swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on May 9, 2017 8:59:21 GMT -5
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on May 9, 2017 9:25:55 GMT -5
Interesting article. The main premis is that Male Confidence is often misinterpreted as Competence, and they indicate
Both the best and worst boss I ever had, were Female. The President of my current company can be difficult to work with, but I would not describe him as self-centered, overconfident or narcissistic. I think Confidence and Competence are equally important. I guess companies get into trouble if the misjudge the Competence Component.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 9, 2017 12:29:33 GMT -5
from swamps article
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 9, 2017 12:56:09 GMT -5
I read this as another male bashing article. Women would be up in arms if this was said about them
"that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. "
What I don't understand is if we all agree that leaders have certain characteristics, why don't we try to teach women how to let go of their meek and mild personalities and compete with the men instead of asking everyone else to change what they think is a good leader?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2017 13:05:57 GMT -5
I read this as another male bashing article. Women would be up in arms if this was said about them
"that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. "
What I don't understand is if we all agree that leaders have certain characteristics, why don't we try to teach women how to let go of their meek and mild personalities and compete with the men instead of asking everyone else to change what they think is a good leader?
My biggest thought here is not that these characteristics are "not equally common in men and women", but that they likely ARE equally common, but manifest themselves differently in many cases.
Part of the problem according to the article though is that leaders HAVE these characteristics...but these characteristics make for poor leaders. So the question then becomes whether you care more about BEING a poor leader, or having a less opportune shot at being a leader but being a good one if you are. That really applies to both men and women...have the characteristics to be more likely to be chosen as a leader...or have the characteristics to be more likely to be a good leader but be less likely to be chosen. Maybe what we're seeing is that dynamic at play. Maybe it's simply that women naturally care more about being GOOD at something, while men in general care more about the accomplishment of HAVING something.
ETA: The issue seems to be the dichotomy of what a GOOD leader is, vs the personality most likely to be SELECTED to be a leader...which are poor traits. So we're stuck either encouraging women to be good leaders but under-served in management...or to be more likely to be selected as leader...at which point they're likely to fail once they get the position. In the former...we seem to at least have slow growth. In the latter...it's not hard to imagine that women get written off as "bad leaders, just look at all the chances we gave them and they were terrible" if we purposely create bad leaders out of them in order to get them in the door. It's a tough decision for everyone (not just women)...traits to get you something don't always line up with the traits to be good at that something.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 9, 2017 13:28:39 GMT -5
I read this as another male bashing article. Women would be up in arms if this was said about them
"that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. "
What I don't understand is if we all agree that leaders have certain characteristics, why don't we try to teach women how to let go of their meek and mild personalities and compete with the men instead of asking everyone else to change what they think is a good leader?
did you the article in it's entirety? The point was that these characteristic do NOT make a good leader.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on May 9, 2017 13:28:43 GMT -5
I read this as another male bashing article. Women would be up in arms if this was said about them
"that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. "
What I don't understand is if we all agree that leaders have certain characteristics, why don't we try to teach women how to let go of their meek and mild personalities and compete with the men instead of asking everyone else to change what they think is a good leader?
But shouldn't we want good leadership?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on May 9, 2017 13:29:32 GMT -5
I read this as another male bashing article. Women would be up in arms if this was said about them
"that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. "
What I don't understand is if we all agree that leaders have certain characteristics, why don't we try to teach women how to let go of their meek and mild personalities and compete with the men instead of asking everyone else to change what they think is a good leader?
My biggest thought here is not that these characteristics are "not equally common in men and women", but that they likely ARE equally common, but manifest themselves differently in many cases.
Part of the problem according to the article though is that leaders HAVE these characteristics...but these characteristics make for poor leaders. So the question then becomes whether you care more about BEING a poor leader, or having a less opportune shot at being a leader but being a good one if you are. That really applies to both men and women...have the characteristics to be more likely to be chosen as a leader...or have the characteristics to be more likely to be a good leader but be less likely to be chosen. Maybe what we're seeing is that dynamic at play. Maybe it's simply that women naturally care more about being GOOD at something, while men in general care more about the accomplishment of HAVING something.
ETA: The issue seems to be the dichotomy of what a GOOD leader is, vs the personality most likely to be SELECTED to be a leader...which are poor traits. So we're stuck either encouraging women to be good leaders but under-served in management...or to be more likely to be selected as leader...at which point they're likely to fail once they get the position. In the former...we seem to at least have slow growth. In the latter...it's not hard to imagine that women get written off as "bad leaders, just look at all the chances we gave them and they were terrible" if we purposely create bad leaders out of them in order to get them in the door. It's a tough decision for everyone (not just women)...traits to get you something don't always line up with the traits to be good at that something.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 9, 2017 13:33:25 GMT -5
I read this as another male bashing article. Women would be up in arms if this was said about them
"that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. "
What I don't understand is if we all agree that leaders have certain characteristics, why don't we try to teach women how to let go of their meek and mild personalities and compete with the men instead of asking everyone else to change what they think is a good leader?
But shouldn't we want good leadership? I'm not disagreeing. But I am disagreeing that men are more narcissistic, etc.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on May 9, 2017 13:37:16 GMT -5
But shouldn't we want good leadership? I'm not disagreeing. But I am disagreeing that men are more narcissistic, etc. I disagree on that too.
I think hoops is right, that narcissism and other personality disorders generally manifest differently in the sexes. Also, men often get "rewarded" socially for behaviors that are deemed "leaderly"(aggression, assertiveness, extreme confidence) while women aren't rewarded for it.
I do think we need to reassess what qualities are best for leadership and how to get the best out of workers.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on May 9, 2017 13:44:14 GMT -5
I read this as another male bashing article. Women would be up in arms if this was said about them
"that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. "
What I don't understand is if we all agree that leaders have certain characteristics, why don't we try to teach women how to let go of their meek and mild personalities and compete with the men instead of asking everyone else to change what they think is a good leader?
But I read the article as saying that the qualities women bring to management are better Management tools that the self centered/over confidence men often bring. I thought the point was to get people to value Women for who they are/what they have to offer without changing them or teaching them to be more like Men.
MT, You are a successful Female Leader - What personality characteristics do you think got you where you are today?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 9, 2017 13:45:31 GMT -5
I read this as another male bashing article. Women would be up in arms if this was said about them
"that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. "
What I don't understand is if we all agree that leaders have certain characteristics, why don't we try to teach women how to let go of their meek and mild personalities and compete with the men instead of asking everyone else to change what they think is a good leader?
did you the article in it's entirety? The point was that these characteristic do NOT make a good leader. hbr.org/2004/01/narcissistic-leaders-the-incredible-pros-the-inevitable-cons
Leaders such as Jack Welch and George Soros are examples of productive narcissists. They are gifted and creative strategists who see the big picture and find meaning in the risky challenge of changing the world and leaving behind a legacy. Indeed, one reason we look to productive narcissists in times of great transition is that they have the audacity to push through the massive transformations that society periodically undertakes. Productive narcissists are not only risk takers willing to get the job done but also charmers who can convert the masses with their rhetoric. The danger is that narcissism can turn unproductive when, lacking self-knowledge and restraining anchors, narcissists become unrealistic dreamers. They nurture grand schemes and harbor the illusion that only circumstances or enemies block their success. This tendency toward grandiosity and distrust is the Achilles’ heel of narcissists. Because of it, even brilliant narcissists can come under suspicion for self-involvement, unpredictability, and—in extreme cases—paranoia
When talking about the erotic personality type, however, Freud generally did not mean a sexual personality but rather one for whom loving and above all being loved is most important. This type of individual is dependent on those people they fear will stop loving them. Many erotics are teachers, nurses, and social workers. At their most productive, they are developers of the young as well as enablers and helpers at work. As managers, they are caring and supportive, but they avoid conflict and make people dependent on them. They are, according to Freud, outer-directed people.
Strengths of the Narcissistic Leader
When it comes to leadership, personality type can be instructive. Erotic personalities generally make poor managers—they need too much approval. Obsessives make better leaders—they are your operational managers: critical and cautious. But it is narcissists who come closest to our collective image of great leaders. There are two reasons for this: they have compelling, even gripping, visions for companies, and they have an ability to attract followers.
So there is some good to having narcissistic risk-takers...there are also risks associated with narcissists. And the Erotic personality sounds like a people pleaser...something women are accused of being and is noted as being the worst personality for being a leader.
I look to my company and I honestly can't imagine a soft-spoken, cautious person at the helm. They would get steam-rolled.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 9, 2017 13:53:38 GMT -5
I read this as another male bashing article. Women would be up in arms if this was said about them
"that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. "
What I don't understand is if we all agree that leaders have certain characteristics, why don't we try to teach women how to let go of their meek and mild personalities and compete with the men instead of asking everyone else to change what they think is a good leader?
But I read the article as saying that the qualities women bring to management are better Management tools that the self centered/over confidence men often bring. I thought the point was to get people to value Women for who they are/what they have to offer without changing them or teaching them to be more like Men.
MT, You are a successful Female Leader - What personality characteristics do you think got you where you are today?
I have never been accused of being a shrinking violet....
I don't think meek and mild people, regardless of the sex, will become leaders. You need a certain personality to not only put up with the bullshit but also for people to see you as a leader. I have been in meetings where the mild person can't even get a word in...and sadly sometimes these are super smart people. But if you can't command respect (and being ignored means you aren't respected) then you aren't leadership material. They key for a board is to find someone with the right personality who also has the right vision for the company and isn't too arrogant.
And I do agree that women are more likely to be mild mannered than men, but not always. I have a female staff member who must apologize to me 5 times a day. She is smart but completely lacks confidence in herself and her abilities. I am trying to mentor her but it is very hard to change someone's personality.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on May 9, 2017 13:58:28 GMT -5
I think my Daughter could easily have Narcissitic tendencies. I would not take credit for "teaching" her these skills as I don't feel that I have them myself. My son describes me as a Feminist, but I don't feel I necessarily am. I swear my Daughter got more of DH's genes and she has had a similar personality to him from infancy on.
I wonder how easy it is to "teach" these behaviors to Women.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 9, 2017 14:03:41 GMT -5
I think my Daughter could easily have Narcissitic tendencies. I would not take credit for "teaching" her these skills as I don't feel that I have them myself. My son describes me as a Feminist, but I don't feel I necessarily am. I swear my Daughter got more of DH's genes and she has had a similar personality to him from infancy on.
I wonder how easy it is to "teach" these behaviors to Women. My oldest has my personality and as much as it drives me nuts raising her, I know it will serve her well when she starts her career.
I have no idea how much is nature vs. nurture. But I am a firm believer in me adapting to what the world wants versus the world adapting to what I can offer. So if we are saying it is the female personality that holds her back, then we must focus on changing the female personality. I know what I consider a good leader and it is someone smart but definitely someone with a much stronger personality.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2017 14:03:56 GMT -5
There's a LOT of middle ground between narcissistic, overconfident, self-centered...and soft-spoken, cautious people.
"But it is narcissists who come closest to our collective image of great leaders. There are two reasons for this: they have compelling, even gripping, visions for companies, and they have an ability to attract followers."
Yes, but a big part of the problem is that our "collective image of great leaders" isn't very good. We're more concerned with the image rather than whether they're actually any good. There are very few jobs where being a "leader" means purely having the ability to attract followers. They might have compelling visions for the future...but as noted in the article...more often than not, they fail. People are more interested in the rare success stories of the charisma, the big change that worked...and ignore all the very good leaders who keep companies plugging along for decades without making waves. It's not much different than our societal obsession with lottery winners and our relative ignoring of folks who just make money by doing their job and not making poor decisions like playing the lottery. You make a poor decision...it works out spectacularly in spite of your poor decision...and you're celebrated.
Our collective image of a great leader probably isn't that much different than our collective image of a great gambler...they're very similar. All the great storied gamblers are charismatic men (mostly) who took crazy risks and came out on top, and charm you while they do it. Most people like this fail and are relegated to obscurity, but we don't talk about them. The biggest hurdle is that our collective image in general is off. It's not reality. The really good gamblers aren't out there making stupid bets that pay off big, they're grinding away in obscurity for the most part because they aren't risking too much at any one time, they're finding places they have an edge, etc. Same for the really good leaders.
Making a bad decision that ends up paying off positively doesn't make someone a good decision-maker...in some cases it simply means they hit the lottery. Someone is going to. But hindsight attributes the success to skill, and relegates the doubters to being wrong. No different than if someone tells me how great playing the lottery is because they know these specific numbers are going to win. I tell them it's a bad financial decision...they hit it big and win...that doesn't make them right and me wrong...it makes them the recipient of luck in spite of their decision.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 9, 2017 14:12:43 GMT -5
I think my Daughter could easily have Narcissitic tendencies. I would not take credit for "teaching" her these skills as I don't feel that I have them myself. My son describes me as a Feminist, but I don't feel I necessarily am. I swear my Daughter got more of DH's genes and she has had a similar personality to him from infancy on.
I wonder how easy it is to "teach" these behaviors to Women. My oldest has my personality and as much as it drives me nuts raising her, I know it will serve her well when she starts her career.
I have no idea how much is nature vs. nurture. But I am a firm believer in me adapting to what the world wants versus the world adapting to what I can offer. So if we are saying it is the female personality that holds her back, then we must focus on changing the female personality. I know what I consider a good leader and it is someone smart but definitely someone with a much stronger personality.
But what we're saying is that it's the female personality which holds her back from becoming a frequent but shitty leader. The question is should ANYONE aspire to be that. Is it more important that you BE a leader, or that if you become a leader that you're GOOD at it? You're not a good leader if you convince a bunch of people to follow you off a cliff to their death. Because that's what the article is about...it's about the qualities that get you SELECTED to be a leader...and that those qualities make bad leaders once they get there. So even if you CAN teach it...should we? Would you rather have a 70% chance to be a leader but be bad at it? Or a 20% chance to be a leader but be good at it? We seem to teach males to be leaders regardless, and women to be good but less likely to be in the position. I'm not sure trying to teach women to be more likely to be a leader but being bad at leading is actually desirable.
The shift that needs to happen is that regardless of gender, we need to focus on elevating leaders who are actually good at leading...as opposed to elevating leaders who we allow to convince us they'll be good at leading when they are not.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on May 9, 2017 17:33:54 GMT -5
I don't know. I've had one great principal that was male and one pretty good principal that was female. The rest of the male and female principals sucked big time with the same personality traits. They were untrustworthy, they lied, they'd throw you under the bus, they'd sabotage your efforts to escape them. Two faced rotten stinkers.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on May 9, 2017 18:05:57 GMT -5
I think we need to start with respecting all voices in a conversation, regardless of how quiet they are. No one should have to shout to be heard in a room with a dozen or fewer people in it. I admit I make my voice well heard at work, and I have helped to make some beneficial changes to the way we do things. Was I a good leader? I don't necessarily think so.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 9, 2017 18:25:25 GMT -5
I think we need to start with respecting all voices in a conversation, regardless of how quiet they are. No one should have to shout to be heard in a room with a dozen or fewer people in it. I admit I make my voice well heard at work, and I have helped to make some beneficial changes to the way we do things. Was I a good leader? I don't necessarily think so. Easier said than done. You have a room of 10 people, 9 of which have strong personalities. The 10th one just gets lost. It's just the way it is. I'm not saying it's right but it is what normally happens. I do try to give a voice to those I know are more reserved but at some point they need to come out of their shell.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 9, 2017 18:27:27 GMT -5
My oldest has my personality and as much as it drives me nuts raising her, I know it will serve her well when she starts her career.
I have no idea how much is nature vs. nurture. But I am a firm believer in me adapting to what the world wants versus the world adapting to what I can offer. So if we are saying it is the female personality that holds her back, then we must focus on changing the female personality. I know what I consider a good leader and it is someone smart but definitely someone with a much stronger personality.
But what we're saying is that it's the female personality which holds her back from becoming a frequent but shitty leader. The question is should ANYONE aspire to be that. Is it more important that you BE a leader, or that if you become a leader that you're GOOD at it? You're not a good leader if you convince a bunch of people to follow you off a cliff to their death. Because that's what the article is about...it's about the qualities that get you SELECTED to be a leader...and that those qualities make bad leaders once they get there. So even if you CAN teach it...should we? Would you rather have a 70% chance to be a leader but be bad at it? Or a 20% chance to be a leader but be good at it? We seem to teach males to be leaders regardless, and women to be good but less likely to be in the position. I'm not sure trying to teach women to be more likely to be a leader but being bad at leading is actually desirable.
The shift that needs to happen is that regardless of gender, we need to focus on elevating leaders who are actually good at leading...as opposed to elevating leaders who we allow to convince us they'll be good at leading when they are not.
The article makes some wild assumptions which I don't necessarily agree with. Being confident does not necessarily make you a bad leader anymore than being the opposite of narcissist makes you a good leader. The minute the author started spewing that his men bashing I completely discredited him.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on May 9, 2017 18:28:14 GMT -5
I think we need to start with respecting all voices in a conversation, regardless of how quiet they are. No one should have to shout to be heard in a room with a dozen or fewer people in it. I admit I make my voice well heard at work, and I have helped to make some beneficial changes to the way we do things. Was I a good leader? I don't necessarily think so. Easier said than done. You have a room of 10 people, 9 of which have strong personalities. The 10th one just gets lost. It's just the way it is. I'm not saying it's right but it is what normally happens. trust me, I have seen it happen many times so I know. Once I was lucky enough to witness the beginning of a nervous breakdown during a meeting with a bunch of directors - that was a first....
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on May 9, 2017 20:46:55 GMT -5
I've mentioned before the book I read "The confidence code". Evidently there really is science behind the fact that men do have more of a "confidence" gene.
And of course there is the "nature" part that pre-conditions women to be "nice" and "polite", etc. So even when women do get to positions of leadership and power, they second guess themselves a lot more than men.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 9, 2017 21:12:44 GMT -5
More so in my college days, but I do agree that narcissists and over confident people are often searching out leadership roles and are often selected. Professionally I haven't really run against that much...but I've only been with three companies and I usually clash with that type immediately so I'm not surprised I've mostly avoided it. I will say there are times where I've been confident in my work but wanted to point out the flaws/holes that couldn't be mitigate and was sort of chastised for pointing that out.
I often took on leadership roles in college, but rarely fought for it. Mostly because I found it easier to manipulate them to a better place as an underling than trying to wrangle as a leader - unless I had big backing. The one time I fought hard was in a sports club, and idiots we're coming up to me months later apologizing for fucking up and choosing the guy that was all talk and just did what benefited him. Shocker.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on May 9, 2017 22:49:26 GMT -5
I question the bias of the study.
The author flat out states women are better leaders than men and provides "facts" to back it up. It's kind of ironic considering the main thrust of the argument is that women's leadership styles differ from men,but are considred "better" instead of just different. Either the qualities that make a good leader are subjective or they are not.
In my personal experience, i've had jerk managers of both the male and female varities. By the same token, I've had good male and female managers. Good and bad leaders come in all shapes and sizes. I definitely agree that good leadership is the exception and not the rule. In fact, I'd argue that to reach the highest echelons in politics or business, you pretty much have to have a certain level of narccisim, regardless of gender. People don't run to become the president of the united states because it's fun or an easy job, they do it to cement their place in history.
And what's wrong with confidence? If you can't believe in yourself how are you going to convince anyone to believe in your vision?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on May 10, 2017 8:18:21 GMT -5
I question the bias of the study.
The author flat out states women are better leaders than men and provides "facts" to back it up. It's kind of ironic considering the main thrust of the argument is that women's leadership styles differ from men,but are considred "better" instead of just different. Either the qualities that make a good leader are subjective or they are not.
In my personal experience, i've had jerk managers of both the male and female varities. By the same token, I've had good male and female managers. Good and bad leaders come in all shapes and sizes. I definitely agree that good leadership is the exception and not the rule. In fact, I'd argue that to reach the highest echelons in politics or business, you pretty much have to have a certain level of narccisim, regardless of gender. People don't run to become the president of the united states because it's fun or an easy job, they do it to cement their place in history.
And what's wrong with confidence? If you can't believe in yourself how are you going to convince anyone to believe in your vision?
That's why I ignored anything he had to say after that. His bias was evident right at the beginning of the article. I am a female but I am sick of the men bashing that seems to be ok anymore. If an article started out with "timid people make shitty leaders and since women are usually more timid they should never be leaders" no one would take this man article seriously.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on May 10, 2017 11:23:54 GMT -5
Since I work in tech, most of my managers have been men. The few female managers I've had have ranged from benevolently useless to bad, but the truly horrible managers have all been men. I've never received any mentoring from a female manager.
I have to wonder if more women have enough self awareness to know they would make terrible managers, while the men just go for it. I've seen a lot of guys who clearly don't have what it takes to lead getting themselves into middle management.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on May 10, 2017 11:58:01 GMT -5
At my company, there have been conversations at our yearly "state of the business" meetings about getting more women into upper management and executive roles. Often those roles require a certain level of education and experience - so you're looking at people in the 30+ year old range. They also typically require frequent travel - sometimes for weeks at a time and at short notice. They also typically require long hours at the office/answering emails 24/7. If these 30-something or older women had school aged children, they might not want to take on a job that would keep them away from their kids/spouse. Sure some women do take these jobs, but it's still more prevalent and accepted for a man to take on these roles.
I think a lot of women realize that to be upper management and above there are sacrifices they will have to make, and they don't wish to make them. That doesn't make them bad leaders - it just means they have different priorities.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,386
|
Post by movingforward on May 10, 2017 12:01:17 GMT -5
People get managing and leading mixed up. The two are very different. You can be a good manager and not necessarily a good leader and vice versa. Some are good at both and IMHO are the most effective in CEO roles, etc. Leadership is about making people WANT to follow you, while management is just that - managing people. People will do things not because they want to but because they have to. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that but managing people is not one in the same with leading people. Then there is the whole argument about EI/EQ (emotional intelligence) and how it affects you as a leader. Most of the people who are great leaders have high EQ. Gender doesn't really matter when it comes to EQ, you either have it or you don't have it. I actually give leadership seminars on this stuff...
Just in my personal experience, leadership styles seem to revolve more around age than they do gender.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on May 10, 2017 12:59:05 GMT -5
People get managing and leading mixed up. The two are very different. You can be a good manager and not necessarily a good leader and vice versa. Some are good at both and IMHO are the most effective in CEO roles, etc. Leadership is about making people WANT to follow you, while management is just that - managing people. People will do things not because they want to but because they have to. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that but managing people is not one in the same with leading people. Then there is the whole argument about EI/EQ (emotional intelligence) and how it affects you as a leader. Most of the people who are great leaders have high EQ. Gender doesn't really matter when it comes to EQ, you either have it or you don't have it. I actually give leadership seminars on this stuff... Just in my personal experience, leadership styles seem to revolve more around age than they do gender. I was just thinking this reading through some of the talk about managers and using it interchangeably with leaders. Some of my best managers have been atrocious leaders..."best" meaning they worked in a way that I enjoyed working for them. They had zero ability to inspire anyone to follow them though.
|
|