Slashdot Mirror
Do Women Make Better Bosses?
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)?'"
Because it would have been sexism.
Because it's pro-woman.
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."
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
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.
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.
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).
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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?