Do Women Make Better Bosses? 403
Hugh Pickens writes "David Mielach reports on a new study which finds that women in management positions lead in a more democratic way, allowing employees to participate in decision-making and establishing interpersonal channels of communication. 'In line with known gender differences in individual leadership, we find that in workplaces with more women managers, more individualized employee feedback is carried out,' says study author Eduardo Melero. 'Likewise, we can see evidence, although weaker, that in these workplaces decisions are made more democratically and more interpersonal channels of communications are established.' The research was based on data from the Workplace Employment Relationships Survey, a survey of workplaces in the United Kingdom. Melero analyzed this data by looking at the number of women in management positions in companies and the leadership tactics employed at those companies. He found increased communication between management and employees in companies with women in management positions led to more well-informed decisions, since employee feedback will be utilized in the decision-making process. Still, correlation does not equal causation. 'One might question the direction of the relation: is it women managers who are the behind these policies, or is it that more progressive organizations are more accessible for women leaders than other workplaces (PDF)?'"
Both can be equally bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I have seen examples of both male and female boss fail... I don't see much difference, I think they are equal.
It's lucky that the study didn't find the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it would have been sexism.
Wrong Location (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sexist, but it's ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Feminism. Glad you accepted it now guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
Men do better in a role - "Men and women are equals. The men must have had an unfair advantage. Reperations will have to be made."
Women do better a role - "Women's brains must be wired up in a way that makes them better at certain things. Or perhaps it's down to hormones or genetics."
The moment you judge... (Score:5, Insightful)
The moment you judge a person by any simple facet, gender or race or anything else, you are doing them and yourself a great disservice, even when you judge them positively. Human beings are individually very complex, and no characteristic, even when supported with loads of statistical evidence about that characteristic is going to inform you properly. Judge individuals as individuals, in the context you deal with them. Anything else is a major failing on your part.
This is not to impugn this study; statistics are useful and can be used in all sorts of intriguing ways. Just never let them stand in front of the individual qualities of a human being.
Re:It might depend on the organization ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that is the exact opposite of the approach described. Apple was more of a dictatorship than a democracy.
Re:That's been my experience (Score:5, Insightful)
I've also worked under quite a few female and male managers. I've had good and bad experiences with both. I am deeply skeptical that sex is the major variable. It may well be true that men are more likely to be authoritarian, but that hasn't been my experience. I could theorize from anecdotal evidence that women have various common qualities, but I suspect that other male managers I haven't happened to work for have had those same qualities.
I think the major variable is competence. Competence is a hard thing to achieve for managers, because they get a lot of really bad training, or in many cases no training. In the set of all managers who are poorly trained, it's probably true that for reasons which may be cultural or may be innate, there are measurable differences between the problems women have and the problems men have. But I think it's equally likely that among managers who are competent, these differences lose their significance. I think that organizations looking to have better management would be well advised to focus on competence rather than on sex.
Re:It might depend on the organization ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's lucky that the study didn't find the oppos (Score:5, Insightful)
The former. (Score:5, Insightful)
is it women managers who are the behind these policies, or is it that more progressive organizations are more accessible for women leaders than other workplaces
In my experience, it's the former.
My last boss was male, and he was very open to ideas and input.
My boss before that was female, and she was a complete tyrant.
You'll find people with similar stories, or opposite. It's a matter of chance.
Gender makes no difference, it's all on the individual.
The only difference it DOES make, is that I might be attracted to a female boss.
Again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's lucky that the study didn't find the oppos (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate this notion people have that research is somehow censored to be politically correct and that it is therefore not trustworthy.
As long as the research is only discussed among educated researchers, you are correct. Yet if some scientist gets on TV and says that women are somehow less able than men to perform some task, politics kicks in -- the researcher is obviously a misogynist (unless the researcher is a woman, in which case she is just misguided). It does not matter what the results say, what matters is that nobody ever publicly suggests that women are less capable.
Re:Both can be equally bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Men and women are different, and generally manage in different ways, but saying is one better than the other is silly. Depends on the job, the situation, and who they are managing; and really, I think the individual makes all the difference.
Do women generally manage in a more democratic way? Maybe. But that doesn't mean better. Democracy sounds an awful like committee and nothing gets done. You need a boss that accepts input but also can make the tough decisions when they have to. If you tend one way, then you need to force yourself to do the other too.
I've had great and terrible bosses of both genders. My favorite boss was a woman (she knew her stuff and was great at keeping on top of things while not micromanaging, and she was awesome at managing the annoying things like really getting clients to figure out what they want before I programmed it), and a woman was also my very worst boss (micromanaged and criticized everything everyone did and caused at least one woman in the office to break down in tears about once a week and I hated every single minute of dealing with her).
Reverse discrimination... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone want to guess what the reaction would be if an article posed the question, "Do men make better bosses?" or "Do whites make better bosses?" My view of this article is no different. Sorry women.
Re:That's been my experience (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that 'managers' are generally identified from the outset as 'management track' before they are given the opportunity to become competent. They are then shoved into a role too soon (you generally need at least two years of work to become competent at most any job) because someone above them wants to have less 1:1s and attend other work-less meetings instead.
Management is a ridiculous thing to have in general. There should never be any reason why a manager (and I'm a manager) should have less than 15 people under them. Why? Because managers don't do any real work. So why have 4 managers who make more money and do nothing and create more work for those under them?
Re:Feminism. Glad you accepted it now guys? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. I have to say that I should be surprised at the amount of vitriol directed at women, but sadly, I'm just reminded of the stereotype of the basement-dwelling nerd.
Just a few notes to maybe help you get out of the basement:
#1 Feminism isn't about reparations. It's about giving women a chance to do the same things that men are doing - like run a business, smoke a cigar, and play golf in a golf club. Basically, have a chance to do something other than cook, bear children and be a secretary.
#2 Removing glass ceilings is not the same as reparations. If you feel that way, it's merely an indication that you have no idea how large your advantage actually has been, and that you are pissed that you have to compete on a level playing field.
#3 Women ARE better at certain things than men are. Driving consensus is one of them. Or at least, that's what science says. Feel free to piss and moan about it, but it's not going to change the fact.
Re:That's been my experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's sexist, but it's ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Feminism. Glad you accepted it now guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about giving women a chance to do the same things that men are doing - like run a business, smoke a cigar, and play golf in a golf club
OK, so now that women can do all those things, what are feminists fighting for?
you have no idea how large your advantage actually has been
Yeah, because men like me who grew up in working class families had so many advantages in life compared to women who grew up in suburbs and had private tutors to help them get into college -- where women now make up the majority. Feminists love suburban women, because they are best able to live the feminist ideal of self-empowerment. Symbols of success are what feminists really care about -- running successful businesses, smoking cigars, and playing golf. Feminists are not interested in women who work on railroads (like my mother did), because it conflicts with their own preconceived notion about what everyone wants.
Women ARE better at certain things than men are
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BFD [urbandictionary.com]
OK, cool, women are better at some things. Men are also better at some things, but where are the people parading those results in the media? Nobody tries to "level the playing field" when it comes to things that women are better at, unlike people who want to make fire department physical exams less challenging so that women will have a better chance:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-20/news/ct-met-chicago-firefighter-lawsuit-20110720_1_firefighters-exam-african-american-firefighter-candidates-female-firefighters [chicagotribune.com]
Re:Both can be equally bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Direct, no-nonense, hands-off management is not a bad thing.
Re:Both can be equally bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Straight women have this same metric. If a hottie hits on you, he's confident. If an uggo creeps on you, that's sexual harassment.
Re:It might depend on the organization ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So while while he was the "decider", he made decisions that had a perspective from inside the trenches was well as from inside the boardrooms. I think that's something that's missing in many large companies, - even ones where consensus plays a bigger role in major decisions.
Taking it a step further, I think that's what goes on with some of these dictators like Assad. They're so insulated from the bulk of their country that they truly don't have a grasp on the magnitude of the discontent. Jobs had his own RDF but he could see through it enough to create products that people wanted, though there were some notable failures.