Hillary and the Gender Issue

Hillary Clinton's tough comeback campaign refocuses attention on the important issue of women and leadership. Does gender really matter?
Management experts argue that leadership is increasingly a "woman's world." Research shows the increased success of what was once considered a "feminine style". In terms of gender stereotypes, a feminine style is collaborative, participatory, integrative, and aimed at co-opting the behavior of followers. Women intuitively understand the soft power of attraction while men gravitate to the hard power of command.
Women's non-hierarchical style and relational skills fit a leadership need in the new world of knowledge based organizations and groups that men are less well prepared by society to fill, and men need to learn these skills as well as to value them in their women colleagues.
In the past, in terms of gender stereotypes, when women fought their way to the top of organizations, they often had to adopt a "masculine style," violating the broader social norm of female "niceness," and they were often punished for it. In the new view, with the information revolution and democratization demanding more participatory and integrative leadership, the "feminine style" is becoming a path to more effective leadership. A number of studies confirm the increased success of what was once considered a "feminine style of leadership."
Nonetheless, as I argue in my new book The Powers to Lead, it is a mistake to identify the new type of leadership we need in an information age as "a woman's world." Even positive stereotypes are bad for women, men, and effective leadership. We need to see leaders less in heroic terms of command that George W. Bush has touted and more in terms of soft power skills of attracting and inspiring participation throughout an organization, group, nation or network. Questions of appropriate style -- when to use hard and soft power skills -- are equally relevant for men and women, and should not be clouded by traditional gender stereotypes. In some circumstances men will need to act more "like women" and women more "like men." The key choices will depend upon individual skills, not on gender. That is what voters need to look for in the three remaining candidates for president. Whatever the outcome, Hillary Clinton's comeback has raised the right questions.

Comments

[moderationsmuse]

You wrote in an earlier blog that: "The effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks have thrown us off course. Since the shock of 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger rather than our more traditional values of hope and optimism. Guantanamo has become a more powerful global icon than the Statue of Liberty." You say now that "We need to see leaders less in heroic terms of command that George W. Bush has touted," this kind of generalization might sound good in a blog, but it has little substance. Let's hope your book is more cogent both as to broad ideas and their manifestations.

Consider for instance the American "image" overseas. We hear about this constantly in the media and I hear anecdotal comments from friends who travel a lot so I'm willing to grant that we might have an "image problem." But why does the government have to address this problem as though it were exclusively a foreign policy issue? It once used to be true that the US was isolated and that travel overseas was exceptional. In that long ago time, diplomacy between governments was crucial as being the essential tie between countries. But that isn't so anymore.
Millions of Americans travel. If we have an "image" problem, maybe it's not the government that lies behind it. It might be comforting to blame it on Mr. Bush. But my sense is that Mr. Bush's exit from the stage will not suddenly solve our relationship with the world. Maybe we're the problem. Do you want ambassadors? You already have hundreds of thousands of them. Maybe it's the American visiting overseas who needs to rethink the "image" they cast on this country when they travel. And if we don't like the image, maybe it's time to stop blaming the president and start looking in the mirror.
As to gender, we have plenty of ambassadors of both types visiting the world. But let's consider this idea of Bush as touting heroic command. Yeah, I'm not seeing Hilliary in that role. Her husband didn't project heroism abroad either. Al Quida, the locus for an Islamic renaissance movement in the Middle East, is a male-dominated ideology. (It also has much more in common with communism than is generally acknowledged, but that's another and ironic story.)
I'll ask you, what will be the likely Islamic response to a victory by Hilliary Clinton (after surprise -- that is)? Yes, it matters there that Hilliary is a woman. It matters there more than it matters here. Here, we'd be wise to ask ourselves what kind of woman she is. For myself, I don't see her as anyone I want leading this country. Hence her gender is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
But it's not irrelevant to them. Our foreign policy in the Middle East would be a harder, a more uphill climb with Hilliary in charge. Her first problem would be how to respond after a new wave of terrorist attacks, because her arrival would signal to them that it's time to hit us again. After all, the Clinton years would be back.
The bombing of two African embassies, the bombing of the USS Cole, and of course the bombing of the World Trade Center and the retreat after Black Hawk down.
If you think we need Hilliary's mothering and nurturing skills to heal the world, you're sadly mistaken. Sometimes military power is the only effective solution. But don't we forget that the threat of military action means something too. And sometimes the threat is as good as the deed -- better, in fact -- by making the deed unnecessary. Who will talk softly and carry a big stick?
The first Clinton thought terrorism was a law enforcement problem. As a consequence we got a war. Maybe we need somebody who realizes we're at war, so that we can win get peace. Remember winning? Interesting concept.
We have an image problem overseas. And we have an immigration problem here at home. How can that be? Evidently we don't have an image problem everywhere. In some locales, we are the longed for destination. Let's not forget that.