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

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

[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

[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.

Anecdotal

[chill]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it would have been sexism.

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.

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."

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: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).

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: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

[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.