Go Ahead, Let Outrage Start the Much Needed Gender Conversation

Is it just me, or is the conversation around gender heating up a bit these days? There's buzz from groups that run the spectrum -- from what might be called 'raging feminism" to what might then be called "raging anti-feminism" - talking about organizational leadership and speaker lists to name two areas that struggle with gender issues. These are all worthwhile discussions, but really - when it gets down to it, not much progress is being made. These public or media-raised discussions are really the same old "girls vs boys" set-up presented in a more self-satisfied and seemingly sophisticated way. Why must gender always boil the dialogue of otherwise smart people down to its most polarizing essence?

One reason may be that for the most sensitive topics in life, it often takes a mud-slinging, uncomfortable fight to get back to the make-up sex, or at least to get back to honest conversation. Are we there yet?

A recent kerfuffle about a "ten to know" speakers list got me thinking about this. The list was published to an immediate uproar over its representation of solely males. The venom flew on Twitter, and follow-up mea culpas ensued. The argument looked to be that such a list should automatically be half women and half men. Yet, was that really the point? Shouldn't such a speakers list instead represent a true diversity of style, background and delivery on said topic?

Along those same lines, a New York Times blog also recently ran a "Room for Debate" discussion. Given the input of the six experts (including one male) and the public comments, the consensus looked to be that yes -- the characteristics or qualities women tend to bring to the leadership table are particularly helpful. For me, what Getting to 50/50 co-author Sharon Meers contributed in that post said it all:

So here's the real question: How to make the positive qualities we see in female managers more common in men -- and more useful to all? A new report from Catalyst shows how companies win when we escape the idea that men and women are so different and work harder to get on the same page -- so that men and women bring out the best in each other sharing the same C-suite.

Just as companies "win" when men and women work harder to get on the same page, so too do speaker lists, conference agendas and a lot of other typical organizations. What we are really looking for is not a fight to the death between men and women to see who is "better." Rather we should be identifying those qualities women tend to have that make them what Gary N. Powell, also quoted in the NYT post, called "transformational leaders." According to him:

Transformational leadership includes charisma (communicating the purpose and importance of a mission and serving as a role model), inspirational motivation (exuding optimism and excitement about the mission's attainability), intellectual stimulation (encouraging others to think out of the box), and individualized consideration (focusing on the development and mentoring of subordinates as individuals).

Are any of those things gender-specific? No. Men, indeed, have the potential of charisma, the potential to exude optimism, and the potential to be able to encourage others or be interested in mentorship programs. Our organizations and corporations may just need more gender nuance training.

But, whatever you do, don't call such a training workshop: "Teaching men how to think like women." Argh! Rather, skip the outrage-inducing language and tell it like it is. How about a title like: "Leveraging Your Right-Brain Leadership Skills "(as per Daniel Pink's perspective in A Whole New Mind), for example? That's a straightforward, non-confrontational way to categorize the types of skills today's leaders really need -- no gender (and thus, less outrage) about it.

The truth is that when we focus on the qualities or characteristics of good leaders or speakers, we will get men and women on the same page. Along the way, we will find a broader diversity in gender (and race, creed, religion, too) to share with and learn from.

To me, the various levels of societal outrage about gender exist mainly because so many of those involved have so much baggage in life experience and history to unpack. That's fine, and it is the way it is. But, let's simply acknowledge that fact, and move on through. If a "men vs women" set-up is what it takes to get us frustrated enough to really talk about the characteristics that matter for leaders and healthy organizations -- let's start a fight.

Follow Andrea Learned on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndreaLearned

Comments

[eshepard]

Glad to see a focus more on the characteristics of good leaders or speakers regardless of gender. Clearly there are lessons to be learned from both sides, by both sides.

However, I think this will continue to be a difficult conversation until women earn exactly the same as men for the same work, and are equally represented in corporate America. Studies show that the pay gap is still very real, and that there are still comparatively few women at the upper and upper-mid levels of our leading companies. Those facts are (slowly) changing for the better, and as they do so will this debate.

[RichNads]

Thank God Andrea, that you're trying to stop making this a competition. It's not either or, it's both. There's not much difference, in my experience, between a predominantly female run company from a male run company. Each predominance brings it's own level of dysfunction.

Let's learn from each other for that balance. That's when it works the best.

[Social Construct]

I have no preference in what gender a leader is. Having spent a fair amount of time on this earth and seeing both good and bad leaders of every description we can label human beings, I'd just like to see more competent leadership in all sectors of society; that seems to be what we have a real shortage of. A good start would be to appoint leaders based on a history of qualification, aptitude and a pragmatic vision of long term benefits versus cronyism, class-ism and short sightedness.

[drkazmd65]

Exactly Social Construct.

I have been in the workforce in at least a part-time capacity since ~1983. Full-time capacity (post-graduate) since 1994. I've had bosses & supervisors of both genders. Each has had their indivudial strengths and weaknesses. Each has had a management 'style' different than the other. The best of the lot (so far) to my personal taste has been male,... but so has the worst one.

Leadership is a quality hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worse when they despise him....But of a good leader who talks little when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, "We did it ourselves.""
- Lao Tzu

"Leadership: the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Social Construct]

Excellent examples. Thanks.

[fredwenn]

Women are NOT more compassionate or understanding in business!!

Sorry... but if you have a problem with your bank, your lender, your statements - ANYTHING - and call -

I'm sorry... women always have an agenda.

They are more often than not - petty, vindictive, and unwilling to give refunds or apologies.

I always call back and try for a man. Men hand out refund and credits much much more frequently.

Women are just petty in those circumstances.... and nasty.

This is my take after 45 years in the trenches of business... dealing with suppliers, customers, advertising, banks, utilities, and government agencies.

Women are NOT compassionate in business... they are usually petty.

Next time a woman says NO to a request.... call back and get a man... see the difference.

[pepper47]

Logic, and creativity are located in a persons mind.
Left brain, or left handed. They are physical traits.
If we want to be "whole mind" It must include all of the bad,
along with the good.
Maybe to be "Like minded" is better.

[mydwyf]

The thing about 'men and women working harder to get on the same page' is that 'the page' is still male defined.

[lastcallmd]

Nancy Pelosi. That's it.

[CharlieMarlowe]

"Are any of those things gender-specific? No. Men, indeed, have the potential of charisma"

Men have the potential? When sociologist Max Weber analyzed leadership styles he differentiated the "charismatic" from the "bureaucratic" type of leader. Back then it was just assumed that leaders were men, thereofore the charismatic style was a male trait. I am fascinated by the ability of feminists to take male character traits, such as charisma, claim that are they "female" and then say that men can be this way, too.

[KillTheMessenger]

I didn't notice. Maybe that's because I know plenty of female company officers, including a CEO or two.

It all depends on who you know...

:-)

[bluevase]

Did you read Bob Herbert's column in the NYTimes today? It's about the increasing violence against women in our society. I assume you do not have a daughter.