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)?'"

Comments

Both can be equally bad

[BagOBones]

I have seen examples of both male and female boss fail... I don't see much difference, I think they are equal.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[QuantumLeaper]

I agree with you there, but females tend to a little less of a pain and more willing to talk things over with the person, less of do this or your fired. I have talked my way of of doing something stupid with a female boss but never a male boss.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[Luckyo]

If she's a boss, she'll tell you to get them, and then check out your ass.

Welcome to gender equality.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[Hoi Polloi]

I've noticed woman bosses tend to take things more personally and are quicker to pick favorites. Male bosses tend to be more "we'll do it this way!".

Re:Both can be equally bad

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Both can be equally bad

[dskzero]

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.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[Hognoxious]

That's my experience too, it's almost like female bosses have a bimodal distribution.

Which looks a bit like boobies. Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[lucm]

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.

Congratulations, you win the Politically Correctness Award for the most Politically Correct comment discussing a Politically Correct interpretation of a Politically Correct study.

With Political Correctness, everybody wins!

Re:Both can be equally bad

[CAIMLAS]

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.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[JWSmythe]

    You're absolutely right. I hate seeing this kind of sexist statement. Saying that a white person, or a straight person could fulfill the same role better would be taken very poorly.

    I've worked for and with men, women, people of various ethnic origins, and sexualities. Some are good. Some are bad. My sample set is far from representative of humanity as a whole. If anyone else believes their sample set is better than mine, you've had way too many jobs.

    The some best supervisors and managers I've worked with have had extensive leadership experience. Some have had little, but had a natural talent.

    I find that having a good leader as a boss is better than working for a rock or wet sponge.

    Taking a position or maintaining that the workplace is better because the leadership role is filled by a member of a particular group is detrimental to both the employee, and respect for the leaders position.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[Stewie241]

I would question the wisdom of talking things through with fruit.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[operagost]

The best boss I ever had was female, and black. I don't assume this means that women make better bosses any more than I think you're racist because you think Obama is a bad president. By the way, her management style was not democratic. She did what most capable managers do: assign tasks to those most capable of them and improve the skills of those who are lacking.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[Anthony Mouse]

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?

Re:Both can be equally bad

[tripleevenfall]

Direct, no-nonense, hands-off management is not a bad thing.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[Webz]

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:Both can be equally bad

[kungfugleek]

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.

Re:Both can be equally bad

[tnk1]

I would question the wisdom of talking things through with fruit.

I don't know about that, they always seem like good listeners to me. I know I've never been interrupted by one, unlike some bosses I have worked with.

That's been my experience

[dtmos]

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.

Re:That's been my experience

[mellon]

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:That's been my experience

[Marillion]

As a stereotype, women excel at consensus driven group dynamics. The best female managers I've had were ones who followed their instincts, steered the consensus, and made groups work. Female managers who either trained to be to tried to be more like the stereotypical alpha-male manager who orders from the top down and expects unquestioning obedience have been miserable managers. It's also been my experience that the same is true of male managers.

Re:That's been my experience

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

The worst boss I've ever had was a woman. She was autocratic, ruled by intimidation and fear, and couldn't see outside a rigid hierarchy to save her life. She was the absolute personification of a Dilbert PHB (pointy haired boss, for you young'uns). Just about everyone hated her, and her name is still the butt of jokes at work, some eight years after she left.

Not sure if I should mention she happened to be a lesbian...

Re:That's been my experience

[garcia]

Some people suck and some people are great. Sex has absolutely nothing to do with personality or ability to manage.

Re:That's been my experience

[AmiMoJo]

Managers tend to either be people who were good at their jobs so got promoted into a position they were not good at, or people who are career managers and don't know enough about what the grunts actually do to be effective. There are some good bosses of course, but more accidentally than by design I think.

Re:That's been my experience

[Anonymous Coward]

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:That's been my experience

[mellon]

This isn't true--there are managers who are good by design. They just aren't all that common, because it's rare for a company to reward people for that.

Re:That's been my experience

[Samantha Wright]

If you're looking for a confounding variable to help flesh out your model, I might propose determination; i.e. women in business push themselves harder to succeed because they have something to prove (whether or not anyone's looking.) My undergraduate thesis supervisor was the epitome of this. I was interviewing with a woman while looking at graduate school supervisors, and remarked how skewed the gender balance seemed to be at that school in comparison with my alma mater; her response was that it was the same at all high-end universities, and she believed that women are less likely to apply for such schools because they underestimate their own abilities. Hence you see the truly exceptionally driven people; a tail of the distribution curve that isn't exactly bell-shaped.

Re:That's been my experience

[jellomizer]

The problem with the woman who try to be like male managers is that they try to follow the stereotype that adds unpredictability. I have found woman managers will go off far more unexpected then male managers, especially when they think they have something to prove.

Men and Women are different and more then just plumbing. Different doesn't mean better. But neither side shouldn't try to be what they aren't that is what causes problems.

Re:That's been my experience

[Ginger Unicorn]

I've had several male managers that were priggish martinets

so it isn't just me that had trouble when working as an 18th century footman

Re:That's been my experience

[Envy Life]

I have not found promotions into management to happen among the most competent. Companies lean toward keeping good employees in their position, and those with less competence get moved around, many times into management positions. In my experience I've come to believe that management is very difficult because most people don't get it. Out of all the companies I've worked for and all the management I've worked under or with, I'd say less than 10% are competent, and and the best was female.

Why was she best? Because she was good at organizing, good at following up on performance reviews, good at letting her team do what they were best at, and good at making decisions because her communication with her team allowed her a good pulse of what was going on. A large portion of male managers I've worked with want to be too hands on, and shirk some of the most basic organization and coordination that is needed to run a team. Lets face it, the bulk of a manager's responsibilities are secretarial tasks -- calendaring, organizing, scheduling, basically keeping their team on task. Some people get that, some people don't.

It is ideal to have a manager who was competent in a skills position at one point in their career, and work their way up as does a manager of a loading dock, but it isn't a requirement. For example in contrast to most other countries, many Chinese government officials have engineering backgrounds, and they "get" technology, and thus they seem to make much more intelligent decisions for their countries in many areas, e.g. manufacturing. In contrast, U.S. politicians are all lawyers, who are adept only at diverting and twisting issues for their own agenda rather than a pure sense of "good" and "not as good".

So background is important, but based on the high failure rate of managers I've seen in my decades of work experience, I'd just like someone who is a competent organizer and decision maker. Asking for someone who is good at that and who truly understands the jobs and skills of those underneath them is nearly impossible to find. That is largely because managers are hired by "Directors"--career management straight out of school, who don't have a clue how the world works above or below them... and Executives are skilled at sales. No one really gets it, and thus my opinion of corporate organization is very poor, so the most competent skilled workers have no desire to get "promoted" into a position largely occupied by incompetents.

Re:That's been my experience

[operagost]

For example in contrast to most other countries, many Chinese government officials have engineering backgrounds, and they "get" technology, and thus they seem to make much more intelligent decisions for their countries in many areas, e.g. manufacturing.

China has a planned economy, whereas the US has something resembling a free market.

In contrast, U.S. politicians are all lawyers, who are adept only at diverting and twisting issues for their own agenda rather than a pure sense of "good" and "not as good".

Good in what way? Pure morality, good for the most people, or a compromise between favoring the majority without trampling the rights of the minority? China is "successful" with a bunch of engineers in charge because the good of the state always trumps the needs of the minority. I'm not saying our lawyer-driven quagmire of a federal government is better, it's just better suited to a non-authoritarian government.

Anecdotal

[chill]

I've done some of my best work under women. :-)

Re:Anecdotal

[zlives]

how many monitors do you go through in a month?

Re:Anecdotal

[evil_aaronm]

Then you're doing it wrong.

It's lucky that the study didn't find the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it would have been sexism.

Wrong Location

[what2123]

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.

It's sexist, but it's ok

[Dinghy]

Because it's pro-woman.

Re:It's sexist, but it's ok

[betterunixthanunix]

As long as the public continuously hears that women are as capable or better than men, it will weaken their preexisting notion that men are better in some fields. It makes no difference whether or not it is true, whether or not studies support a claim, or whether or not studies that present a different result are left out. The feminist goal is to change society, not to present accurate information about anything, and logic and reason are irrelevant to effecting change.

Re:It's sexist, but it's ok

[HeckRuler]

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.

Re:It's sexist, but it's ok

[epyT-R]

I'm not sure if your +5 was targeted at explicit agreement with your statement, or acknowledgement of the implied roll-eyes.

The main difference

[msobkow]

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...

Re:It might depend on the organization ...

[what2123]

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.

Feminism. Glad you accepted it now guys?

[rhyder128k]

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."

Re:Feminism. Glad you accepted it now guys?

[englishknnigits]

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

Re:Feminism. Glad you accepted it now guys?

[NeutronCowboy]

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:Feminism. Glad you accepted it now guys?

[Khashishi]

Maybe men are more willing to accept a conclusion they don't like if they are shown evidence pointing toward that conclusion.

Re:Feminism. Glad you accepted it now guys?

[betterunixthanunix]

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

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

Re:Feminism. Glad you accepted it now guys?

[betterunixthanunix]

You clearly haven't heard of the glass ceiling, the 20% discount women have to take when doing a man's job,

I have heard of them, and I have also seen the studies that women are less likely to negotiate a higher salary, less likely to confront their bosses about raises, bonuses, and promotions, and more likely to take time off. Except that feminists have little to say about those studies; feminists simply assume that if there is any inequality, it is the result of discrimination. Feminists cannot admit the possibility that women themselves could have any part to play in their own salaries or career advancement: It must be the fault of men, society, or the mythical "patriarchy."

Yeah, economic advantages are, gasp! advantages.

Economic advantages are the only advantages that really matter. Feminists are only really concerned with the upper middle class, they could not care less about poor, working class people (male or female). At one time they cared (back when they were still fighting for equal access to blue collar careers), but somewhere along the way they forgot that such people even exist. Today's feminists have narrowed their focus to the upper middle class: white collar professionals who live in suburbs and who dream of climbing the ladder until they reach upper management (something which is basically impossible for blue collar workers; it takes a truly exception member of the working class to even reach middle management).

The issue is that men who grew up in working class families still have advantages over women growing up in working class families

Really? When last I checked, men from working class backgrounds had a high probability of being convicted of felonies and thrown in prison. I know of several men that went to middle school with me who were in prison while I was in college, and at least one is still in prison (he stole someone's car).

When feminists speak of "male advantage," they only mean men from the upper middle class. Feminists do not spend a lot of time fussing over the poor representation of women in blue collar work; after all, people (i.e. people with enough money to make a big contribution to a feminist organization) have trouble relating to, say, sanitation work as a success story.

Your mom worked railroads, congratulations. What are the odds that she might make management?

Again, it is hard for blue collar workers to rise to management positions, regardless of gender. My mom could have risen to the lowest levels of management if she had wanted to -- she had plenty of experience with the equipment and the operations that needed to be done -- but she never did want to, because of the added stress. The lowest levels of management do not represent much of an advance, and it is rare for low level managers to ever rise as high as mid level management (those positions are usually filled by people who went to professional schools). My mom's immediate bosses, both male and female, never rose to a higher management position (almost all had worked in some hourly position before taking on a low level management role).

Really, my mom's experience illustrates the real focus that feminists have. When I was working as a programmer, it was unthinkable to make a crude joke, or to have so much as a swimsuit calendar at one's desk. Feminists push hard to eliminate all manner of immature joking from white collar environments. My mother, on the other hand, saw or heard plenty of such jokes -- long tools held at crotch level, jokes about long hoses when the fire department showed up, jokes about tits, asses, dicks, and pussies, etc. There was a rule somewhere in the rulebook about not making such jokes, but the general environment was one in which only severe violations would be reported, because nobody wants to invite the scrutiny of upper management (indeed, if an occasional joke about the shape of a break

The moment you judge...

[i kan reed]

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:The moment you judge...

[countach74]

Stereotypes often exist for good reason. I never base a final judgement on them, but before I've had a chance to deal with someone individually, as you've said, I assume the stereotype (but it's ready to be overturned at a moment's notice). For me, the exception is racial stereotypes: I don't care much for preforming an opinion of someone based solely of their ethnicity. Except for Jews: they're always so damn good with money... Oh, and Asians: racial advantage with video games for sure.

Wouldn't know, never had one...

[JoeMerchant]

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.

Re:No F'ing Way

[ArhcAngel]

Like we believe you are married...HA!

Re:It might depend on the organization ...

[Calsar]

I think that is the exact opposite of the approach described. Apple was more of a dictatorship than a democracy.

Re:It might depend on the organization ...

[jojoba_oil]

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.

Re:It's lucky that the study didn't find the oppos

[bjourne]

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.

Lots of anecdotal evidence coming, I'm sure.

[hiryuu]

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. :)

Don't forget self-selection

[Arancaytar]

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.

Do Women Make Better Bosses?

[koan]

No.
Being a good leader is not gender dependent.

Re:No F'ing Way

[jdgeorge]

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.)

The former.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

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.

Re:Democratic way...

[vanye]

100% agree.

Business is not democratic - everyone isn't equal.

The janitor doesn't get to vote on strategic direction.

That doesn't mean that the dictator has to be malevolent - benevolent dictatorship seems to work well (from my pov).

Responsibility and Authority should go hand in hand - when they don't that's when organizations become dysfunctional.

Again...

[englishknnigits]

"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.

What is this, crap statistics day?

[Freddybear]

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?

Re:It's lucky that the study didn't find the oppos

[betterunixthanunix]

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.

Reverse discrimination...

[StikyPad]

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:No F'ing Way

[SilentStaid]

Hey man, maybe he's just into that kind of thing. Behind closed doors and all... sheesh - be a little more open minded!

Huh?

[Hognoxious]

Unless they've found a way to grow managers in tanks (which might explain a few things) don't women make all of them?

Doctors

[evil_aaronm]

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.

Based on a sample size of two

[Yogs]

Yes and no.

Or to put it another way...

[PerfectionLost]

Some people are great at sucking, and some people suck at being great. Sex has absolutely nothing to do with this.

FTFY

But are democratic decisions better?

[ShanghaiBill]

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?

Re:It's lucky that the study didn't find the oppos

[DrgnDancer]

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.

Re:It might depend on the organization ...

[unimacs]

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.

Re:It might depend on the organization ...

[Ihmhi]

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.