I was looking for more articles on the topic and came across this one - http://www.usatoday.com/careers/news/newsusa2.htm. What's interesting is that the article focuses on how women are perceived as less experienced managers essentially because of certain natural female traits. Since women are more "nurturing, supportive and mothering," employees are less apt to take their female bosses seriously.
In my opinion, this is yet another useless argument which does nothing to elevate the conversation about the lack of female leadership in the workplace. The ultimate paradox of the female boss is that while she is blessed with a more natural inclination to be "nurturing, supportive and mothering," she is also cursed by the struggle of having to constantly prove her worth in the workplace in order to move up. That struggle, whether caused by external forces or simply perceived, can push the female boss in an another direction. Instead of being "nurturing" and "supportive" as she is naturally inclined, she becomes aggressive and competitive. The urge to be recognized as serious and competent results in a management style that draws a clear divide between manager and staff. I've seen this create a lot of tension in the office, something that is illustrated in the "goodbye happy hour" case study.
But the article highlights one good point. ''Training in most management settings thinks that the same thing works for men and women. That is not the case.'' If women can find a unique management style, perhaps they can better overcome the obstacles that ail and prevent them from moving up in the workplace.
-Conchita Campos
That is a good point. I do think personal biases will influence how you perceive the person who is reprimanding you, and as a byproduct how you perceive that person's effectiveness as a leader. I also wonder if this idea that younger workers being more gender neutral in their thinking has merit?
ReplyDeleteIn viewing my own work experience I am not entirely sure gender has an influence on how a person acts and/or responds, and thus it is not wholly definitive of a person's effectiveness as a leader. I am not sure even if there is evidence to suggest their age is a factor. I have had at least 7 female managers and 5 male over the years. All of them, regardless of sex were either good or bad based on other criteria - most importantly for me the ability to communicate expectations. Statistically there may be evidence that women are more nurturing, but my experience contradicts that one of my male managers was quite nurturing (about 45), another I found to be really supportive (mid 30s), and of the other three one was a tyrant who clearly articulated expectations(50s) and the others indifferent (over 40) - all were not great managers.
My best manager was a women - but she was not nurturing per se, rather a real team player and very direct in her expectations. She was the youngest manager I had - in fact younger than me by three or four years (27 or 28), but I am not sure if her age was a factor or not. Of the others I had two tyrants (one of which was a real bully 50s, and the other tyrant was in her late 30s/early 40s). The other women seemed to display a great deal of indifference.
Currently there is one female who is very nurturing, but sometimes she is unclear about her expectations, and thus not an effective manager - she is 40. One of the other women (mid 30s) was both tyranical and nurturing - when she wanted something she demanded, and pushed hard, but when she was calm she was so supportive, patient and nurturing.
I suppose there might be anectodal evidence here on age as a factor. So maybe generational norms and expectations may have to be an important factor in this debate? But, at least for me gender makes little difference, what matters is that manager know how to work effectively with people, and communicates expectations clearly without being a tyrant or bully.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete