in which women held a proportionate share (one-half) of leadership positions, they might behave differently in power.  They might seek to make decisions that keep corporation and not competition.  It would be a nice feeling to see the UN General Assembly housing half men and half women.

So we are left with a broader question: does gender really matter in leadership?  In terms of stereo-types, various psychological studies show that the men gravitate towards the ‘hard power of command’ while women are ‘collaborative and intuitively understand ‘the soft power of attraction and persuasion’.  This is not rocket science of difficult psychological phenomenon; just think of raising children. The mother will even if harshly at times try to convince the child to do the right things while the father just concludes and gives the scary final rules about the order that should prevail in the house.  

In information-based societies, networks are replacing hierarchies and knowledge workers are less deferential.  Management in a wide range of organisations is changing in the direction of ‘shared leadership,’ and ‘distributed leadership’, with leaders in the centre of a cycle rather than atop a pyramid.  This is usually an acknowledgement that to be a leader does not mean you know everything; in fact there might be people under you who know something better than you do as a leader or manager.  A good manager manages the people and not the processes of work.

Even the military which was once very chauvinist faces changes.  The drill master of today will do better with ‘less shouting at everyone,’ because today’s generation responds better to instructors who play ‘a more counselling-type role’. Military success against terrorists and counter-insurgents requires soldiers to win hearts and minds and not just break buildings and bodies. 

Masculine Style

Women’s non-hierarchical style and relational skills fit a leadership need in the new world of knowledge-based organisations and groups that men, on average, are less well prepared to meet.

In the past, when women fought their way to the top of organisations, they often had to adopt a ‘masculine style’, violating the broader social norm of female ‘niceness’ in order to gain the majority vote – which is men.  Now, however, with the information revolution and democratisation demanding more participatory leadership, the ‘feminine style’ is becoming a path to more effective leadership.

In order to lead successful, men will not only tend to value this style in their women colleagues, but will also have to master the same skills.  That is a trend, not (yet) a fact.  Women still lag in leadership positions, holding only 5% of top corporate positions and a minority of around 25% in elected positions. (here Sweden is a trend setter with 45%  of the elected leadership).

One study of 1,941 rulers on independent countries during the 20^th Century found only 27 women, roughly half of whom came to power as widows or daughters of a male ruler.  Does this ring any bells?  How many women because leaders/chiefs because their husbands died or were removed from leadership for one reason or another? Did they perform any less in their leadership positions?  Do we still have kingdoms or constitutional monarchies with constitutions where a female cannot be an heir solely based on their gender?

Less than 1% of 20^th Century rulers were women who gained power on their own.

So given the new conventional wisdom in leadership studies that entering the information age means entering a woman’s world, why are women not doing any better?  Is ther purposeful barring of women? Is it culture or religion at play?

Lack of experience, primary caregiver responsibilities, bargaining style, and plain old discrimination all help to explain the gender gap.  Joalo ka ha Moruti eo ke mo ratang a tloaetse ho cho, BoMme kea le Zamela e reng “Ee.”  Traditional career paths, and cultural norms that constructed and reinforced them, simply have not enabled women to gain the skills required for top leadership positions and many organisational contexts.  Le sekolong se nang le Matichere a 13 moo BoNtate ba leng 2, one of them is the school principal.

Research shows that even in democratic societies, women face a higher social risk than men when attempting to negotiate for career-related resources such as compensation.  Women are generally not well integrated into male networks that dominate organisations, and gender stereotypes still hamper women who try to overcome such barriers.  U tla makala ha u utloa ba bang ba BoMme ba re, “Ache rone re ke ke  ra etelloa pele ke mosali, hobane BoMme baa seba”. What does gossip have to do with leadership?  Grapevine exists everywhere and it just has to be handles properly.  It does not by its nature make somebody a bad manager.  It is just like perceptions: it thrives where there is a lack of good communication and we simply have to improve on our communication.

This bias is beginning to break down in information-based societies, but it is a mistake to identify the new type of leadership we need in an information age simply as ‘a woman’s world’.  Even positive stereotypes are bad for women and men, and effective leadership: in essence ALL STEREOTYPES ARE BAD.

Leaders should be viewed less in terms of heroic command than as encouraging participation throughout an organisation, group, country, or network.  Questions of appropriate style – when to use hard and soft skills – are equally relevant for both men and women, and should not be clouded by traditional gender stereotypes.

In some circumstances, men will need to act more ‘like women’; and in others, women will need to act more ‘like men’.

The key choices about war and peace in our future will and should depend not on gender, but more on how leaders combine hard and soft skills to produce smart strategies.  Both men and women can and should make those decisions based on prevailing circumstances and not gender stereotypes.    

This article was inspired by a Book Called; The Future Power written by Joseph S. Nye Jr.

Article by; Teboho C MOHLABI