women and leadership

we treat the women in our group exactly the same as the men, and they contribute in the same way as the men. I also have to say that I can see differences in personality between the two of them, that mirror personality differences between some of the men.

If I may make a suggestion, there is a website called surveymonkey.com that you may find a useful way of building an online questionnaire to get some answers. Obviously the questions need to be structured, but I am sure that some hub members can help with that. There are also some distinct instruments for telling if someone has a more female or male orientated style. You may also want to look at the queendom website for some hints..

Lifted from Northouse (how good is this book, I really must write a review for the book club on this one):

Women are somewhat more likely to use transformational and democratic styles than men. Research indicates a slight disadvantage for women in masculine domains and a slight advantage in feminine domains and a greater use by women of effective transformational and contingent reward behaviours.

I suggest a trip to your local library for this book, it will give you a good broad exposure to the different styles.

If you do put together a questionnaire, make sure that you get info on other external factors that may have an affect, such as location in the GLOBE, global or local company, family or corporate, matrix or departmental structure, product. This may give you an insight into the types of leadership that these people are exposed to on a day to day basis.

Hope that helps a little.

Colin.

PS: If you get a survey put together, let me know, because I have a couple of people here that would 1) be willing and 2) be useful subjects.

I just read my first reply to this post and I realised I havn't really answered the questions, so, here goes.

There was a section in a book on transformational leadership that said something along the lines of:

There are 3 phases to developing your leadership (I think they were talking about ethics and values at the time).

Phase 1 is where you are looking all around, but looking outside. This is where you read biographies, books on leaders and leadership, join places like this etc. You are seeing the world, and leadership through other people's eyes.

Phase 2 is where you realise, in any number of different ways, that you now have enough information to start looking internally, to take some time for reflection, or learning about yourself, to find those areas that you think are important. For myself, it's learning, people, re-examining things to see if they can be better or are holding us back . These are things that I get passionate about, these are things that I will step up and try to lead a change in.

Phase 3 is when you start to look at the world through your own eyes, with those things that make you passionate in your mind, and the knowledge you have soaked up starts to be focused on those things that you are passionate about.

If I look at the evolution of our group, we started to read Maxwells 21 irrefutable laws, then Self deception. Then there was a hiatus, and then we started to talk about ourselves, not other people, then we moved onto a book on transformational leadership. Now, I can see that several people in the group have come into phase 3, some are still in phase 2, and one or two are still stuck in phase 1.

I don't think I have ever imitated others, but I have sometimes been, well, shamed is too strong a word, but I will use it anyway, since I can't think of a softer one now, into trying to change my behaviour, or improve some facet of myself. But, it is only after having read the books, and done the internal examinations that I can now see the larger benefits of doing those changes.

I don't think it makes a difference in the way I treat new or existing membersof the group if they are male or female,because the primary goal is to stimulate discussion and improvement, and, because it is very much a 'group and individual (by which I mean solo) journey', where you do need both sides to be able to make real progress, I can't really see a way to split those into female and male patterns.

Hope that helps a bit more than the first post.

Colin.

My experience of non-leadership is the difficulty that many seem to experience in leading like a person. Never mind the gender dimension (or racial or anything else) -- a big problem seems to be in retaining an essential humanity. The female thing is often

The best manager I had was a man. He was an ex-French teacher who somehow found himself as a software project manager in a lab of 70-odd bolshie prima-donnas. He knew nothing of software but he was very good at telling you what was needed and then ensuring nothing got in your way of achieving it. We also had frequent and hillarious team meetings, development days, etc. And we also broke delivery records.

Another great manager was 25 years my junior and a woman. She also made me feel that she cared personally about me and worked tirelessly to help me be successful.

My wife and daughter are also great leaders, though perhaps that's another story.

:D

I was fortunate enough to have a (female) colleague force me to act like a leader in the first few weeks of my first leadership role. I was leading a cross-functional meeting (several department heads, including a newly promoted yours truly) - when I asked for consensus she said "You're in charge, you tell us" - with a tone that clearly said she would respect anything I said. I gave my decision, we closed the meeting, and as I walked out I thought "that wasn't so hard after all!"

Of course I made some mistakes after that, but it was an important first step for me.  Each new stretch assignment or role makes me more comfortable, as I develop experiences on which to draw. It's been 5 years since that first role and it feels quite natural now.

 A few other thoughts - I think we do ourselves and other women a disservice by emphasizing gender. Leading is gender-neutral - there are good male and female leaders of many types. The most important thing to me is to be true to your own personality. People know when you are playing a role, and they instinctively resist following a  "faker." 

 I hope this is helpful - good luck with your book!

"Women link. Men rank.
Women collaborate. Men compete.
Women listen. Men tell.
Women share. Men confront.
No wonder it is often said that the skillsets of women are a natural fit with the skillset we need in leaders in flatter, networked organisations."

I heard Rene Carayol, the leadership consultant, say that a little while ago. But, not all women, of course. And not all men. So, maybe it would be more accurate to say that the kind of behaviours traditionally associated with women - communicating, collaborating, listening, sharing, supporting and nurturing - rather than traditional behaviours usually associated with alpha males - dominating, ranking, competing, confronting, instructing - are the behaviours that leaders need to put into practice today - whether men or women - in increasingly networked, flatter organizations. I'm not sure I understand the question about 'becoming comfortable in your own skin as a leader' or how that might differ between men and women. 

I find the question of differences between men and women and leadership to be interesting.  Being a female business owner and professional in the field of leadership development, it is one that I have faced.  While I would like to think that as a leader my credibility is not viewed through a gender-based lens, I have had experiences that lead me to believe otherwise.  At times I have sensed an obstacle or challenge that I must overcome to achieve my goals and these obstacles did not seem to exist for male colleagues.  Note the soft language (sensed, seem to exist) because one can never assume or be really sure what's going on covertly.  I don't spend much time worrying about this however, I accept it as reality and just continue the journey of working, leading, coaching....

I can not identify any one person that I emulate as a leader, but have been influenced by many people along the way from thought leaders, supervisors, to children.  Sadly I can readily identify several individuals whose leadership styles I do NOT want to mimic.  The moment I found "my voice" as you call it was in the midst of a very serious situation when I did not have time to ask "Gee, as a leader, what should I do for my team right now?"  I was fortunate that life experience to that point had armed me with what I needed to give my team what they needed.

I agree with others who have commented that there are many factors at play including gender, economics, upbringing, opportunity...and I beleive that one must choose to lead despite their existence.  I can accept as reality that these factors exist and choose to lead regardless, or I can accept that they exist and allow them to become obstacles. 

You might find the HBR Sept 2007 article titled, "Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership" helpful in fueling your thoughts.  Its an interesting look at the lack of women that emerge in the C-suite.  As the subtitle describes "When you put all the pieces together, a new picture emerges for why women don't  make it into the C-suite.  It's not the glass ceiling, but the sum of many obstacles along the way."  I don't equate leadership with positions of authority necessarily because you can be a leader at any level in any walk of life.  However the article does look at the dominant qualities of men versus women and discusses the reasons women face a different struggle than men in leadership.

I hope you find it helpful, good luck with the book.