Meet the Boss

These are tough times for the alpha-male business leader.

There is much introspection these days about what went so disastrously wrong with the global financial system. While the causes remain under investigation and suspects are still being interrogated, one thing is clear. Whatever happened: men did it. If not 100 percent, then very, very close. Name one woman prominently on the perp-list.

Even as the smoke still hangs over the wreckage of a financial system run amok, many are asking an interesting question about leadership: can women do better?

In a recent Time magazine article, "The Pink Recovery," writer Christopher Caldwell opens with: "Men are paying a higher price in this recession than women. Perhaps that's fair." Maleness, he said, has "become a synonym for insufficient attention to risk."

An interesting example of the perils of tough-guy leadership is Robert Nardelli, formerly of GE. From there, he jumped to Home Depot, and is now a short-timer at Chrysler, set to leave when the company emerges from bankruptcy.

Just as Nardelli earned a reputation as a consummate "numbers guy", he also became legendary for his autocratic style and impatience with inconvenient diversions like employee morale, collaborative decisions and stakeholder communications. A defining event in his leadership was the infamous 30-minute annual meeting, where shareholders were given one minute to talk before the microphone was electronically cut off.

By the end of his tenure, he had alienated not only shareholders, but employees, managers, customers and -- finally -- the Board.

An extreme example, maybe. But certainly symptomatic of a management philosophy that views leadership as a blunt instrument.

Are women really different? Or are there so few able to wield power from the top that we don't yet have a representative sample?

Recent research points to different answers.

One of the most extensive studies of its kind is The DNA of Women Leaders by the consulting firm Caliper and Aurora, a gender-management software firm. It extensively studied 60 women business leaders, looking at personality factors and motivations, and matched them against a data base of men.

It found distinct differences.

Their results say that women are highly persuasive -- using those skills to create buy-in and motivation. They have a team-oriented style of problem solving and decision making. They tend to take failure and rejection more personally than men, but also tend to bounce back with a determination to prove their critics wrong. In general, women are empathetic, flexible and excel at interpersonal skills.

Men, the study found, are not lacking in those traits. But in women, they are more highly developed, and a much bigger part of the work day.

Gender comparisons are tricky and riddled with exceptions. But this new kind of leadership is really more about approach and awareness than it is about chromosomes.

For one prominent example, Barack Obama's style certainly has many of the characteristics that the Caliper study associated with women. My guess is that every time Obama smilingly reaches out for consensus, Dick Cheney is somewhere rolling his eyes and thinking: "What a wimp."

And just as certainly, there are many women who display a hard edge.

Carly Fiorina strode into Hewlett Packard with a swagger, and left with a bloody nose. Admiral Louise Wilmot retired in 1994 as the Navy's highest ranking woman. "Life," she said, "is made up of a hierarchy of people ... many of whom have earned positions of authority over us. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement. When did organizational management take on the trappings of a baby shower?"

Exceptions duly noted -- this just in -- women and men are different. And so, it appears, are their management styles.

Tough-guy management powered this economy, then came very close to driving it, at high speed, straight into a wall. Crisis, above all, calls for confidence, which will never spring from fear. It comes from a shared belief that there are good things at the end of the struggle; that there are valid, personal reasons to believe.

If a female management style is right for creating the confidence and shared determination that companies need to climb back to growth -- and studies indicate that it is -- then, more than any time in the history of commerce, we need to put that style to work.

Comments

[darker]

From what we've seen recently, USA is a SOCIETY OF deregulated CON MEN.
They're about TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN.
And don't care if you CRASH THE ECONOMY.

Obviously this plan has FAILED.
It's past time to put women in charge.

[lastpost]

Some say that a woman’s work is never done.
And that is why they get paid less.

Like most jokes that works by supplying the mind with a series of sequential clues. Thereby engendering the illusion of understanding. A reality revealed by a punch line, that causes the whole mental house of cards to collapse.
Isn’t fitness for a post related to an ability to perform that task effectively? Irrespective of gender or an illusory imagined factor.

[wietog]

Religion is at the root of this issue. Generally, most people are religious. And most religions today are patriarchal.

This gives men an additional semblance of superiority and even a sense of immortality.

And when coupled with our competitive capitalist agenda, all hell breaks loose and few below the pinnacle are treated with respect.

It's really arrogance that we're dealing with.

And since most women are still given subtle cues and overt messages to be nice, accommodating and helpful, they tend to be less arrogant and more forcibly humble.

Legend has it that at one time women ruled the world and were worshipped. Earth mother. The Goddess.

Perhaps all this turmoil is a shift in the tides...

[Malkin72]

"And since most women are still given subtle cues and overt messages to be nice, accommodating and helpful, they tend to be less arrogant and more forcibly humble."

THIS is why there are few women CEO's, just FYI, not "sexism".

You do not think that men are given subtle cues to do this or do that, including being nice, accomodating and helpful???

Men TAKE what they want. They don't WAIT for or ASK for permission­....if you are going to wait until someone comes to you and says, "Excuse me, you seem qualified, would you like a chance to run the company" then you will WAIT a long time.

And if you think the women who WILL break through and become CEO's will be an nicer or more accomodating or more helpful, then you are clueless..­..if anything, she'll probably be EVEN worse than the men, just to prove she belongs.

[wietog]

I DON'T think that women who become CEOs are nicer, more accommodating or helpful, I DO think that women have to overcome this issue and become more focused, direct and take on leadership roles. We do it effortlessly with our children and at home, but for some reason have a harder time at work.

I also understand that no one will give you anything in this world. Unfortunately, though, and this is due to religion as well, we are taught that we will get "our rewards" in the end, which keeps many of us from trying to get what we want here. And we also assume that being nice, accommodating and helpful will be recognized and rewarded. But in a male-dominated corporate world, those traits instead ensure that one will stay where they are to support the others.

[bettersignupnow]

OK. So suppose you are correct. Then what do you do with someone like Sarah Palin?

[CynAnne]

Well..ther­e ARE aberrations to every species, better. We could always capture her 'in the wild' and study her - maybe our future generations could then understand what went wrong with her..! ;) ...

[William50]

Leadership, perhaps the problem lies in the education our leaders of Government and business are receiving. Perhaps, if you looked where these leaders were educated you might find that they are connected to each other threw education.­., perhaps, there is a direct line from the problem we are now in, the actions of our leaders and the education they received..­.

[SocialDemocracy]

I'm all for removing the very real gender barriers that exist for the 1/1000th of 1 percent of women who are on the cusp of a CEO position. However, I'm much more interested in issues affecting their subordinates, both female and male. For example, I wonder if female CEOs would be more
"empathetic " than male CEOs if their employees tried to unionize? Fat chance. Empathy is easy when you don't lose power or money.

[Ginger47]

Women and Men in general can compliment each other in their approach to almost everything.
It is almost as simple an idea as how the left and right side of the brain can work together to help the person see the "whole challenge".
The human race is still evolving and I beleive we will have a better world working together, not bashing either sex.
Women are powerful and have been feared throughout the ages by insecure beings both male and femaie. It just makes sense to work together. Let's be fair and acknowledge that we haven't yet come to our common sense in this world. We all are not "concious" as yet.

[Malkin72]

Remember when EVERY statistic or indicator showed male superiority, we were told to IGNORE all of that evidence..­..everyone is equal no matter what the numbers show.

And certainly, we can't label something male or female, we are all individuals, etc.

Now, as soon as they can find ONE study to point....w­e hear, see...wome­n are better.

This is why people hate feminism. It's built on a mountain of selfish lies.

[exhale09]

Uh, doesn't it depend on which women?

[JScott]

Interestingly after Iceland's economy flopped. the ones that had to come in and 'clean up the mess' were mostly women, and from what I've heard the financial institutions in Iceland that were mostly women in the positions of power escaped or suffered less thru it all.

[pfrogger]

anecdotal?

[azureblue]

This actually a question of leadership styles, more than gender. Women can be just as aggressive as men in a leadership role, and men can be just as nurturing as women. Witness Steve Jobs vs Donald Trump. American vs Japanese. Chess or Go vs Rugby. The problem is aimless greed, and growth at any cost, that separates the CEO's goals from that of the company and the company's position in society.

[SadVoter]

As a woman, I find this incredibly sexist. Haven't we evolved beyond the "girls are better than boys" propaganda of the First Wave Feminists? This is exactly the kind of fact-less sexist garbage that gives the rest of us feminists a bad name. Peggy Drexler cites only one study to support her case and it was produced by Caliper and Aurora, a gender-management software firm. Their BUSINESS is dependent on people believing that there are substantial differences between the genders. Does it not occur to anyone that their report *might* be biased towards that conclusion? And this is the only source she can cite. The rest is all hearsay and anecdotes. It is a perfect example of the kind of aggressively ignorant, "Cro-Magnon Feminism" that only serves to embarrass and undermine those of us who take these issues to heart and are working to END the war between the sexes - not WIN it.

Seriously folks, we are better than this. Let's get back to the very important business of promoting gender equality and stop this senseless and counter-productive male-bashing. It is factually wrong and undermines our very legitimate and important goals.

[pfrogger]

thank you.
common sense never sounded so good.

[Malkin72]

Exactly.

Feminists don't care AT ALL about EQUALITY. To them, men are their enemy, not their equal.

Women like yourself need to take back the mantle from the man-haters and we can work towards real equality.

Boys are falling behind in school year after year...if EQUALITY is the goal, that should be just as important as closing the pay gap, etc. etc.

[esfranklin]

Actually, I'm feeling more and more confident as the years go on that men shouldn't be allowed to run anything. They are far, far too emotional and irresponsible to be trusted with important matters like weilding power in the real world. They can't even think straight when their testosterone gets going. They also tend to be larger, stronger and slightly less intelligent - so I propose that we immediately remove them from any positions of authority and put them to work doing menial labor, instead. They are well suited for tasks that don't require high-level cognitive capabilities, but do require heavy lifting and other physical activities. It's the perfect solution. Men would be happier, and women would be able to step forward and fix the mess men have created without batty man-ideas (free market economics, anyone?) and male irrationality (Republicanism, anyone?) ruining everything.

[pfrogger]

you did not attribute problems some men have to hormones did you? that alone disqualifies you from commenting on anything.

[SpaceManJoe]

blowing a kiss to esfranklin:

Actually, I'm feeling more and more confident as the years go on that womb-men shouldn't be allowed to run anything. They are far, far too emotional and irresponsible to be trusted with important matters like weilding power in the real world. They can't even think straight when their estrogen gets going. They also tend to be more compact, with better endurance, and slightly less intelligent - so I propose that we immediately remove them from any positions of authority and put them to work doing menial labor, instead. They are well suited for tasks that don't require high-level cognitive capabilities, but do require endurance like washing my dishes. It's the perfect solution. Womb-men would be happier, and Men would be able to step forward and fix the mess Womb-men have created without batty Womb-man-ideas (kumbaya, anyone?) and Fe-male irrationality (oh, wait, a womb-man never coined an 'ism') ruining everything.

[Ives]

The idea that somehow a financial crisis may have been averted had the gender of the management been different is absurd. This is not to deny the Wall Street is an old boys' network and has historically excluded women from its highest ranks. But changing the gender of management while leaving the system as is changes nothing. Wall Street is about risk and making money. The laws of capital determine the actions of Wall Street managers. That plus deregulation and the knowledge that however badly they screw up, their employees in the government will bail them out encourages extreme risk-taking.

I am 100% behind equality for women in all spheres of employment. I also have no doubt were Goldman, Morgan, etc open to promoting women to their highest ranks, they would promote the most ruthless, money-hungry women they could find.

This is perhaps the most superficial article I have read on the financial crisis.

[pfrogger]

agrred.
thanks

[yodaveg]

Two things: First, to pronounce either men or women as inherently better leaders is to overlook the the defining individual differences that characterize managers. Second, what the heck is "gender-management software"?