gender, leadership, and the natural order

4th Annual Iowa Women’s Leadership Summit 1

Gender, Leadership, and the

Natural Order

Rosalind Chait Barnett, Ph.D.Community, Families & Work Program

Women’s Studies Research CenterBrandeis University

4th Annual Iowa Women’s Leadership SummitFriday, April 25, 2008, Iowa State University

As I’m sure you are all aware, we have a cultural bias in the U.S. towards thinking that women are not capable of being effective leaders.

This bias is clearly reflected in the media treatment of women in politics and business.

Belief in the Natural Order of Things

One driver of this bias is the belief in the natural order of things.

In the natural order, women

are uniquely endowed for

domesticity and nurture.

In the natural order, men are presumed to be uniquely endowed for leadership; women are not.

• Males are dominant and natural leaders

• Females are submissive and natural followers.

Put simply, by nature, men take charge and women take care.

If this thinking is correct, then powerful women, women in leadership positions are anomalies; they go against the natural order.

Like other beliefs, this belief shapes our perceptions, expectations, our behaviors, and importantly what the next generation learns about women and leadership.

“we have a tendency to see every instance that confirms our stereotype and we filter out all the counterexamples.”

Diane Halpern, Ph.D.Claremont-McKenna College

The belief in gender difference in leadership is reinforced endlessly.

One particularly insidious and well-documented way is through a process social psychologists call stereotype confirmation.

Once we have a stereotype in our heads – like women can’t lead – we have a tendency to see every instance that confirms our stereotype and we filter out all the counter examples.

Because these beliefs are so powerful, we need to understand them better and explain how they propagate.

These beliefs even color the interpretation scientists make of their data.

If scientists (perhaps especially male scientists) share the bias that males are uniquely suited for leadership then their interpretations of their data will reflect that bias.

Before we turn to the impact of these beliefs on women in politics and business, let’s look at a few examples of such bias in studies of our non-human primate ancestors, especially chimpanzees and bonobos.

Chimpanzees

Chimpanzees have been studied for over 40 years in the wild. We know a lot about their patriarchy and about their patterns of warfare.

In order to enter the adult male dominance hierarchy, male chimpanzees have to first dominate all females in the group.

Among chimps, infanticide occurs, only males hunt and eat meat, and males resort to dominance displays and aggression to resolve conflict.

In many ways our male stereotype reflects the dominant features of male chimps behavior.

Bonobos

In contrast, bonobos are relatively less well studied and understood than the chimpanzee. Yet Bonobos are as genetically similar to humans as are the more familiar chimpanzees.

One big difference between these two non-human primate species is that bonobos live in matriarchal societies, whereas chimps live in patriarchical groups.

In bonobos, males maintain their relationships with their mothers throughout their lives. They never assert dominance over them. We know that the son’s rank is dependent on it’s mother’s rank, and not the other way around.

In addition, bonobos are much more peaceful, social, and sexual than are chimps.

In contrast to the chimps, among bonobos there is female dominance, infanticide does not occur, male and females hunt and eat meat, and sex is used to resolve conflict.

These relatively new revelations about bonobo behavior have not been readily accepted by many primatologists.

The contrast between these two primates points to the importance of situation factions in shaping dominance and leadership behavior.

“Not everybody’s comfortable with the idea that arguably our last common ancestor might have been matriarchal, maybe sort of aggressive towards males”

Amy Parish, Ph.D., University of Southern California biologist and scientific advisor to the Bonobo Conservation Initiative

So “unnatural” is male deferent behavior, that Bonobo males have been called “henpecked” and “mama’s boys.”

Clearly, in our culture, anything but male dominance tends to be treated as evidence of dysfunction.

Female power is very contrary to our understanding of the natural order of things.

There are many examples of the ways researchers have “spun” the story of bonobo male deference to females.

Some of Parish’s colleagues refuse to accept the pattern of female dominance.

They call it “strategic male deference,” meaning that, of course, males could be in charge if they wanted to, but for strategic reasons, like having more sex, they’re stepping back and letting females have the upper hand.

Interestingly, when they see instances of male dominance, they never say “obviously the females could be dominant if they wanted to, but for strategic reasons they’re stepping back.”

In one scientific publication, the male deferent behavior was described as “male chivalry” - not at all an empirical term for a scientific paper.

“It’s not chivalry, it’s just that females have the upper hand”

Dr. Amy Parish

Here is a clear example in which male aggression toward females is considered natural, whereas female aggression towardsmales is not.

When males attack females, as is the case with the chimps, nothing seems out of the ordinary.

However, when females attack males, zoo keepers and others feel strongly that something must be done.

In a story shared by Dr. Parish, one zoo keeper decided to give a time-out to a particular female bonobo who was frequently prone to attacking males.

The idea was to teach her not to engage in such unnatural behavior.

No such behavior modification was ever contemplated when male chimpanzees attacked females.

Power Games

By ignoring the lessons learned from our primate ancestors, we all too often conflate gender and power and ignore the role of situation in shaping male and female leadership behavior.

Because men tend to hold most positions of power in this society, it is easy to conclude that there must be something about being male – whether it is genes, brain structures, or hormones – that is key to leadership.

In the face of such seemingly compelling evidence, it is hard toappreciate the role of the situation in shaping leadership behavior.

Yet there is compelling evidence that the situation, not gender, is the determining factor.

1. Politics2. Business

Domains of leadership

Woman audacious enough to seek political power are routinely dogged by gender-specific coverage that focuses on their looks, fashion sense, familial relationships and other feminizing details that have nothing to do with their expertise.

Pozner, J. L. (2005, November 8). Commander in chic. Tom Paine Common Sense Retrieved November 29, 2005, from http://www.tompaine.com/print/commander_in_chic.php

Women in Politics

Here are a few examples.This is how the Associated Press in a lengthy profile

informed readers about Harriet Miers, George Bush’s first nominee to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court.

Often via quotes from relatives and colleagues, the article gives us such important information as:

Media Description of Harriet Miers

• Likes to play tennis, run, and take in a movie

• Not somebody who is a gossip

• Always remembers everybody’s birthday

• Her royal blue suit shined with a brooch her mother gave her

• Workaholic

It is noteworthy, that such information was not shared about Sam Alito, Bush’s second nominee to the same Supreme Court seat.

If the media doesn’t focus on candidates’ positions and on the issues but only on their looks, it is easy to dismiss them as credible leaders.

Condoleezza Rice

On the day Condoleezza Rice became America’s first African-American female national security advisor, a long, front page New York Times story reported that

• Her dress size is between a 6 and an 8

• Gushes Southern charm

• Captivating – without ever appearing confessional or vulnerable

• She has a girlish laugh

In the same profile, we learn that she is always impeccably dressed, usually in a classic suit with a modest hemline and she prefers comfortable pumps and conservative jewelry.

Only near the end of the long article, do we learn something about her experiences and positions on national security.

The mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only co-exist in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form that is purely sexual.

Givhan, R. (2005, February 25). Condoleezza Rice's Commanding Clothes. Washington Post,

The issue is not that these are the only details the media shares with us about these powerful women, it is that such details are ONLY discussed in reference to such women.

We are never told what size shoes or suits our male leaders wear. We are never told about the sentimental value of our male leaders’ cuff links or wrist watch.

These tidbits are saved for females and reflect a highly gendered media treatment of women in leadership positions.

Elizabeth Dole

It’s constructive to recall the candidacy of Elizabeth Dole, arguably one of the most qualified contenders for President. The media treated her as a light weight.

Her treatment by the press is remarkably similar to the treatment of women candidates who followed her.

Despite her enviable credentials – Phi Beta Kappa graduate from Duke University, graduate of the Harvard Law School, former labor secretary in the Regan cabinet, former Secretary of transportation in the first President Bush’s cabinet, head of the Red Cross, high namerecognition – she was portrayed as:

• Over-ambitious, tailoring her ideology to the need to advance her career

• Chilly, nasty, “syrupy” Southern accent• Pearl chokers and color-coordinated outfit• Too feminine• Rehearsed, scripted, robotic, controlled, frozen,

a “Stepford wife”• Speaking style was dubbed “Tammy Faye Baker

meets the Home Shopping Network”• Speculation about her sex life and her hairdo

The media focus was on her “first woman” status, not on the seasoned, political operative that she was.

In the pre-primary days of 1999, John McCain was presented as a “presidential hopeful” while Liddy Dole was mentioned in terms of her presumed inability to raise money.

Of course this became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more the press says you can’t raise money, the more you can’t raise money.

As was true of other powerful women in politics, the media focused on her personality.

This sort of media marginalization reinforces the regressive notion that women are more emotional, less knowledgeable, less qualified to lead – and, by proxy, less electable – than their male counterparts.

Pozner, J. L. (2005, November 8). Commander in chic. Tom Paine Common Sense Retrieved November 29, 2005, from http://www.tompaine.com/print/commander_in_chic.php

Media Marginalization

Despite this treatment two recent polls show overwhelming support for female politicians among the general public: between 79 and 81 percent of Americans say they would feel comfortable with a female president, and similar numbers believe a woman would handle homeland security and foreign policy issues as well as or better than a male president.

Politics 2008

Hillary Clinton is certainly one of the ablest candidates –male or female – that has entered the presidential race.

Trumping the witch factor

The Boston Globe

That Clinton Cackle

The Boston Globe

We’re all still terrified of intellectual women

The Independent (London)

Slippery Hillary loses her

aura of inevitability

Sunday Times (London)

Humanizing HillaryBoston Globe

slippery Hillary

Hard edge

shrill

queen of mean

cackle

calculating

Loud, inappropriate, and mirthless

A scary sound that was somewhere

between a cackle and a screech

The old-hag

syndrome

The Gazette (Montreal)

Why are we counting

Hillary’s wrinkles?

The Straits Times (Singapore)

Aging Hillary a voter

turn-off The Australian (Australia)

An aging Hillary fights to

be taken beyond face valueSunday Age (Melbourne)

Hillary Plans Carolin

Crying Jag

St. Petersb

urg Times (Florid

You call that crying, Ms.

Clinton? I’ll give you

something to cry about

The Globe and Mail (Canada)

Cry Clinton Cry

The International Herald

Tribune

Can Hillary cry her way

back to the white house?

The New York Times

The Cleavage Conundrum

The New York Times

Cleavage & the Clinton

Campaign ChestThe Washington Post

An outfit that showed

only your weaknesses

The Washington Post

Now, wait chest a

minute ! Daily News

No booby prizes in this campaignThe Washington Times

Abreast of ageingThe Times (London)

In my LexisNexis search using the parameters Hillary Clinton and Cleavage, I came up with over 3,000 stories written in the past year.

While the press has certainly covered Hillary’s positions on important policy issues, she has been subjected to the kind of personal scrutiny that male candidates just don’t get.

There was no media feeding frenzy over Fred Thompson’s wrinkles or John McCain’s age.

There was no flap over McCain’s incessant use of the phrase “my friends.”

But Hillary’s every sound and feature is fair game for the press.

This bias about women’s inability to lead is reflected in an obsession over their personal failures.

This is how the New York Times reported the story of the fall of 3 women: Jane Swift, lieutenant governor of Massachusetts; Carol Wallace, former editor of People magazine; and Rosie O’Donnell, taping her last talk show in May 2002.

Notice the bolded tag line “some say women have less psychic investment in careers.” Interestingly, we are never told who the “some” is.

Let’s focus on Jane Swift, former governor of Massachusetts.

Alex Kuczynski, They Conquered, They Left, New York Times, March 24, 2002, Late Edition - Final, Section 9, Page 1, Column 1.

4th Annual Iowa Women’s Leadership Summit 34Jane SwiftGovernor of Massachusetts

Research shows that there is far more media attention to the personal situation of women in public life than there is of men. Arguably Jane Swift wins the prize for having endured the most relentless scrutiny of her family life. Why?

She was the first person to run for state-wide election while pregnant and the first elected Lieutenant Governor to give birth (to twin daughters) while in office.

Journalists and other media types had a field day hashing and rehashing the pros and cons of women’s combining work and family life.

Headlines read:Campaigning for Office on the Mommy Track

The Year of the Stork

An Announcement: Candidate has Baby; Massachusetts Delivers

A Mommy Track Derails, Mama’s Delicate ConditionJane Swift: Motherhood in the Massachusetts Governor’s Office.

Almost without exception, every reference to her in the media began with the fact that she “was the first governor to give birth while in office” or that she “recently gave birth to twins.”

For example, an article recounting her record in office and announcing her decision to run for Governor, began with the following sentence: “Acting Gov. Jane M. Swift, who made history as the first governor to give birth while in office, said today that she would run for governor of Massachusetts in 2002.”

One would think that no previous governor had ever taken any time away from work for health or any other reason. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

2001, the governor of Rhode Island was laid up at home for more than a month, recovering from surgery for prostate cancer. No one demanded he surrender his powers.

As one journalist asked: ”Who knows how many male governors have children, or who takes care of them?”

Cellucci’s predecessor, Bill Weld, was often criticized for spending lots of time away from work. In Weld’s words, ”Getting to be governor is the hardest part, I used to go on vacation for a week at a time and I wouldn’t even call in.”

Swift’s predecessor, Governor Paul Cellucci underwent heart surgery while in office.

Moreover, these two were men with their fingers on the proverbial button.

Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack, a bout with ileitis, and a minor stroke.

Ronald Reagan recuperated from a gunshot wound while president.

On the surface the clamor was about whether she could perform her official duties while also taking some time for pregnancy-related medical issues.

What was the real situation?

Was she really rejecting her family to selfishly pursue her career? Not at all. Swift’s husband had long before decided to support her political ambitions by quitting his job and caring for their children.

As she put it when she decided to run for Governor in 2002, “When you decide to have children, adults then arrange their lives around them, and that's what we've done.”

Only those who have never read a single article indicating that men can be as nurturing to children as women could honestly claim that the couple’s young children were at risk

”Does anybody know why they are following me?”

One boy ventured the answer, ”Because they want to know what you stand for?”

An amused Swift responded, “I only wish that were true. It’s because I am pregnant and all of these guys think that it’s a great big deal.”

Her wishes and ambitions notwithstanding, Swift decided not to run in 2002 after all; she bowed to Republican pressure to make way for the candidacy of Mitt Romney, who was considered a far stronger and much better-financed candidate.

Unfortunately, her personal life created such a stir, that her many political challenges, successes, and failures, were completely overshadowed.

She was well aware of her situation. As lieutenant governor, she was asked to talk to an audience of elementary-school students about her career in politics. After a few minutes, she pointed to the army of journalists, reporters, and TV-cameramen surrounding the auditorium and asked the fourth- and fifth-graders,

Lessons Learned

She “could not successfully juggle the increasing — and often competing —duties of

gubernatorial candidate, chief executive, and mother”.

Swift was actually well-qualified for a high-level leadership role in politics, having served as a state senator, an executive with the Massachusetts Port Authority, and as the commonwealth’s consumeraffairs secretary before being elected lieutenant governor in 1998. She became acting governor in 2001, when Governor Paul Cellucci became the U. S. ambassador to Canada.

At thirty-eight, she was the youngest governor in the nation’s history.

Her qualifications were never as publicized as her personal life, in fact, whatever her failings, she will be remembered most for the disastrous results of her daring violation of deeply held views about the proper role of women.

In her emotional address announcing her decision to drop out of the governor’s race, she did what was expected, saying that she “could not successfully juggle the increasing —and often competing —duties of gubernatorial candidate, chief executive, and mother”. No one will ever know whether she could have successfully juggled the roles of wife, mother, and governor; the stranglehold of the natural order was too tight.

Female Heads of State

With all the talk about whether women can be commander-in-chief, you would never know that many women are now and have in the recent past been leaders of many countries.

Gumucio, R. (2005, December 9). Senora presidente? New York Times, p. 37.

In the 1970s

Sirimavo Bandaranaike Indira Gandhi Golda Meir Isabel Peron

Elisabeth Domitien Margaret ThatcherSimone Weil

These women held their countries' highest elective offices by 1970. • Sirimavo Bandaranaike was prime minister of Ceylon (now Sri

Lanka) from 1960 to 1965 and from 1970 to 1977. • Indira Gandhi was prime minister of India from 1966 to 1977 and

from 1980 until her assassination in 1984. • Golda Meir was prime minister of Israel from 1969 to 1974. • The first woman head of state in the Americas was Juan Peron's

widow, Isabel, president of Argentina in 1974-76. • Elisabeth Domitien was premier of the Central African Republic in

1975-76. • Margaret Thatcher, who first became prime minister of Great Britain

in 1979, was the only person in the 20th century to be reelected to that office for a third consecutive term.

• Also in 1979, Simone Weil of France became the first president of the European Parliament.

In the 1980s

Vigdis Finnbogadottir Gro Harlem Brundtland Milka Planinc

Corazon Aquino Benazir Bhutto

In the 1980s, a woman was elected • president of Iceland, Vigdis Finnbogadottir,• prime minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland,• premier of Yugoslavia, Milka Planinc,• president of the Philippines, Corazon Aquino, and • prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, the first woman to head

a Muslim nation.

In the 1990s

Mary Robinson Violeta Chamorro Carmen Lawrence

Rita Johnston Khaleda Zia Edith Cresson

Hanna Suchocka

In the 1990s, a woman was elected

• president of Ireland, Mary Robinson.• president of Nicaragua, Violeta Chamorro,• Australia's first female premier was Carmen Lawrence of Western Australia

(1990)• Rita Johnston of British Columbia (1991)• In 1991 Khaleda Zia became the prime minister of Bangladesh• Socialist Edith Cresson was named France's first female premier• Poland's first female prime minister, Hanna Suchocka, was elected in 1992.

Michelle BacheletChile

Ellen Johnson-SirleafLiberia

Angela MerkelGermany

In the 2000s

In recent months• Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was the first elected female president of

Liberia and the first woman to be elected head of state of any African Country.

• Angela Merkel was the first woman elected as Chancellor of Germany.

• Michele Bachelet was elected president of Chile and the first woman to be elected head of state of any South Americancountry.

• 2001-Executive President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, The Philippines• 1997-President Mary McAleese, Ireland• 2001-Governor General Dame Silvia Cartwright, New Zealand• 1997-Hon. Dr. Dame C Perlette Louisy, St. Lucia• 1966-The Maori Queen Kuini Te Ata-i Rangi-Kaahu Koroki Te Rata Mahuta Tawhiao Potatau, New

Zealand• 1999-President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvia• 2004-President of the General Council Nassimah Magnolia Dindar, Reunion (French Oversea’s

Territory• 2004-Governor Deborah Barnes Jones, Montserrat (British External Territory• 2005-Prime Minister Maria do Carmo Silveira, Sao Tome e Principe• 2005- President of the Sameting/Sámediggi Aili Keskitalo in Norway• 1994-President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumarantunga, Sri Lanka• 1999-Prime Minister Hon. Helen Clark, New Zealand• 2005- Governor-General Michaëlle Jean, Canada • 2001-Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia, Bangladesh• 2004-Prime Minister Luisa Dias Diogo, Mocambique• 1980-H.M. Beatrix, By the Grace of God, Queen of Netherlands• 2004-President of the Government Marie-Noelle Themereau, Nouvelle Caledonie (French Oversea’s

Territory)• 2001-High Commissioner Birgit Kleis, The Faeroe Islands (Danish External Territory)• 2000-President Tarja Halonen, Finland• 2003-High Commissioner Hon. Sandra Rose Te Hakamatua Lee, Niue (Free Association with New

Zealand)• 1952-H.M. Elizabeth II of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms

and Territories• 1972-H.M. Margrethe II, by the Grace of God, Denmark’s Queen• 2001-Governor General Dr. Dame Ivy Leona Dumont, The Commonwealth of the Bahamas• 2005-President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberia• 2005-Defense Minister Michelle Bachelet may be first female president• 2005-Angela Merkel first woman elected to be Chancellor of Germany.These women served as heads of state over the past 50-60 years.

Business

Growing numbers of women in management,

but not at the highest levels.

We see similar media treatment of women’s ability to lead in business. Here, two themes are omnipresent:

1. Women don’t want powerful careers2. Women who have obtained power,

drop out

Perhaps best known story supposedly about women not wanting power, is the Brenda Barnes’ story.

Brenda Barnes

Barnes spent 22 years at PepsiCo before being named president and CEO at PepsiCola North America in 1996.

She quit in 1998 to be with her family. When she quit, the business world was abuzz, one of corporate America’s highest-ranking women, said she was quitting because she couldn’t do her job and raise her children.

Her resignation renewed the debate over work-family conflicts.

Some women feared Ms. Barnes’ quitting confirmed damaging stereotypes that women can’t be good executives and good parents.

• May have made the choice of a new generation: personal interests over professional ones.

• The news sent shockwaves through company boardrooms.

• Companies may be forced to change their corporate cultures.

“This may be the tip of the iceberg,” said Brad Shrader, a work-family expert from Iowa State University.

Brenda Barnes

The story that Barnes couldn’t handle work and family was undermined by the facts. After leaving Pepsi, Barnes kept in touch with the corporate world.

She remained on the boards of several major corporations and in 2005, she became chief executive officer of Sara Lee.

Sara Lee is a huge Fortune 500 company with operations in 58 countries; it markets products in nearly 200 nations. The Company employs approximately 137,000 employees worldwide. Its products and services include fresh and frozen baked goods, processed meats, coffee and tea, intimate apparel, leg wear and other apparel, and personal, household and shoe care products. In 2007, its revenue was 12.3 billion dollars.

In sharp contrast, Barnes’ husband, who had been on his own fast track, resigned at about the same time she did. He had been treasurer of PepsiCo.

What was his reason for resigning? To spend the summer with his kids.

Not surprisingly, his resignation was barely noticed by the media. There was no firestorm of reaction about men’s inability to combine a high-powered career with family life.

Men who leave office are never seen as trend setters.

Heglund, R. (1997, December 21). The family track; opting for a richer home life over a high-powered career. Buffalo News, p. 1F.

• Secretary of Labor Robert Reich

• Talk Show Host Phil Donahue

• Governor Paul Cellucci

• House Speaker Newt Gingrich

• Senators Fred Thompson, Phil Gramm

• Representative Joe Scarborough

Prominent Men Who Have Left Their Jobs

Men who leave never spark a national discussion about work-family conflict. Men’s commitment to work is never called into question.

Patricia RussoChairman, Chief Executive,

Lucent Technologies

The story of Patricia Russo is another case in point. Russo, rated by Fortune Magazine as the thirteenth most powerful woman in the world in 2005, was chairman and chief executive officer of Lucent Technologies.

She now heads the new telecommunications giant formed by the merger of Lucent and Alcatel. This company will be one of the largest in the world and largest in the world in terms of revenues (over $25 billion) run by a woman.

In 2006, Russo was rated the most powerful women in the world.

The day the merger was announced, numerous stories described Russo’s stellar accomplishments during her 20-year career at Lucent.

No mention was made of the obvious --women can clearly lead successfully in highly competitive business environments.

Of course, unlike, the response that would have occurred if she had failed, no gender generalizations were made.

One can only hope that the next time a prominent business woman fails, the media will resist the temptation to ascribe her failure to her gender.

-Patricia Sellers, Power: Do women really want it. Fortune, October 13, 2003.

Amazingly, the title for a 2003 Fortune Magazine cover celebrating the 50 most powerful women in America is:

Power: Do women really want it. Can you possibly imagine a Fortune Magazine cover story

on the 50 most powerful men in America with the same subtitle?

Research data on women and leadership

According to a 2003 study by Catalyst, women today cite the same barriers to senior leadership levels as women did way back in 1966:

• lack of managerial experience• exclusion from informal networks• stereotyping • preconceptions of women’s roles and

abilities

Why are women making such slow progress up the corporate ladder?

Many theories:

• women are channeled into HR positions and have little profit and loss or line responsibilities that are critical for advancement

• persistent discrimination – often hard to quantify

Maybe women don’t have what it takes for leadership:

• Hormones• Brains• Motivation

Common to each of these three theories is that the problem is deemed to lie with the women themselves; it has nothing to do with discrimination –subtle or not-so-subtle

One way out of the paradox is to see women who succeed as “unfeminine”.

• unlikable • aggressive• intimidating

Research studies:

1. In general, studies conducted with samples of college students tend to show that men are given higher ratings than women in leadership abilities.

Ratings in these cases, not surprisingly, reflect gender stereotypes

2. When the study participants are employees who have had actual experience working for male and female managers, the findings are very different,

In comparisons of men and women leaders in organizational settings, few gender differences in leadership abilities or style emerge.

Sharpe, R. (2000, November 20). As leaders, women rule: New studies find that female managers outshine their male counterparts in almost every measure. BusinessWeek, 75-84.

By and large, several studies show that women executives, when rated by peers, subordinates, and bosses, score higher than their male counterparts on a wide variety of measures including:

• producing high-quality work• goal setting• mentoring employees

Using elaborate performance evaluations of executives, researchers found that women got higher ratings than men on almost every skill measured.

Although the gender differences were small and sometimes men earned higher marks than women, “overall, female executives were judged more effective than their male peers.”

In one study of the 425 high-level executives evaluated, each by about 25 people, women execs won higher ratings on 42 of 52 skills.

“Women are scoring higher on almost every thing we look at” according to an industrial psychologist who led a major study.

WHERE FEMALE EXECS DO BETTER: A SCORECARDNone of the studies set out to find gender differences. They stumbled on them while compiling and analyzing performance evaluations.

Sharpe, R. (2000, November 20). As leaders, women rule: New studies find that female managers outshine their male counterparts in almost every measure. Business Week, 75-84.

X X*X XANALYZING ISSUES

X X X X XLISTENING TO OTHERS

X X*X XSTRATEGIC PLANNING

X X X X XPRODUCING HIGH-QUALITY WORK

X X X X*FOSTERING COMMUNICATION

X X X X XMOTIVATING OTHERS

WOMENEQUALMENSKILL (Each X denotes which group scored higher on the respective studies)

*In one study, women's and men's scores in these categories were statistically even

If women are so great, why aren’t there more of them running major companies?

Let’s take a look at some intriguing research results that may provide some answers to this important question.

Are there conditions at work under which women are given less credit for the success they achieve when they work jointly on tasks with male colleagues?

This study is especially relevant today given the recent surge in the use of work teams in virtually every industry and in the emphasis placed on the importance of teams for successful organizational functioning.

It is also important for understanding women’s success in organizations because it is highly likely that when teams are formed female employees are more likely to find themselves working with other males than with other females.

How do evaluators assign responsibility for work products produced by teams?

Men are perceived stereotypically as agentic, possessing traits such as:

• ambition• confidence • self-sufficiency• dominance, and • assertiveness

Women, in contrast, are considered to be communal, possessing traits such as:

• kindness • helpfulness• concern for others• warmth, and • gentleness

These gender stereotypes are pervasive, and they affect evaluative behavior, especially when situations are ambiguous.

Evaluators’ dilemma:

Imagine that they are confronted by an outstanding work product completed by a team comprised of women and men.

The quality of the work product is consistent with their expectations for the men, but inconsistent with their expectations for the women.

What are they to do?

One way to maintain their gender stereotypes is to call into question the extent to which the women are actually responsible for the excellent work product.

If they give more credit for the product’s excellence to the men than the women, they maintain their gender stereotypes.

But the women get less credit for high-quality outcomes and thus their work competence is belittled and their task effectiveness devalued as compared to the men with whom they are working.

To test this hypothesis, the researchers designed an experiment in which men and women worked together on a male sex-typed task.

The team produced a joint product known to be of a very high quality, and the evaluators rated the team members in terms of:

• competence• degree of influence on the task• leadership behavior

The feedback was framed either in terms of each team members’ task performance or in terms of the groups’ task performance.

The researchers reasoned that evaluators, especially when evaluating women, would be affected by the kind of feedback theyreceived about the dyad’s task performance.

Group-level feedback creates ambiguity about each member’s contribution.

As noted above, when there is ambiguity, gender stereotypes tend to emerge.

8.13 8.227.29

345678

Individual Feedback Group Feedback%

Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905-916.

When evaluators were provided with individual performance information there was no significant difference in competence ratings of male and female employees.

When evaluators were provided with group-level information, the female employee was rated as significantly lesscompetent than the male employee.

Note that women were rated as less competent when the performance information was for the group and not for the individual, whereas the type of performance information made no significant difference for men.

7.206.40 6.13 4.73

Individual Feedback Group Feedback%

% % &&

Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 905-916.

Women were thought to have taken the leadership role less than men in the group information condition, but not in the individual information condition.

Whenever it was possible to attribute responsibility to men, it was so attributed.

“Unless there was clarity about individual contribution to the successful group outcome, thereby precluding the attribution of responsibility for success to the male team member, women were once again rated as being less competent and as having been less influential and less likely to take the leadership role than were men”. (p. 911)

Here we see one way that gender stereotypes can affect women's’ performance evaluations and ultimately their chances for advancement.

Male and female evaluators did not differ in their ratings of any of the three measures.

Implications of the Study1. Don’t assume that every evaluation you receive is a

direct reflection of your competence.2. Remember that gender stereotypes make it easy for

managers to “see” women subordinates as stereotypical members of their sex and not as individuals.

3. Be alert to the possibility that your managers may not have complete information about your contributions.

4. Be sure to make your contributions, past and present, fully known to your peers and supervisors.

5. If you feel that a male co-worker is getting more than his fair share of the credit for joint work, speak up.

• Clearly women have what it takes to be effective leaders.

• The playing field for women in politics and business is uneven. Gender stereotypes expose women’s success to more scrutiny than men’s.

• It is crucial to remember and to teach the next generation of men and women that women have held and currently hold the highest positions of power and leadership.

Overall Conclusions

Same Difference

Rosalind Barnett and

Caryl Rivers

www.same-diff.com

gender, leadership, and the natural order

Documents

gender equality and leadership in olympic … · gender...

doing gender and leadership - semantic scholar...doing...

gender differences in participatory leadership: an...

robert w. livingston gender, race, and leadership … w....

gender and academic leadership practices...

gender, women and leadership

gender and grassroots leadership

the impact of gender on leadership styles and leadership

gender and leadership

transformative leadership: leading for gender equality …...

gender and leadership for future leaders

gender equality in leadership—

a comparison of gender on leadership styles … comparison...

multiple intelligences, gender, and leadership

gender role self-concept, categorical gender, and leadership...

gender and natural resources: global...

gender & leadership

transformative leadership: leading for gender … · 2018....

gender and leadership: reflections of women in higher...

building sustainable communities: leadership, gender, and...