Leading Like a Girl: For Men Only?
Recently, the financial gurus at Motley Fool ran a provocative piece on financial prowess. Their prime assertion: Warren Buffet invests like a girl. Indeed, author LouAnn DiCosmo attributes Buffet's monumental success to his gender-bending ability, doing what women investors have long been shown to do: trade less often, conduct more research, and not limit their investment decisions to numbers alone.
If Buffet's feminine investment strategies have been key to his financial achievements, they mirror what happens when women take the lead in the corporate sector: Catalyst has found that companies with greater numbers of women directors outperformed their peers by 53 percent in return on equity, by 42 percent in return on sales, and by 66 percent in return on invested capital. Astounding what women bring to the table, isn't it?
Leading like a girl isn't only good for business; as the democratic race for the presidential nomination has shown, it's good for practicing politicos as well -- at least if you're a man. The 2008 campaign has been an interesting experiment in gender roles, as Barack Obama's leadership style, oft-touted as feminine, has been largely instrumental in shaping his popularity.
Yet while men seem to be incorporating the best of what women already know and do, women themselves are still feeling the pressure to deny traits associated with their gender to get ahead. From the New York Times to Salon, it has been widely noted that Obama has embraced his feminine side to great effect. Clinton, meanwhile, has often been forced to eschew the same in order to prove that she really is "man enough" for the job -- a stylistic approach, some would argue, that has worked to her detriment.
The lesson? Boys can be boys -- and now they can be girls, too. But attach those en vogue traits to the body of an actual woman and suddenly the dynamic changes. Clinton's dilemma is particularly important to consider because, to some extent, it is the dilemma of all women in leadership. Men can now add the feminine virtues of inclusivity, sensitivity, and an eye towards thinking outside the box, and be lionized for it. Women, however, rarely are given such latitude. They must first prove they are lions -- or risk being tossed aside, and into the den.
Of course, it is a real testament to the women's movement that the embrace of feminine traits is now being espoused by enlightened men -- and that they are being celebrated for it. But what about the women? Under what circumstances can women finally claim these attributes for themselves and not be punished for them?
I am on a crusade to have women risk revealing their authentic selves. As a group who bring important attributes to leadership, who can also be tough and in control, women's leadership, having been honed at the foot on the table, has lessons and positive possibilities for us all. We have made it safe for men to play like the girls. Now is the time to claim our own ability to do the same.
Follow Marie Wilson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/twhp
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
`
methinks
being hateful, vengeful, deceitful and aggressive
are traits of both genders,
and methinks
we've had enough of THAT
from both genders
.
Marie Wilson has come up with yet another phenomenally incisive column! Thanks!
Some are no longer HIllary fans as Obama seems to have walked away with the Femininity Prize in Political Astuteness? But pause!... Obama and surrogates have used every (un)feminine trick in the book to 'trash' Hillary! Remember Iowa? Hillary reached her hand over, touched him in a genuinely-felt moment, obvious to us all, and asked: "You do find me likeable, don't you Barack?" Hillary was genuine. Instead, the arrogant neophyte looked sideways at his opponent, in his famously contemptuous 'snubbed you, Hillary' look, saying: "You're likeable ENOUGH, Hillary...
He snubbed her at GW's Speech, when he was caught sneering, contemptuously turning to look away from her--an "Obama Snub" moment immortalized and debated ad nauseum at the View --bucking the trend of MSM official anti-Hillary Policy!. Jesse Jackson Jr. (Barack's campaign co-chair, Iowa) questioned if it would be "attractive" for "Obama to knock down a White woman like O.J. Simpson did..."! Yet Hillary's campaign did not go after this incendiary commentary
Yet women are still conned buying into the argument that Obama's 'feminine qualities' make him more attractive presidential material!.
Msakel....
These gender attributions are so silly, aren't they?
I can't tell you the number of times in my life when I've endured comments that I think "like a man."
Thanks be that I was born petite. LOL*
Otherwise, I'm sure I'd be one of the "bitter" crowd.
I just learned to smile, take it as a back-handed compliment.
What does it mean to "think like a man" in your case? Does it mean a lack of logic or substance? Does it mean that you resort to snide comments and insults? Because that is all I've seen from you in post after post.
"Clinton, meanwhile, has often been forced to eschew the same in order to prove that she really is "man enough" for the job -- a stylistic approach, some would argue, that has worked to her detriment. "
Really? You can't be serious. Who exactly has "forced" her to do this? No one. She has chosen this particular leadership style -one that does not work BTW. No one forced her to do so. If she thinks that she has no choice in the matter, then that confirms that she's not the one to lead.
I am a woman who has been in leadership roles. With the exception of my current position, I have always worked for women leaders. The successful ones were the ones who understood leadership concepts (just like Barack Obama) and didn't feel they had to posture (like Hillary).
Actually, I think that Hillary is being punished not for what you call adopting a masculine style but rather for what some might consider the masculine subtance of her politics. And I think that is an appropriate metric on which to measure her. Hillary Clinton lost many of us back in 2002, when she decided that the way to the White House required that she demonstrate that she was as tough and willing as any man to give George Bush the authority to shock and awe the Iraqis (by the way, I think that there were male Democrats seeking job security in swing states or with presidential ambitions who joined her in this calculated vote). Now that things have turned out so badly (made worse for Hillary by her continuing refusal to admit that her vote was problematic even when judged by what was knowable in 2002), she will have the rest of her life to consider that if she hadn't been so set on proving her "toughness" by casting her lot with George Bush, she might very well have been the first woman elected to the presidency.
Argh! I posted my comment, instead of previewing it. And now, rereading this post, I see that I completely misinterpretted it. My sincerely apologies to all! I see that I am in complete agreement with Ms. Wilson.
Still, stuck on the Hillary correlation. I question how much she has been "forced" to exhibit or emphasize masculine traits and behaviors for this race when she has in fact seemingly been rewarded for her moments of vulnerability (in which there is often great strength) and feminity, regardless of whether those moments were real or contrived. Her poll numbers shot up and her female base came out en masse when she got even the slighest bit emotional and it was perceived that the media and the other candidates were piling on her. I'd like to blame Mark Penn, and the questionable advisors she has chosen to surround herself with, but in the end it is her campaign.
Thanks, Truthskr! Your comments are right on! Why is it that Hillary gets 'trashed' by both misogynist media and Obama and surrogates with impunity, while her every movement, statement is grossly exaggerated to offered up as 'evidence' of how unsuitably 'unpresidential' Hillary is. She is a fighter and I also think this is an admirable quality in a presidential candidate. Who wants a pushover to forge international policy and domestic legislation that'll make an impact? I think we're being grossly unfair to expect Hillary to display only 'feminine' qualities while allowing herself to be talked into "throwing in the towel" and bow out of the race as Obama & Co seem to be doing. His "permission" and belittlement of Hillary: "Yup, she can stay in the Race as long as she wants..." says it all. He's got his cake and he's eating it, too---and the tab is to picked up by naive or unsuspecting women voters! The man's misogyny is camouflaged expertly..
Well, to say that I agree with Ms. Wilson's post in total is not to say that I at all support Hillary. I once supported Hillary - financially, in voice, and in action. However, I guess that I am now, as you say, a "naive or unsuspecting" woman voter. I sincerely appreciate your opinion, but I am now entirely comfortable supporting Obama and, in turn, questioning Hillary's loyalties, agenda, and integrity - as a woman as well as a candidate in general. But trust me when I say that I struggled with my decision to support Obama over Hillary - it took both Obama winning me over as the most thoughtful candidate coincident with Hillary repelling me as the most deceitful.
Re: Obama's remarks that Hillary is "likable enough" and "can stay in the race as long as she wants"...w
Hillary IS a fighter, and I greatly admire that. But she is a dirty fighter, not in any way adverse to lying, exaggerating, or obfuscating to gain advantage. By invoking and exploiting the sisterhood of women, she embarrasses us all.
This might explain my affinity to the Obama campaign. I began this election cycle, true to my feminist values, as a staunch Clinton supporter. Suffice it to say, however, as Hillary has upped her machismo (war-hawk rhetoric, fighting RNC-style dirty, and now supposed love of guns), my support wavered and my feminine conscience led me to Obama.
I completely understand your argument for women to be allowed to play like men but I also support women because they are women - not men. I whole-heartedly support and very vocally argue for women's full and equal participation in all realms of society as well as the traits that such participation often requires - strength, intelligence, and an utter unwillingness to submit or acquiesce to the oppression of male-dominated culture. I do not, however, support women adopting the worst traits of masculinity - excessive aggression, a win at all costs mentality, and disrespect for others - in order to get ahead and be accepted in the "boys club."
I heard on CNN this morning in passing, maybe in relation to the Buffett story you reference, that the current state of the economy may be attibutable to testosterone because while men often do well initially in investing and managing money due to their generally more aggressive natures, poor performance is the actual long-term trend with such aggressive, performance chasing, emotional investing. Hillary would do well to take note if it weren't already too late.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
