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)?'"
I have seen examples of both male and female boss fail... I don't see much difference, I think they are equal.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
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.
I've done some of my best work under women. :-)
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Because it would have been sexism.
I must being a bad location then. I find most women in manager positions are good, but very authoritative. Which makes sense for the reason that they were able to get to that position to begin with. I'm not saying that it makes them bad in any sort of way I just don't see a female manager being any more cooperative than a male manager. In both cases it truly comes down to how that individual initially got to their position.
I had a woman boss who could chat-up a storm, but I wasn't getting any work done during that ~3 hours wasted per week.
On the other hand she did get me a promotion (+$5000 more per year). I doubt my old male boss would have bothered.
There are pros and cons.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Because it's pro-woman.
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.
I think it's safe to say that Steve Jobs did not lead in a way that was similar to most masculine-driven companies. He constantly choose to go against what everyone said "worked" and made everyone "change" their thoughts to agree with him. That sounds fairly feminine to me.
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.
Even though that might be true, I'm pretty sure Steve wasn't very democratic in his decisions - the main point of the article is that woman could be responsible for more democratic decision making.
In my engineering jobs, sex roles have always been... ahem, traditional - this is at about 8 different jobs in two Southern US states over the last 25 years. Same applied to the grocery store I worked in.
The "women bosses" I have had the most experience with are elementary school principals... they have run the gamut from insecure totalitarian witches to the ineffective ostrich to genuine warm caring professionals who do the right thing - not much different from the men I have had as bosses.
The biggest obstacle standing in the way of promotion in the workplace for a woman is another women. Female bosses hate to see another woman succeed and will do what they can to prevent it from happening.
Like we believe you are married...HA!
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I think that is the exact opposite of the approach described. Apple was more of a dictatorship than a democracy.
I share your doubt. Women may lead more democratically, but that doesn't always come out with the best outcome... Different? Yes. Better? Not always. The title tries to twist the words of the summary. I didn't read the article.
Even if female bosses tend to be more democratic that doesn't mean that YOUR particular female boss is. When are we going to stop judging people by their gender, race or ethnicity and start judging them by the job they do?
Because "group think" is good for business? Vote now!
Our customer base is shrinking we need to cut people to reduce costs... vote now!
Do we buy new software? vote now!
Raises for everybody? vote now!
Democracy isn't a way to make a business successful. Corporations are oligarchies. Sole proprietor is a kingship/dictatorship.
Democracy in business is like anarchy in business... it's only good for lose-lose conflict resolution.
Er no it wouldn't. There are hundreds of studies that show that women are worse than men on a wide range of tasks. Not the least, almost everything that is physically challenging. I hate this notion people have that research is somehow censored to be politically correct and that it is therefore not trustworthy.
Football Odds
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.
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.
"Well informed decisions" sounds completely subjective - i.e., it doesn't mean squat. Were the companies in the study more profitable than those run by evil penis people?
As far as my anecdotal evidence goes, every female boss, CEO, manager or whatever has been ruthless. They were not good to work with at all. In fact, I now tend to avoid companies that are run by women. I mean I don't assume they're all bad but as soon as I see some of the warning signs then I back off.
They seem on average to be much more unforgiving and have higher demands than male bosses and will cut your throat if you don't bow to them.
It may have something to do with what it takes to become a female leader but I think it's more to do with the nature of women themselves. Look at how they treat each other. They're less likely to hand out physical abuse than males but their emotional and similar abuse can be much more brutal.
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.
No.
Being a good leader is not gender dependent.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
I think it becomes sexism when the research in question transitions from a peer-reviewed journal to the popular press.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Out of the dozen or so bosses I've had in life, one female was really good. The remaining female bosses ranged from mediocre with one that was incredibly, absolutely awful. About three of my male bosses were really good, with the remainder being mediocre and none being truly awful. I doubt there's a huge difference though. I think it's just my own quirky experience.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I immediately decline any position where I have to report to a woman. Being married is tough enough.
So, you have no experience that would tell you whether a woman would be a better manager for you.
Being a spouse is a VERY different kind of relationship than being a manager or employee. (If not, you are doing something very wrong, either at home or at work.)
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.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
If you get a vote, it's a democracy - even if I twist your arm to "convince" you to vote the way I want.
It's a sham of a democracy, but it's still a democracy.
"men and women are the same in every way except the ways that women are better." Typical femnatzi logic that would get anyone tarred and feathered were the logic reversed. I'm sure some women make great bosses just like some men do. How about we stop caring about averages and about case by case basis? If a woman is a great boss, keep her! If a woman is a terrible boss, fire her! Same goes for men.
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?
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.
Palm trees and 8
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
I hate this notion people have that research is somehow censored
Those ones sure don't get a lot of air time. ;)
Not censored, but they are sometimes attacked by groups outside of academia.
There is a point where 'more democratic' can become a liability. Sure, you don't want leaders going off half-cocked without the correct information or being in tune with what their teams can realistically achieve, but I have observed the other extreme, project leadership paralyzed by indecision while trying to pursue consensus that isn't going to happen.
I've also noted that leadership on the extreme end of listening and honoring the views of the teams unfortunately frequently fails to convey the business needs for fear of seeming too pushy or not trusting of the employee judgement. An employee faced with more work than be possibly acheived by the deadline is sometimes asked to make the call themselves without knowing the relative business impact of the choices.
In short, sometimes overly democratic leaders tend to not lead at all.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Hey man, maybe he's just into that kind of thing. Behind closed doors and all... sheesh - be a little more open minded!
Unless they've found a way to grow managers in tanks (which might explain a few things) don't women make all of them?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Implying from this research, couldn't we say that women rule more democratically and appear to be better leaders because they can not make decisions themselves, and thus need to consult with their employees as to the best courses of action to take in any give scenario?
I often find this to be true in my line of work (military). I am not saying that all women are weak leaders, just saying that multiple conclusions could be pulled from this research.
But everything to do with competence.
I've seen average-to-stupid bosses all over. I've seen the rare smart one too. Some of the ones that are "fun to work with" are also some of the ones with bad business sense. Then there are the assholes who you'd rather stab yourself in the eye with an icepick before you'd ever work for them again.
And then there are the bosses who can value employees *and* have good business sense, and their companies become icons of the industry.
And in none of these situations, has gender ever really mattered.
--
BMO
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.
In my experience the distribution of incompetence is more or less equal between the sexes.
But if I was forced to choose between having a incompetent or overbearing boss of either gender, I would go with the male boss.
At the risk of seeming misogynistic, I'll add that I've not had many good experiences with incompetent female bosses in the IT sector, whereas the male ones tended to give me substantially more free rein with my decisions and policies.
(I grew up with a coder mother, and handled my first punched card at age 5...)
My boss is a woman, and she's the best boss I've ever had. Why? Because she had to prove herself, and she succeeded in doing so. The odds are stacked against women in management, and those who succeed are often better because they had to be significantly better than all the male candidates in order to stand out.
Disclaimer: This is a combination of anecdotal evidence and socio-demographic conjecture. Not all women make good bosses, and not all female bosses are good.
Yes and no.
The unspoken premise is that leading more democratically is better. I don't know if that's accurate in all cases. Decision by consensus isn't always better, especially in a small group.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
I don't judge anyone based on anything but their performance. I've never made an assessment of anyone's ability until I've worked with them for at least several weeks. With that clear, I think the suggestion that women are somehow better bosses is pure nonsense. They might be operate differently from men, but what do they do that makes them inherently better? Over my career I've been exposed to enough managers of both sexes to have seen some consistent patterns.
The attributes I've seen in bosses some how gets amplified when you're dealing with middle-management, or worse, at a company small enough that people feel excessively important, but big enough that politics become an issue.
I've found male bosses certainly have a tendency to have more of an ego. Some guys are obnoxious, carrying themselves around like they run the show. Because they think they're important they can't be bothered to learn anything and will go right on repeating them same mistakes over and over again. Some guys are downright stupid and disruptive to the process for that reason. It becomes a huge problem when they're micro-managers, which is a tendency I've found more in men. But otherwise in the scheme of things these are annoyances more than anything. Although I've also worked were guys who were a pain in the ass, but were amazing at what they did.
Female managers, however, have a distinct tendency to be emotional, stubborn and are not risk takers when they happen to be middle-managers. That's a particularly big problem because they'll dismiss a good idea that deviates from the usual routine. I get the feeling they're there to draw that paycheck and not actually provide any value beyond just doing the bare minimum required of them.
I also find them less committed to their employer, working remotely far more than men. Maybe they're smarter for gaming the system, but it's definitely disruptive to anyone working with them. It's difficult to make smart decisions when you're not fully aware of what your employees are doing. The emotional component is another issue. I've seen too many women take offense to things that weren't directed at them personally. Or making decisions based on the feelings of the moment as opposed to actually analyzing the issues at hand.
My assessment is derived from numerous specific examples throughout my career. And certainly it goes both ways. I've worked with men who are truly awful managers and set the bar for bad management. But my experience tells me that frequency of bad management has been higher in women. But then in general I think there are too many managers out there not equipped for the job. I think this is a universal problem with American companies, promoting based having a business degree and not real ability.
I will add that one of the best managers I've ever worked with was a woman. I think what made her so good was that she was always closely involved in what we were doing but never micromanaged, giving us the freedom to execute successful work.
Some people are great at sucking, and some people suck at being great. Sex has absolutely nothing to do with this.
FTFY
Maybe. But one thing is for sure: Instead of all these comments that say it's not really the gender that matters you'd get a lot of comments to the effect of "hey, that's just how it is."
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
whats next? studies on "black people take a shorter lunch breaks", "short men talk too much in meetings", "christians take fewer sick days" Appart from encouraging discrimination, it is worthless.
My first thought was, is it that women are potentially better managers or is it that people (and at that, maybe more for men or women?) like being managed by a woman regardless of her methods. IE, given a male and a female manager with everything else being equal, would the managed people act differently and thus be better employees?
I would be interested in testing what would happen if people were managed blindly, by someone who you dont know what sex they are. That of course would require some setup, as I dont think you could just study existing businesses...
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
The summary says that women make decisions that are more "democratic", but that doesn't mean they make "better" decisions. My experience is that female leaders are less willing to make hard, unpopular decisions, even when that is what needs to be done.
There are few matriarchal societies, and the few that exist, such as the Mosuo. tend to be in isolated regions where they are protected from war. Could this be because war requires leaders to make the kind of hard, unpopular decisions that women are often bad at?
Women make all kinds of bosses. In the manufacture and assembly sense of the word :)
Yeah Evan Peron said exactly the same thing when she was talking to Madame Chiang Kai-shek. And I'm sure Asma Assad would agree with that too.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I didn't read the article.
This is Slashdot--nobody does, so no need to state the obvious.
So assuming I buy everything they're selling (I don't entirely, as my anecdotal evidence says the exact opposite of this study)
What's "better" in this case; they seem to be focusing entirely on employee input to business direction and other feel good stuff.
Meanwhile, some (if not all) of the most successful companies from an economical standpoint were/are run by tyrants (amazon and apple to name two easy ones).
I don't just question their findings, but I'm outright calling bullshit on the conclusion.
The female bosses I've worked for have been vindictive and back stabbing ( not to me, necessarily, but as more a general attitude ). This from an admittedly small sample set of 4. Further, that is not to say the male bosses have been winners either, they have simply failed in different ways.
I have had one good manager for my personality type, and it was only because he knew what his job was; direct me what he wanted done, get me the resources I needed to accomplish the job and run interference on upper management to keep them out of my way.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Dammit... should have previewed it.... Eva! Eva Peron, not Evan. d'oh!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Male bosses, in my own experience, are far more easy going than female ones, and I think that this is because even in this day and age, there are still far more men in higher paying positions than women. It's unfortunate that women often don't seem to to get the same degree of respect that men often do in some fields, and to that end, I think that women in management positions are often overcompensating for the discrimination they've often had to endure by not being treated equally..
Not that I am excusing a female boss from acting like a bitch with their employees (which again, in my own experience, tends to happen far more than male bosses acting like slave drivers), but I can, I think, at least understand where it is coming from.
To be fair, one of the best bosses I ever had at any job I ever had was a woman... but she was a co- founder of the company I worked for, so much of the ladder climbing that has to happen in bigger companies that have been around for a long time wasn't there.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This assumes that managing in a more democratic manner is good. Business is not government.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
passive-aggressive undermining ... Insightful, you've definitely nailed something there. I'll help you improve as long as you continue to acknowledge me as the leader/wiser one .... don't become smarter than me... I've seen this from both sexes though, ... bosses and coworkers, parents .... it almost defines the most basic problem with corporate office culture ... primadonnas, managers, kings, queens and other sorts of egos must all be paid tribute to ... possibly the defining purpose of the invention of diplomacy...
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.
Yeah, the main difference is a woman will use her authority to force you to do something the group wants.
Which is a just as bad, for different reasons.
It's also well worth pointing out that statistics aren't real world applicable in practical situations. If we pick one random man and one random woman for a physical task, chances are that the man will be better at it. That said if the man happens to be me, and woman happen to be Venus Williams, she's probably gonna beat me in most physical tasks. The point of sexual equality is not that men and women are precisely equal in all ways statistically, but rather that they should have equal opportunity. The best male basketball players in the world are certainly better than the best female players, but a WNBA team is still going to beat any intramural male team; and the best WNBA teams probably could do well against the worst NBA teams. This is my argument with the military's rule against women in combat roles. Sure, statistically fewer women than men will be able to finish SEAL training, but that said there are plenty of women who can finish it. Why not give them a chance?
To get back on topic, just because statistically women manage more democratically it doesn't mean that your female manager will do so. Just because statistically men manage more autocratically, doesn't mean some men don't do quite well with a democratic style. It would be sexist to assume a woman or man will manage a certain way simply based on sex, an even more so to refuse them a job because of that assumption; but making broad language statements about likelihoods is not sexism.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
I've had my share of managers, and have had several that were either power/ego tripping or were insecure, and refused to listen to anything anyone had to say. "I'm the manager here, just DO it" style of management. Seems to be more common with men than women. I'm not saying that women are more likely to change course on something or reconsider than men, just saying they give the opportunity more often.
In many cases, the manager wasn't hired to RUN operations, they were hired to MANAGE it, in which case they are not expected to know as much about how things work and how subtle changes interact with each other at the other end of the production line. GOOD managers listen to their employees, identify the ones that really know what's going on, and aren't afraid of listening to concerns. This just happens to be a trait that I see more often in women managers than men.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The study is inherently sexist in assuming that men and women are different. In my experience, however, there's some truth to this. Genders have different approaches to management.
My concern is that we assume "more democratic" is better. I think I'd prefer a strong fair leader. My co-workers are presumably less experienced than the boss, and I don't know if I want a vote by the less experienced to trump the better experience of the boss.
... now finally I can sleep my way to the top too! (joke)
In IMHO the benevolent dictator model works best.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Why do you immediately dismiss this possibility? It seems plausible to me.
No, like racism etc. sexism is treating a specific person based on a general notion, not on how that person actually performs.
Bert
Their superior manual dexterity shows a better result using common off the shelf boss constructions kits. On the other hand most women lack the vocal talents to be Bruce Springsteen impersonators.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Jobs often poked his nose in the types of decisions that a typical CEO would let someone much farther down the ladder deal with. He'd even exchange emails with random customers.
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.
Not that it's fun to be informed, when you can share your "i walked on the moon" story, but the research comes from a 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey. The sample appears to have been conducted in the UK exclusively, focusing on small businesses. I wouldn't want to make inferences about a population when the sample is isolated or at least a decade old. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file12525.pdf
You really want fascism, or something a but more authoritarian. Remember the "Mythical Man Month"? What did that have to say about getting stuff done? Have one visionary, have others work under that person to accomplish their vision. I've seen plenty of software projects fail because of lose group leadership. If the worker's aren't aligned in vision, with clear decision making capability then everyone goes off in their own direction.
The findings aren't new, I've been interested in the topic for some time. Every story I read about women being put in a "man's" position indicates that they (broad generalizing here) are not comfortable making executive decisions.
So in effect, this means you don't want women in leadership roles, at least when it comes to accomplishing anything. (Again, broad generalization -- I've worked with quite a few assertive women who really did impress me, and I was very happy to work with, but for 9 out of 10 times they won't)
Just because we've said "domocracy" is the "best" government to have, does not mean it is the best for industry as well.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I've worked for spineless men that shifted their alliances every time the wind changed. I've also worked for women with big brass cajones that were willing to go toe-to-toe with anyone - and I've also had exactly the reverse...
To men business is just business. But women in charge make and take every thing personal.
News at 11.
Not really a gender difference but managers who have worked up through IT though development, analysis, team leader, project management, etc. are at an advantage in dealing with IT departments. More men go through this. I have had one male IT manager who was brought in through HR who really didn't have a clue what was going on, when projects slipped his response was to shout "do it faster". I have had several women managers in the same position, who responded in a similar way. There is a school of management which says that a good manager can manage anything, from a chain gang to a research project. My experience is that this is not the case.
Sorry, but I prefer working for males. I've worked for four different females now and have found them to be (overall) more irrational, moody, prone to favoritism, political and literally gossip mongering. Sorry if it's politically incorrect and sexist, but that really has been my personal experience. At first, I welcomed the idea of a female boss, thinking just what this story asserts...that she'd be more democratic and egalitarian, but that's just not been my experience. However, being a scientific person at heart, I'll go with the study over my own acecdotal experience and say ...'uh sure...they make great bosses'. *wince*
The position we should all strive for is the one that is factually correct, logically consistent and fits the problem at hand. I can guarantee that behavioral dynamics are far more complex than the article's sexist author makes them out to be. If there are correlations with gender, I'm sure they boil down to "men lead hierarchies" and "women deliberate in committees" most of the time, and that there are plenty of bitches and bastards in this world, as well as sane people. This is nothing we didn't all know already. The bias of the article shows with the terms placed as the 'positive' (democratic, interpersonal) standard by which success is judged. This bias is used throughout society in situations where feminists (or their male apologists) want to prop women up as 'equals' or in superiors-if-only-men-would-let-them scenarios.
As for me, I prefer more objective measurements in the leadership I work for, otherwise I find myself compelled to take over, even when I'm not all that interested, just to save my sanity. I work best when everyone is levelheaded and rational rather than passive-aggressive and backstabbing. The gender doesn't matter, up to the point where gender statistics start to play a significant part in whether my boss is the former or the latter.
Would a woman be able to manage "Steve Jobs" style? Would a company like Apple be better off with more feminine leadership? I doubt it...
I don't know. It's difficult to imagine any of the iProducts looking more effeminate than they already do.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Dr Brigid van Wanrooy, is a woman. Naturally, she would find it easier to see the positive side of female managers, and the negative side of male managers.
http://www.yasstribune.com.au/news/local/news/general/brigid-van-wanrooy-speaks-at-yass-high-the-real-effect-of-workchoices/1391134.aspx
I have found more and more often that a hell of a lot of women demand equality in benefits but not equality in responsibility.
Where's the movement to get women to be required to sign up for selective service? Why doesn't anyone really fight for women to have to live up to the same Physical Training Standards that men do? How come so few women seem to be chomping at the bit to get to front-line combat roles? These are just examples from the military, but salient ones nonetheless.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I've worked under two women.
One of them, for reasons unknown to me, had a personal vendetta against me. The first project that I worked with her on, she put me under performance counseling because I wasn't meeting my goals. The second project under her she did the same thing, but this time I found that she was withholding information that was vital to my job.
I wrote her up and reported that this was behavior unbecoming of a supervisor. Some years later at a christmas party another manager told me she was relieved of her supervisory role and demoted, then left the company. I have never worked for that manager, had never communicated what I did to anyone in the company, and his information was unsolicited.
The other woman I worked under was no problem at all.
I don't slam women because of one bad apple because there are male managers who are just as bad.
But the claim that female bosses promote better communication is just not true.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
But also its disadvantages. I doubt a democracy would be able to build the pyramids, or the great wall of China. For a modern democracy getting the resources for a task like that? Of course scaled up to today's technology? Over several election periods? Ridiculous. Democracy means mediocrity. But since mediocrity also means that extremes are limited on both sides, this is when it comes to governments not always a bad thing. So while I certainly see the value in having a democratic government, I really doubt that democratically managed companies can be successful in the long run. All it needs is a slightly above-average competition, which is not encumbered with sluggish decision-making processes, and hello bankruptcy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How is it we're supposed to believe that we're all equal but then also eat this shit about women being better at all sorts of stuff. I actually believe we are equal and a female boss will be as good or as shit as a male boss can be.
In fact I can also say with certainty that the worst run IT department I was in by a female director who was then replaced by another female director. It was still the same old bullshit where the little people mean nothing, everything is all about cost cutting, etc, etc and they found it nearly impossible to fill roles because of the shit job descriptions and awful pay.
Not only that but the company as a whole had more women than men working in it. It in no way improved it.
Quit judging people on credentials other than are they capable of doing the job. Tits and penises don't mean shit. Unless your company does porno.
So what do you mean by equal opportunity? There being an NBA and WNBA is equal opportunity or not? If there really was equal opportunity by pure merit women wouldn't qualify for many things - so if you want equal opportunity by "chance to win" then you have to create a "women-only category" for some stuff.
As for statistics. For many things (not all) the average doesn't matter that much. For "Star" fields, the top matters. The average doesn't. Nobody cares if the average woman runs 100m faster than the average man - or the other way round. What matters is the top 3 fastest in the world. Nobody cares if the average woman is better than the average man when it comes to "rocket science/nuclear science/chess/go[1]". What matters is the top.
For other fields - accountants, engineers, lawyers, you can do fine even if you aren't the top.
As for SEAL training if the tests are a fair reflection of what the job requires, I'm fine with giving women the chance, but they MUST pass the same tests. Otherwise it'd be like firemen and firewomen not having the same tests (which happens in some stupid places). If the test is fine but fewer women, or men or whatever ethnic group pass, the solution is not to have separate or easier tests, the solution is for the men/women/whatever to become good enough to pass.
[1] FWIW I think the top women are competitive in Go and bowling.
then YES!
I have nothing clever to put here...
Every single one: self-entitled incompetent arrogant assholes.
(the project/program managers, not technical leads).
Female bosses - a mixed bag. The good ones, were really good. The bad one: had a sexist male-hating axe to grind, and promoted women exclusively within the organization, regardless of merit, which created some pretty toxic situations with female team leads who basically sucked. But these were the exceptions rather than the rule. Once the man-hater was "promoted" to a different location, and her flying-monkey underlings removed, (one fired for excessive absenteeism, and finally, showing up completely drunk at work) - things got better.
I have a female boss now, and she's great.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
academia is often very biased...it often supports 'studies' like this that help prop up political positions.
'nuff said
if the movement was really about equality and not gynocentric pride, they'd call themselves philanthropists (love of humans). the term 'feminist' speaks volumes about their real attitudes.
You have to be kidding. He learned everything from his hard nosed salesman father. That Steve Jobs could sell ice to an Eskimo even after death. He did some things people don't like but it's very hard to argue that he was a very successful salesman. The best leaders have followers and he had lots of those too.
right.. it's an insecurity complex.. these women have something to prove..that they can out-men the men, and since these attitudes are what they associate with them, due to bad personal experience, indoctrination in college, or passive brainwashing by current culture, that's how they interact with employees, especially men. The irony here is that the very thing they claim they seek, confidence, is the very opposite of what they are projecting in the name of it. ..and some of them do it out of 'revenge', again because of their assumptions about men.
I agree but the reverse is also true.
He's referring to the gender double standard in the media.. ie it's ok to publish stuff on how women are 'repressed' or how men dominate, but one cannot talk about the opposites without being labeled as 'discriminatory.'
Not really. who cares if she's hot, when she's making your life miserable?
women can usually win any pissing contest.... http://www.femaleurinal.com/factsandfables.html from TFA... It is not a well-known fact, but women can urinate further than men, and accurately. Female children can be trained to sit or to stand to urinate and we know that children are quick learners.
Learn to laugh, man! It's a joke!
Granted, a bad joke, but still...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
maybe, but lots of insecure guys these days do make exceptions for their own mistreatment if she's hot.
Day? Kid you don't know anything yet.
Seriously, shut the fuck up, you're embarrassing yourself and are too stupid to know it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
More sensitive and emotional means more unstable. Women are also more prone toward detail oriented, which means tasks get partially completed but every detail of that partial completion is done.
In addition, I think it's time we stopped the knee jerk praise of democratic thinking around here. It's downright Soviet how we have to grovel and kowtow to the buzzword. Democracy has brought us an unending series of wars, a totally vapid culture, a disintegrating economy and whores for politicians. Let's try something new instead.
Futurist Traditionalism
BDSM?
Now that's worth a laugh!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think it's more to do with a lack of a strong, confident, rational father figure growing up than a sexual fetish.. if anything, a growth in such fetishes might be a reasonable result of today's softening male archetype.
Sorry to break it to you, but companies are not democratic structures. It is dictatorship. If it wasn't you would work as little as the owners and make as much as them, you would work 6 hour workdays ... etc.
While I am discussing technical issues - code and middleware - with my team, there is a long list of things that are decided by me or upper management.
I am not saying this is right, but that is how it is.
That said: I never had a female boss in 20 years of IT work: not as a sysadmin, nor as a programmer. I had one month working with a female team lead, but she didn't have a typical "boss" role, just some administrative things.
I my experience men are often semi-duchy PHBs Women bosses I've seen are more at the extreme ends. I've seen really awesome and bat-shit crazy women bosses.
I've mostly had bast experiences with female bosses. They tend to obsess on minor things at the expense of the big picture, and seem more reactionary and moody than male bosses. But my sample-size is probably not sufficient to draw conclusions. I'm just floating my personal experiences.
Table-ized A.I.
This should be clarified as feminine -vs- masculine. Anima -vs- animus. And the answer is: yes, IMHO. All of the female/feminine bosses I've had have been twice as awesome as the male/masculine ones. Secret to world peace: power equality for women. There should be one feminine cop for every masculine cop. Etc, etc... duh.
I have found more democratic workplaces indicate leadership that have difficulty making decisions, or don't want to be the only people to fall under the buss if something goes wrong.
I've worked for both for over 30 years. Women take things a lot more personally. They also worry that other people think they are stupid or are not up for the job. If you piss them off, you are really screwed. As for better decisions? I think that's a load of BS too. Making better decisions has a lot more to do with their training. Those that understand decision trees and those that haven't a clue. They guess. Which by the way is how a lot of management is done. A guess. Sucks but it's true. Women seem to also get promoted easier above their very qualified male counterparts. Part of affirmative action. So saying that they listen to their help makes sense. Their help is probably better qualified.
Doesn't have to be this way. They could teach how to make desicions better in the workplace. They could also teach how to learn better. I didn't really learn how to learn until I was almost out of college.
A good manager will adapt their management style to the needs of the organization and the people they are managing. A manager coming in and trying to make everyone fit their style is missing the point.
Managers should be facilitators, expediters, troubleshooters, organizers and mentors. They should not be dictators.
I've been a manager in several organizations with widely different cultures over the course of my career and have had to have widely different styles.
My first management position was a with a data entry team comprised of individuals who functioned best when there was a steady stream of work to do, knew what metrics they were being rated by, and simply wanted to chew through piles of entry without having to get into any rah-rah teambuilding stuff. So, I made sure that they were shielded from the stuff secondary to their jobs (office politics), that they knew exactly what was expected and how it would be measured and rewarded, and when I made changes they were changes done to facilitate the actual completion of work, not to implement bullshit new tasks to measure quality.
When I worked at a consulting firm I had to adapt my methods to a team comprised of very intelligent & productive individuals who responded best to extremely logical and well planned out directives, but who functioned best when allowed to figure out how to fulfill the directives themselves. I would give my people space to do amazing work, but at the same time I would touch base regularly to make sure they had what they needed. Most of my job consisted of preventing the sales team from bugging them (by hearing out the sales manager and determining whether or not the stuff they wanted was worthwhile). We had regular but short team meetings, and I went out of my way to help my team carve out time to work on things they were interested in exploring but that might not have an immediate application at work.
When I was promoted to take over the sales and engineering teams, I would give the sales force the rah-rah we will kick ass and take over the universe, go ye and make us money money money pep-talks they needed as well as a bit of latitude in the terms they could offer clients, but I also set firm boundaries as to ethical expectations and made the sales person who offered a special deal the one responsible for ensuring the deal was met, and also took a much more hard-line kind management stance because the people on that team both expected it and needed it or else they would blow you off.
Now that I work in academia I have an extremely collaborative style of management, and though I have quite a few people working for me, I tend to act more as a mentor than a boss. Most of my supervisory load now is taking our larger study goals and turning them into discrete tasks to be completed and, when necessary, helping newer team members by breaking down the process we use for their tasks, explaining why we're doing what we're doing and helping them figure out what kind of approach to take. Everyone on this team tends to be very, very interested in the work we are doing - personally vested in it - and what motivates them best is respecting that and helping them find ways to use their interest and passion to look for better ways to work with our participants and different groups within the community we are focused on.
All of those methods are different, all of them are different from my personal style, except for maybe the approach I took with the engineers. I am, personally, a bit blunt, a bit sarcastic, I expect a LOT from myself and from anyone else who is a peer of mine. I don't need my ego stroked with pointless "way to go" stuff - I'm able to look at the things I do and find the objective measures of success which is much more satisfying. I would rather avoid having to pay attention to the feelings of people I work with (meaning, I don't really care if your feelings are hurt because I didn't ask about how your kid is because I think it's absurd to expect everyone to try to manage your emotions) but I'
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4251968.stm