Female Leadership.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opger045486775dec04,0,7259476.story

I think the writer's conclusions are wrong. I think people distrust female leaders when the women arent clear, direct, and honest. I think women are held to the same standards as men. Not different standards.

I've worked for many female bosses. The ones who are upfront and straight-forward with people are almost always well respected and liked by men and women. The bosses who fail (men and women) are the game-players and bullshitters.

 

[Pure]

so tell me, jbj, are women by nature, less suited to leadership, e.g. the US presidency?

could there be a female Patton, Eisenhower? or only by a fluke of nature?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

My personal opinion is a woman certainly can do any of the jobs you list. I've worked for a few who would make dynamite leaders in the military or the government. One in particular would likely kick Patton's ass.

Now, if you ask my opinion about female sumo wrestlers or heavy-weight boxers my opinion is different. CLOUDY might be a world class sumo wrestler.

 

[sr71plt]

I think the article is about Hillary Clinton, specifically, not women as leaders in general. The article says Clinton's honesty is questioned. Well, a lot of that is because of the baggage she created herself. The sophisticated will point to her Whitewater business dealings in Arkansas, where it seems obvious she was the one who orchestrated the whole business, but let others take the fall. They also will point to her obvious political calculations on which way to fall on the Iraq war and when. The less sophisticated will just know she was too calculating (on her own political future) on her dealings with her husband's sex scandals, even though they can't quite put their finger on how she could have handled herself better.

If you take a woman like Elizabeth Dole, I don't think you have the same trust issues rising in at least the back of people's mind. So, I think this is about Hillary specifically, not about women in leadership in general.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

I understood the writer to mean that Hillary's trust issue is because of prejudice against women in general.

 

[sr71plt]

SR71PLT

I understood the writer to mean that Hillary's trust issue is because of prejudice against women in general.

Yes, that is used as a minor foil of the article (attributing the view to a sexist culture), but the article is quite definitely focused on Hillary Clinton, I think. No evidence is given to bring the experience of any other woman political leader under this umbrella (that I could see).

Could it be that this thread is hiding the specific behind the general as well?

But on your initial posting, I don't really agree. I think woman seeking public office are held to much higher and broader standards than men are. (What male politician has been criticized on the cleavage he shows or wearing pant suits rather than dresses, for instance. And what male politician can't win either way on showing determination, ambition, and aggressiveness?)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

Hillary isnt the first nation leader contestant in the history of the world. There were plenty others.

 

[sr71plt]

SR71PLT

Hillary isnt the first nation leader contestant in the history of the world. There were plenty others.

Ummm. Yes, exactly. And I named one--and she didn't get this sort of press (which was my point). And there was Carol Moseley Braun (and almost Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Jordan before her) who stuck around through the primaries--and didn't get this sort of press. (Geraldine Ferraro got some of that, but because of her husband more than because of her.) The article was written to talk about Hillary specifically. The general statement was only used as the springboard for the article. (I know how to write feature newspaper articles).

So, again, I don't take the connection in general terms as all that relevant. If you want to bash Hillary specifically, just go ahead and bash Hillary. It saves the time trying to figure out what you're getting at. (I think she's bashable on some of these points--and I'll probably still vote for her.)

Oh, and if you want to take the world--try to find that any of that was leveled at Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Corazon Aquino, Kare Willoch, Vigdis Finnbogadottir, or Golda Meir. (Benazir Bhutto, perhaps--but not any more than at her father).

-- it was just lead-in material for an article on Hillary Clinton specifically.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

I was thinking globally. I can name a few women who had the respect and admiration of the world when they lead their nations. ISABELLA of Spain. ELIZABETH I of Britain. VICTORIA of Britain. CATHERINE of Russia. There are plenty others. So lets stop with the bullshit about how men cant handle strong and assertive women.

I plan to vote for Hillary, too. I'll wager that over the next several years, with Hillary in charge, the average America wont know whether to smile sourly, or hang themselves. I cant wait for the fun to start.

 

[sr71plt]

So lets stop with the bullshit about how men cant handle strong and assertive women.

Are there more posters contributing to this thread than you and me? Because if there is someone saying this here, it isn't me.

What I said was that people like Hillary Clinton get criticized on the "strong assertive" issues no matter what they do. The people criticizing them have entirely different agendas but find this a convenient hook to use--just like the person who wrote the article used it as a hook.

I'm shrugging my shoulders at even initiating this thread on the basis of that article. Or are you waiting for amicus to come along and make this another marathon about nothing in particular?

May I suggest the General Board?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

I think youre pouting because your point is limp.

I have no idea what AMICUS' plans are. We dont consult each other or compare notes. But I agree with about 99% of what he posts...except for Julia Roberts. I dont get Julia Roberts.

 

[sr71plt]

SR71PLT

I think youre pouting because your point is limp.

I have no idea what AMICUS' plans are. We dont consult each other or compare notes. But I agree with about 99% of what he posts...except for Julia Roberts. I dont get Julia Roberts.

I'm not pouting. I'm still wondering what the hell you were trying to say--and why you didn't read/absorb my posts.

May I suggest the General Board?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SR71PLT

May I suggest you roost on a thread more to your liking? Or start one of your own.

I got your point. Men are mean to Hillary because she's a strong gurl.

 

[jomar]

There was an interesting bit on NPR yesterday that, unfortunately, I listened to with less than half an ear. I tried to search for it but couldn't find it. Anyway, a psychologist was doing leadership studies and looking a gender differences.

According to the studies we do expect different things of men and women in leadership roles and the men and women tend to lead differently.

I'm sure I'm getting the specifics wrong, but I think part of the findings were that men are expected to be strong and if they are supportive that's a bonus. Women are expected to be strong and supportive - if not supportive they are then viewed less positively. I don't recall how they defined supportive, if that's the right term.

There was also an element of leaderships in which women were better than men, and this was a positive. Men who also had this element were also highly successful. As I'm writing this it seems it had to do with an emotional intelligence, though that phrase wasn't used, that secured loyalty, and better a higher level of consensus, out of high respect.

I'll try to find the source again. I think you'd find it interesting.

 

[sr71plt]

SR71PLT

May I suggest you roost on a thread more to your liking? Or start one of your own.

I got your point. Men are mean to Hillary because she's a strong gurl.

Yep, but that's only half the point. Women are mean to her for the same reason.

 

[slyc_willie]

There was an interesting bit on NPR yesterday that, unfortunately, I listened to with less than half an ear. I tried to search for it but couldn't find it. Anyway, a psychologist was doing leadership studies and looking a gender differences.

According to the studies we do expect different things of men and women in leadership roles and the men and women tend to lead differently.

I'm sure I'm getting the specifics wrong, but I think part of the findings were that men are expected to be strong and if they are supportive that's a bonus. Women are expected to be strong and supportive - if not supportive they are then viewed less positively. I don't recall how they defined supportive, if that's the right term.

There was also an element of leaderships in which women were better than men, and this was a positive. Men who also had this element were also highly successful. As I'm writing this it seems it had to do with an emotional intelligence, though that phrase wasn't used, that secured loyalty, and better a higher level of consensus, out of high respect.

I'll try to find the source again. I think you'd find it interesting.

So . . . more is expected of women, since they are deemed better natural nurturers, and if they meet those expectations, they are seen as more effective leaders. Obviously, though, they are more scrutinized for their actions because the expectations are higher.

 

[jomar]

So . . . more is expected of women, since they are deemed better natural nurturers, and if they meet those expectations, they are seen as more effective leaders. Obviously, though, they are more scrutinized for their actions because the expectations are higher.

They may not be seen as more effective leaders if they are 'supportive,' but are 'punished' if they are not. Expectations are tougher.

 

[slyc_willie]

They may not be seen as more effective leaders if they are 'supportive,' but are 'punished' if they are not. Expectations are tougher.

My previous GM where I work (and she may come back, we're not sure) told me once how she had to work twice as hard as male managers to get to where she was. But she became a managing partner more quickly than any man did in the country, and she's one of the best managers I've ever worked under. Sure, she can be a pain in the ass and has a temper to rival Hera's, but everyone works like a cog in a machine when she's around.

So, she met her heightened expectations and is extraordinarily effective.

Politics, however, is a different arena, I understand.

 

[jomar]

My previous GM where I work (and she may come back, we're not sure) told me once how she had to work twice as hard as male managers to get to where she was. But she became a managing partner more quickly than any man did in the country, and she's one of the best managers I've ever worked under. Sure, she can be a pain in the ass and has a temper to rival Hera's, but everyone works like a cog in a machine when she's around.

So, she met her heightened expectations and is extraordinarily effective.

Politics, however, is a different arena, I understand.

There ya go.

Yeah. I'm sure the NPR interview was spurred by politics, but I don't think the research was specific to politics, though certainly has relevance.

 

[slyc_willie]

There ya go.

Yeah. I'm sure the NPR interview was spurred by politics, but I don't think the research was specific to politics, though certainly has relevance.

I think it's a function of how high up on the ladder a woman is. At lower levels, equality is almost a given. But when you get to management opportunities, leaderships positions, heading companies and countries, the stakes, scrutiny and expectations grow considerably.

 

[sr71plt]

My previous GM where I work (and she may come back, we're not sure) told me once how she had to work twice as hard as male managers to get to where she was. But she became a managing partner more quickly than any man did in the country, and she's one of the best managers I've ever worked under. Sure, she can be a pain in the ass and has a temper to rival Hera's, but everyone works like a cog in a machine when she's around.

So, she met her heightened expectations and is extraordinarily effective.

Politics, however, is a different arena, I understand.

Well, now, my problem with that is that she has no idea--or capability of knowing--that she's worked twice as hard to get where she got. The grass is greener and ego-centered perceptions and all that. When people start making sweeping assumptive statements about themselves in relation to others like this, I tend to move a little in the other direction.

 

[slyc_willie]

Well, now, my problem with that is that she has no idea--or capability of knowing--that she's worked twice as hard to get where she got. The grass is greener and ego-centered perceptions and all that. When people start making sweeping assumptive statements about themselves in relation to others like this, I tend to move a little in the other direction.

Good point. I'll agree with the ego-centered perception. She certainly has that. But our company is fairly large, with over 230 restaurants and a management team that is soemthing like 70% male. Whether my GM actually had to work twice as hard could be in question.

But she sure as hell got more respect than any of the male managers. But that could just be a function of her personality.

Thanks for the perspective.

 

[jomar]

I think it's a function of how high up on the ladder a woman is. At lower levels, equality is almost a given. But when you get to management opportunities, leaderships positions, heading companies and countries, the stakes, scrutiny and expectations grow considerably.

Well, now, my problem with that is that she has no idea--or capability of knowing--that she's worked twice as hard to get where she got. The grass is greener and ego-centered perceptions and all that. When people start making sweeping assumptive statements about themselves in relation to others like this, I tend to move a little in the other direction.

There may actually be something to a woman having to 'work harder,' though overcoming more bias may be what that means. And you're right sr, hard to quantify.

Another aspect of the studies was that men quickly rise to leadership positions when they work in female dominated arenas, and we all know about the 'glass ceiling.' I can't recall what was said about women rising in female dominated businesses.

 

[sr71plt]

There may actually be something to a woman having to 'work harder,' though overcoming more bias may be what that means. And you're right sr, hard to quantify.

Another aspect of the studies was that men quickly rise to leadership positions when they work in female dominated arenas, and we all know about the 'glass ceiling.' I can't recall what was said about women rising in female dominated businesses.

What I had trouble with as a senior manager was in getting women managers to fully value what their women subordinates working toward advancement were doing (we had to actually develop a program to get woman managers to mentor other women). I was working in the federal government. The men were terrified of all the pro-woman regulations that existed in advancement and bent over backward to fairer than fair to their women management trainees. That said, if the men thought their men senior managers were just, wink, wink, following the form, many of them would rally the wagons around. Lots of women in senior management where I worked, though. Some helped other women move up; most didn't. If you just looked at the laws and regulations, all of the inequality was toward white men.

 

[jomar]

What I had trouble with as a senior manager was in getting women managers to fully value what their women subordinates working toward advancement were doing (we had to actually develop a program to get woman managers to mentor other women). I was working in the federal government. The men were terrified of all the pro-woman regulations that existed in advancement and bent over backward to fairer than fair to their women management trainees. That said, if the men thought their men senior managers were just, wink, wink, following the form, many of them would rally the wagons around. Lots of women in senior management where I worked, though. Some helped other women move up; most didn't. If you just looked at the laws and regulations, all of the inequality was toward white men.

Good 'ole boy system meets, I don't know, something increasingly surreal regulationwise. Interesting that women didn't naturally support other women. My wife's female boss has risen above her level of competence and is doing all of the wrong things. Very poor leader.