If you were asked to close your eyes for five seconds and imagine a fictitious leader, would that leader be a man or a woman? Are men “default leaders”? Popular leadership adjectives include assertive, strong, powerful, dominant, and competitive. It seems much of what we think in terms of leadership usually falls in ‘masculine’ traits, whether it’s a man or a woman.
The Heidi/Howard case study
In 2003, Professors Frank Flynn and Cameron Anderson ran an experiment where they presented their students with a story of an entrepreneur-Heidi Roizen, a successful Silicon Valley venture capitalist. They told half the students that the entrepreneur’s name was Heidi; they told the other half that it was Howard. Then they asked students their impressions of Heidi or Howard and discovered that though the participants rated them both as competent and worthy of respect, Howard came across as a more appealing colleague. Heidi, on the other hand, was seen as selfish and not “the type of person you would want to hire or work for.” The same data with a single difference–gender–created vastly different impressions.
Pink for girls; blue for boys
The Heidi/Howard case study demonstrated that we evaluate people based on stereotypes. When a woman displays assertive behaviour she is thought to be acting like a man. If she acts like a man, she draws the wrath of people, she is not liked. As young girls our grandparents told us that girls must be seen and not heard. The socialisation begins at birth in choosing the paint colour for the baby’s room- pink for girls and blue for boys. If we explore the psychology of colours we will find some surprising information on how our society socialises girls differently from boys. Pink evokes romance and kindness, which could be interpreted as gentleness if you will. Whilst blue calls to mind feelings of calmness or serenity. It is often described as peaceful, tranquil, secure, and orderly. We may take some liberty and boldly argue that the security and orderliness could only encourage a “taking charge” trait.
Girls were socialised to be caregivers, nurturers and are told to sit still. Boys were socialised to be aggressive and allowed to run free. Since women are expected to be more nurturing than men-after all they were groomed to be mothers-giving a girl a doll teaches her to care for it and fosters the value of caring for others. When boys receive dolls, they are most likely to be action figures designed to bring out the alleged aggressive tendencies in boys. This early gender socialisation evolves into gender bias in the workplace.
Challenge to women’s leadership
A fundamental challenge to women’s leadership therefore arises from the incongruity between the qualities traditionally associated with leaders and those traditionally associated with women. There is a mismatch. The assertive, authoritative, and dominant behaviours that people link with leadership tend not to be viewed as attractive in women. Social psychologist Alice Eagly summarized the challenge- “The female gender role is based on the stereotype that women are nice and kind and compassionate,” . Whereas “in a leadership role, one is expected to take charge and sometimes at least to demonstrate toughness, make tough decisions, be very assertive in bringing an organization forward, sometimes fire people for cause, etc.”
The double bind
Since women are often evaluated against a yardstick that is “masculine”, a standard of leadership based on “masculine” qualities, they are caught between a rock and a hard place, no matter how they behave and perform as leaders, there are unfavourable options and subsequently outcomes. Because women have been socialised to selflessly take care of others, when they lead with a confident direct style, they are considered self-serving. When men lead in this same manner, they are well intended strong leaders. If women leaders are assertive, results-oriented and drives a hard negotiation, she will be seen as “trying to act like a man” and that approach may cost her “likeability” and even a promotion. Her peers may not like her “pushiness” and this may negatively impact on work relationships and career opportunities. Alternatively, if a woman toes the line that society’s traditional stereotype has drawn for her and acts in accordance with expectations, she places herself at a disadvantage in terms of her success and climbing the corporate ladder.
According to Eagly, women are caught in a double bind. This is a “choice of no lesser evil” in a situation where there are two options exclusive to each other, and where no correct or more beneficial choice can be made.
The three double-bind dilemmas
Catalyst, the non-profit organization working to advance opportunities for women and business produced a report, The Double-Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don’t, a study by Gender stereotyping. The studies say, the “masculine” leadership standard creates three “double-bind dilemmas” facing women leaders today:
-Extreme perceptions: Women leaders are perceived as “never just right.” If women business leaders act consistent with gender stereotypes, they are considered too soft. If they are assertive and act contrary to gender stereotypes, they are considered too tough.
-The high competence threshold/lower rewards: Women leaders face higher standards than men leaders and are rewarded with less. Often they must work doubly hard to achieve the same level of recognition as men leaders for the same level of work and “prove” they can lead.
-Competent but disliked: When women exhibit traditionally valued leadership behaviours such as assertiveness, they tend to be seen as competent but not personable or well-liked. Yet those who do adopt a more stereotypically feminine style are liked but not seen as having valued leadership skills.
Solution at the Organizational Level
Catalyst provides organizational action steps that companies can use to help root out the problem and reduce the effects of stereotyping in the workplace, including:
-Providing women leaders and other employees with tools and resources to increase awareness of women leaders’ skills and of the effects of stereotypic perceptions.
-Assessing the work environment to identify in what ways women are at risk of stereotypic bias.
-Creating and implementing innovative work practices that target stereotypic bias. These practices can be particularly effective when they address specific areas of risk, such as in an organization’s performance management procedures.
Organizations can apply this knowledge by providing managerial training and diversity education–educating managers and employees to the origin and consequences of bias, inconsistencies between values and actual behaviour, and causes and effects of gender inequality in the workplace. Organizations can also revisit their performance and evaluation management system to ensure that it uses objective and unambiguous evaluation criteria.
Change in Leadership
A few years ago, New York University’s business school repeated the Heidi/Howard study. This time around, students rated the female entrepreneur as more likable and desirable as a boss than the male. This heralds good news-that our society’s views on women, men and the definition of leadership is changing. Women leaders can only benefit from this change, as they remain intimately aware of their own leadership styles and strengths in order to make a positive impact.
This article was published in the Trinidad and Tobago’s Business Guardian on 7 February, 2019.