With
Father's Day less than a week away, it reminds me of a
question I get frequently. "Can men relate
to 'The Connected and Committed Leader'
insights, or are they strictly for women?"
While I do work with a lot
of women, my insights are not exclusively designed for
women. However, I find that the more I work with
men, the more my research shows they rate lower on
the insights on which women rate high,
and vice versa.
So, it
does beg some questions: Are men more effective
leaders than women? Does gender play a role in
being an effective leader?
The
timeless debate of the sexes never seems to
end. There are many stereotypes that
ensue: women have better verbal skills, men are better
at math, men are physically stronger, but women have
better endurance. Some say men are more
single-minded and focused, while women are natural
multi-taskers. The list goes on and on.
Research has found
that some of these beliefs are actually scientifically
based. When studying male and female
brains, researchers discovered that women have more
cross-brain activity and have more highly developed
verbal areas. Because a man's brain is less
integrated, they tend to be focused on one thing at a
time. So, you can start to see how some of these
stereotypes might have a grain of truth to
them.
But how do
these differences translate into the workplace? We
often want to believe that these differences make one
gender a more effective leader vs. the
other. The reality is that both men and
women have traits of effective leaders. Yes, men
and woman both possess the characteristics for effective
leadership, but both can benefit from each other for a
more holistic approach to leadership.
In truth, the
male-centered approach to leadership, which has been the
primary approach for many decades, will be less and less
effective going forward. We are at a
point in time where the blending of both styles of
leadership is required for the 21st
century.
What worked
in the past, is showing signs of failure in today's
world. Our economy is straining
and global competition is fierce. People
who have jobs will be asked to do more and more.
The nation's unemployment rate has jumped to 5.5 percent
in May - the biggest monthly rise since 1986. This
economic reality, coupled with a more diverse workforce
such as four generations in the workplace, a growing
cultural makeup (Hispanic, African-American and Asian)
and different lifestyle needs (changing families, size
and composition) demand some of the more feminine
leadership attributes to complement the male-centered
approach.
However,
as we attempt to blend and learn from each other, there
is such a thing as gender bias. I
believe that not only do men and women lead differently,
people expect them to. In fact, when you don't
lead with an understanding of gender bias, you can lose
some credibility and effectiveness.
The gender differences
demonstrated in leadership can be summed up by these two
terms I use to generally describe men and women
leaders. Generally, men are hunting
leaders and women are tribal
leaders.
Hunting
Leaders
The term
hunting leaders is
centered around the idea of competition and the act of
"separating" friend and foe. Men generally are
"one-up-men" who believe there is always a ranking and
importance of roles. Think about animals in the
wild and how there is a natural order of
predator/prey. Men are often quick to size up
others and put them into categories. At
the most basic level it is either: "You are on my team"
or "You are not on my team" (i.e. my
enemy).
The implication of this is
that men understand hierarchy because it is a
male-derived system and is the reflection of their
competitive mind set. It is for this
reason that men often have better horizontal and upward
leadership skills, versus tending to the team
below. Tending to the team below is likened to the
family/tribe, and this would be where women
excel. Men fundamentally know the
importance of "leading up" and using effective
management techniques that support and work well within
the hierarchy.
The
downside for men is that they are often criticized by
the team as not having their best interest at
heart. They can be blamed as playing the political
game and only caring about themselves and the interests
of superiors. They can be perceived as
lacking in the collaboration and connectedness
that most teams need, and more diverse teams
require. Their actions can often be
counter-productive to motivating and inspiring
followers.
The double-edged
sword is that when men try to collaborate and
emotionally connect, they can seem to be doing "women's
work" and can be criticized as "wimps" or simply not
strong enough to lead.
So what's a guy to do when he wants to connect
emotionally? Even when it is about
building bridges, or inspiring and collaborating, he
needs to frame it as a way to "beat the
competition."
Male leaders need to find
their external nemesis, even if they don't have
one. They need to position everything as a
way to "one-up the enemy." For example, as they
work to have better relationships and better teamwork,
it must be in context of winning in the
marketplace. Using competitive language
about winning and losing is critical even when it is
about collaborating and striving for
inclusiveness.
Tribal Leaders
It used to infuriate me
when I heard the word "bitch" being used to refer to a
tough business woman and leader. OK, I admit it, I
have been referred to in that manner ... maybe once or
twice in my career.
If men showed the exact
same behavior, they wouldn't be showered with the same
kind of criticism. So how do women get around
it? Business requires a certain kind of
"toughness," but do you have to be a bitch to get
it?
Effective toughness for women looks different
than toughness for men. Why?
Women - traditionally the
caretakers - take great pride in their tribe. They
are more focused on the team as family and tend to draw
a circle around that group, while designating
"outsiders" as dangerous.
The quandary women find themselves in is that
they over emphasize the team bonding below them and are
perceived as non-team players horizontally or with their
superiors. The reason they appear as
non-team players to those outside the team is because
they have a protective mind set for their tribe.
These women's actions can be perceived
as developing silos in companies.
Women don't
naturally know how to function in a hierarchy because it
is not a female derived system, so it is
important for women to extend their concept of team to
encompass colleagues and superiors, so they can be
effectively leading at those levels..
But the double-edged sword
for women is when they have to make the tough decisions
which on the surface can go against the tribe.
When they are perceived to not have the tribe in
mind, they are often called the "B" word.
It is for this reason that
women can get crucified for being perceived as selfish
in business, so it is often a struggle for women to
understand the difference between behaviors that support
self-interest (tribal supporting) versus selfishness,
both at work as in life.
Women can be tough leaders, but you have to put
it in the context of the team. Trade-offs and tough
decisions need to be positioned to "be good for the
team" with supporting rationale. Women
don't get away with the "it's just business"
excuse. This posture supports the perception that
you are a cold, heartless bitch.
The other side to this is
that because women are also measured by our more
male driven definition of leadership, they too can be
classified as "wimps" when too much empathetic
collaboration and connectivity are demonstrated without
the balance of the toughness skills. A
bit of "you're damned if you do and damned if you
don't."
This has
been evident in our recent political debates.
Whether you supported Hillary Clinton or not, you can
see how on one side she was criticized as being too
"manly," i.e.: The B-word. Where is her compassion
and regard for the tribe? Or she is too "wimpy," i.e.:
What's all this crying about? Isn't she tough enough to
lead?
My seven
insights for effective leadership are a blend of both
male and female attributes. My research with
professional men and women has shown that our natural
strengths compliment each other. Click here to see
how these differences vary by the seven
insights:
As a general
rule, we can see that men and women leaders' strengths
and challenges can be complimentary, like the yin and
yang. We have strengths and challenges in
different areas and this is why the most powerful teams
and businesses take advantage of having both skill
sets.
Organizations need to take the best of both genders
and help the two groups cross-train and learn from each
other.
The future leader will be a holistic leader,
capable of embodying both feminine and masculine
strengths in leadership without abandoning their unique
edge and advantage. We can learn to
develop our challenge areas by observing the opposite
gender, but we should also find our authentic way of
expressing it. Simply emulating characteristics of
the opposite gender will look and feel fake and won't
yield the results we are looking
for.
In the end,
both men and women can be more effective leaders
when you take both gender's strengths into account
and strive to apply a more holistic leadership
approach.
Laura
Lopez is a leadership specialist and branding expert
with more than 20 years of corporate leadership
experience. Most recently, Laura Lopez was a vice
president with The Coca-Cola Company. Laura's
book, The Connected and Committed Leader, is available
via her Web site at www.laura-lopez.com, your local
bookstore or on www.Amazon.com. As the owner of
her own business, Laura helps companies and business
associations achieve more sustainable business results
through the power of effective leadership and branding.
She is available for speeches, workshops and
customized programs. Laura can be contacted via
her Web site
at:
http://www.laura-lopez.com.
Join Laura for a Houston workshop on June
14!