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)?'"
In my career, I've had good male managers and good female managers. The difference is that, while I've had several male managers that were priggish martinets, I've not had a female manager with similar qualities.
Anecdotal experience is not law, of course, and I could have been the beneficiary of just not having a large enough sample size of female managers, but that's been my experience.
The main difference I've found between men and women as bosses over the years is I have never had a woman try to pull a power trip, leveraging the "authority" of their position to try to force me to do something they wanted.
Men, on the other hand, sometimes think that a title means they have power over me. How soon they learn...
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Since everyone's going to chime in with their perspective from experience, I'll add mine. I've had several managers in the course of my career, at multiple companies and on both sides of the gender fence. I've also needed different levels and styles of management at different points in my career, and have experienced both "good" and "bad" bosses along the way.
Early on, when I was more likely to need guidance and suggestions (in learning time management and prioritization, communications skills, etc.), I found much better and more involved management from the women than the men. The women were more likely to take the time to observe and try to understand where the deficiencies were, and to advise me in a non-confrontational way about how to proceed and what to learn from the situation.
As I grew in my abilities and my confidence, though, I was more likely to run into conflicts and differences with some of those same women managers. Communication was less direct than it needed to be, personality differences became more of an issue than they were with male managers, and occasionally, problems would escalate to a passive-aggressive undermining. Conversely, men in management seemed more likely to recognize and acknowledge my increasing competence, and when corrective communication was needed it was short, direct, and efficient.
Don't underestimate the effect of corporate culture, though, on management styles - my opinion is that bad management is caused by culture as much as culture is an effect of bad management. I think it's very much a chicken-and-egg thing, in that regard, but there's definitely an influence at play.
In the years since I've entered management, I've swapped back and forth between two upper managers (depending upon company re-orgs), both of whom have decided that the best way to manage me is to leave me the hell alone. My current boss has told me that, as far as he's concerned, my department is a black box - resources go in, profit comes out, it all runs seamlessly and quietly, and that's all he needs to know. :)
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
There is a bias against hiring women in leadership positions. It follows that the standards a female manager has to meet are higher than those of a male manager, and therefore the female managers who do get hired likely have above average communication and leadership qualities.
Many of the women I know have complained about female bosses, in part because 'these workplaces decisions are made more democratically and more interpersonal channels of communications are established'. They want a boss who tells them what to do and gets out of the way, not one who spends half their time asking people what they should be doing.
First we get bad statistics about the relationship between supply and demand in the oil market, and now a bad statistics "study" of management styles?
What's next, a sure-fire way to win the lottery?
Actually, in my experience, i've found the other way is more often the less painful.But it depends on the personality, not in the sex of the boss.
Oblivion Awaits
Actually, the opposite is really true. Studies have shown that women are generally better at one on one relationships and not typically as good at dealing with large groups and their dynamics. Men thrive more in the tribal, large group environments which is a large reason women typically don't do as well in the business world. Note the liberal uses of the word "typical". Here's a good podcast with references: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/11/baumeister_on_g.html
Somewhat related, though it's not apples-to-apples, I more or less refuse to go to male doctors. Their "God complex" tends to be way worse: many times, they don't ask you what's wrong, or even bother listening if you try to explain. They already know.
Maybe men are more willing to accept a conclusion they don't like if they are shown evidence pointing toward that conclusion.
In general I have seen it is more common for female bosses to be overly aggressive over male bosses. If you are going to get yelled at it will be from a female boss. When there is a big problem the female boss will get more emotional. The Male bosses tend to keep cool and handle problems more rationally. However female bosses when things are not stressful will be more democratic and listen to problems and make a more open minded decision.
In Summy with over generalization.
When things are going good, a female boss will keep things going good.
When things are going bad, a male boss will make things better.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Agreed -sorta. The female bosses are more likely to hold a grudge, more likely to mistreat people on how much they "like" them and not actual performance, and show favorites. The direct, no-nonsense, to-the-point technical person does not work well with these people as their bosses.
The male bosses are more likely to be demanding and imperial, but they're also a lot more concise and to the point as to what they want. They'll take you standing toe/toe, but you better be able and willing to hold your own. Submissive, non-assertive types are seen as under-performers regardless of what they actually do.
However, I've had a boss with a hormonal imbalance. He was growing tits involuntarily, and horribly moody. He behaved more like a woman (and a very poor boss at that).
Granted, I should note that I've never actually had a good boss (but I hear they really do exist). But I guess that's probably par for the course.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
But it depends on the personality, not in the sex of the boss.
This.
The huge fail with any study that tries to measure whether X large group is "better" than Y large group is that there is, almost invariably, more variation within a group than between groups. The 60th percentile male boss will be a significantly better boss than the 40th percentile female boss even if (for sake of argument) the 50th percentile female boss is slightly better than the 50th percentile male boss.
On top of that, when the groups are identified by politically-charged categories like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., the politics dictates the science. The only hypotheses that get tested are the ones that are expected to return the desired results. No one funds a study to determine whether male bosses are better in situations where tenacity or dedication is advantageous, because the outcome has the potential to be politically unacceptable. Authors of a study that finds white/heterosexual/male groups to have an advantage over minority/homosexual/female groups will be branded bigots and frequently fired, and people know that ahead of time, so they have a huge incentive to fudge the numbers in any case where that looks like it might end up as a conclusion.
This is very much not to say that white, heterosexual and male groups are, on net, superior to their counterparts, but rather that attempting to measure the difference is both useless and futile. The politics corrupts the science to the point that conclusions become meaningless, and in any event, what do you even expect to do with the data? Is making staffing decisions on the basis of someone's gender really something we want to promote? Really?
Could this be because war requires leaders to make the kind of hard, unpopular decisions that women are often bad at?
It could be because the Matriarchs don't let the men start sh*t.
If a hottie hits on you, he's confident. If an uggo creeps on you, that's sexual harassment.
That, in effect, is kind of the policy at my workplace: It's only harassment if it's unwanted. So, sorry, uglies, you can't stare. Only hotties can stare at hotties here.
Oh Jesus Christ, MAN UP nancy!
While I always understood the importance of equality, affirmative action kinda miffed me in my younger years. Then in the slump of the housing fallout I got a job over an Indian with a PHD. And in that moment all the scholarships I couldn't apply for and all the Homers and Peter Griffins didn't matter one bit to me.
Also, looking back, at my internship there was me and a black guy. Both computer engineers. He was given a soldering iron, I was given a programming job.
Now, neither of those bosses were tons of fun to work with. And I imagine the minorities in both cases would have stronger views on the subject. But once you get out into the real world, fact is, it's a white man's world. Whatever petty affirmative action initiative, politically skewed bias, or yet another punching bag on a sitcom, it's a paltry compensation to the injustice that goes on every workday. When was the last time you had to hope a female foreigner with a different religion and no interest in your football team would give you a job?
So don't get your panties in a twist, sweetcheeks.