INTRODUCTION

Women in high-level leadership positions, such as corporate CEOs,

when studied, seem to exhibit the same sorts of leadership behaviors

as their male counterparts. That is probably because the demands of

the leadership role require certain actions and behaviors to succeed. In

addition, because of the hurdles that women must leap to get to the

top (leadership and gender expert, Alice Eagly, refers to this as the

"labyrinth" that women, but not men, need to go through), it could be

the case that only women who exhibit the same sorts of leadership

styles and behaviors as male leaders make it through. So, studying

leaders at the top, gives the impression that there are no big

differences in how men and women lead.

You get a somewhat different picture if you ask followers and leaders

about male and female leaders. They notice differences that are in line

with stereotypes about men and women, reporting that female leaders

are more nurturing, empathic, and responsive than male leaders, but

they will also report the negative side (e.g., moody). Male leaders, on

the other hand, are perceived to be more action-oriented and more

focused on tasks. As a Catalyst study concludes that according to

leaders and followers in the workplace, "women leaders take care, men

leaders take charge." Realize, however, that this involves people's

perceptions of leaders, colored by stereotypes and expectations.

Finally, there is a growing body of research that has studied the

leadership styles and leadership "potential" of men and women,

typically men and women managers (but also women in non-

managerial positions). For example, using the theory of

transformational leadership as an indicator of successful leadership

(transformational leaders are inspirational, positive role models,

concerned about followers, empowering, and push followers to be

1

creative and take chances), research shows that women, as a group,

have more transformational qualities than men. In other words, and

based on this research, women have more leadership potential and

tend to lead more effectively than men (I discussed this in an earlier

post).

So, what are the implications? Well, as attitudes about women leaders

change (they are changing, albeit ever so slowly) and the "labyrinth"

becomes less difficult to navigate, we expect more to women attain

high-level leadership positions. Noted leadership scholar, Bernard

Bass, predicted that by the year 2034 the majority of high-level leaders

will be women, based on their more transformational qualities. Of

course, men in leadership positions are also realizing that the old way

of leading - taking charge (command and control) - may not be as

effective in today's world and in the future, so they learn to adapt and

change how they lead.

HOW DO MEN AND WOMEN DIFFER IN THEIR LEADERSHIP STYLES?

It is tempting to assume that the differences between men and women

would automatically favor men, but they don’t. In today’s

organizations, flexibility, teamwork, trust and information sharing are

replacing rigid structures, competitive individualism, control and

secrecy. The best leaders listen, motivate and provide support to their

people. The leadership communication styles that women typically use

make them better than men at negotiating. Some communication

strengths for female leaders include: they enhance team work, they

encourage innovation through collaboration and they increase

opportunities for continuous improvement because of open access to

information. Some strengths for male leaders include: they tend to set

2

strong boundaries, they assign clear responsibilities and they weed out

weak performers.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE SEXES?

The similarities among men and women managers are surprising. An

extensive review of research suggests that similarities in leadership

styles tend to outweigh the differences. Because of career self-

selection and organization selection, people who choose careers in law

enforcement or real estate have a lot in common. So do individuals

who choose managerial or supervisory roles. Similarly, organizations

tend to recruit and promote into leadership positions people who

project leadership attributes.

DO GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION PATTERNS TRANSLATE TO POWER AT THE WORKPLACE?

Yes. Problem solving, influencing superiors, delegating responsibility

and other take-charge types of skills are key components of

interpersonal power. Research suggests that women robbed of this

interpersonal power in a company must rely more on their positional

power and their place in the hierarchy of their organization. As women

rely on the formal authority of their positions for their influence base,

they comprise only approximately 16 percent of Fortune 500 corporate

offices. Therefore, their positional power is limited.

HOW CAN GENDER STEREOTYPES AFFECT AN ORGANIZATION?

Companies may suffer by not developing and retaining some of the

best talent, which is key in remaining competitive in the global

business world. The perceptions by senior executives of women and

men are often more informed by gender-based stereotypes than facts.

This leads to misrepresentation of the true talents of women and

3

contributes to the startling gap in business leadership. The effects of

gender-based stereotyping can be devastating, potentially

undermining women’s capacity to lead and posing serious challenges

to women’s career advancements. Women are stereotyped as being

better at feminine caretaking skills such as supporting and rewarding.

Men are perceived as having essentially masculine taking-charge skills

such as influencing superiors and delegating responsibility.

The stereotype that dominates current corporate thinking is that men

are better problem-solvers than women. Since men far outnumber

women in top management positions — women make up less than 2

percent of the U.S. Fortune 500 and Fortune 1,000 CEOs — this may

keep women at lower management and professional positions.

DATA ANALYSIS ON LEADERSHIP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN

According to research carried out by Abinuola, (2007) recently

conducted on a survey of both men and women leaders to determine

how the sexes match up on specific areas of leadership. The ultimate

question being – Do men and women lead differently? 97% of women

and 79% of men believe men and women focus their behavior

differently as leaders. • Specifically, 88% of surveyed women believe

men lead by “promoting themselves and their abilities.” It seems many

men believe this as well. 60.9% of men believe men work harder than

women at “promoting themselves and their abilities”, • 70.8% women

believe women focus on “seeking input from all concerned sources”;

68.2% of men agree that women are focused on this behavior. It

seems a large portion of respondents agree that men tend to focus

more on the end game, while women focus more on how to get there.

4

According to the survey, leadership behaviors between the sexes differ

in these ways:

-Women concentrate on relationships with others by seeking input,

organizing, and managing a team; while -men hone in on the final

outcome and promoting their professional abilities. Although this study

suggests there are differences in the way the sexes lead, 23% of both

sexes agree that the most important characteristic of a leader in the

21st century is integrity. Inspiration (11.7%) and flexibility (11.7%) tied

for the second most important characteristic according to men. For

women, having a vision (14%) was the second most important

characteristic, closely followed by flexibility, people skills and

adaptability to change (all tied at 13%).

Yes, both men and women think the other gender leads differently; this

can lead to misunderstandings and does lead to tension in the

workplace. As advisors to senior executives, The administrative control

of Kwara state Government knows that men and women can benefit

from leadership coaching to become more effective in their role as a

leader. So leadership training is organized by the state government in

order to help Leaders in public sectors create more effective leaders

and to bridge the gap between whom the leader is and whom he or

she needs to be to succeed.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that companies have shown an increased commitment

to diversity, inclusion and advancement of women in the workplace,

the representation of women in leadership positions remains stagnant.

Companies need to take active steps to combat stereotyping by

instituting more rigorous and unambiguous evaluation processes, as

well as educating managers and executives about stereotyping. The

achievements of women leaders need to be showcased, particularly

5

those in male-dominated fields. Development of a gender-sensitive

workplace should be viewed as an overall company policy which strives

to improve gender equality and enable women to participate equally in

decision making. Those companies with a supportive, equitable

business culture enjoy better financial results, improved market share

and improved access to a growing, well-educated segment of the

workforce.

So, are women better managers than men? In terms of their day-to-

day actions, women managers should have advantages. But the

answer is really not so simple because managers do well only if people

accept their authority. In roles that have been held mainly by men,

women’s competence is often questioned. In these situations, women

managers can face a double standard. They have to be extra-

competent to be recognized as effective. Where women managers are

more common, this type of bias is less likely to prevail.

REFERENCES

Ahearn,K.K., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A.P. (2004). Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30, 309-27

Allinson, C.W., Armstrong, S.J., and Hayes, J. (2001). The effects of cognitive style on leader-mamber exchange: a study of manager-subordinate dyads. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74 (2), 201-20

Abinuola, S, O. (2007) An Appraisal of Administrative Task of Ilorin State Government Management Unpublished M.ED Thesis Ilorin University, Ilorin, Kwara State.

Armstrong, S.J., and Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). Cognitive style and its relevance for the management of careers, paper presented at the 66th Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA, 11-16 August

Bass B.M. (1981). Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press

6

Bass B.M. (1997). Does the transactional- transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychology, 52(3), 130-9

Bass B.M., Avolio B.J., & Goodheim L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world-class level. Journal of Management, 13, 7-19

Preferences to managerial behaviors. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 133-57

Do Men and Women Lead Differently? Who's Better? Are men better leaders, or do we just think so? Published on March 23, 2010

7

This is an age-old question. And the answer is complicated.

Women in high-level leadership positions, such as corporate CEOs, when studied, seem to exhibit the same sorts of leadership behaviors as their male counterparts. That is probably because the demands of the leadership role require certain actions and behaviors to succeed. In addition, because of the hurdles that women must leap to get to the top (leadership and gender expert, Alice Eagly, refers to this as the "labyrinth" that women, but not men, need to go through), it could be the case that only women who exhibit the same sorts of leadership styles and behaviors as male leaders make it through. So, studying leaders at the top, gives the impression that there are no big differences in how men and women lead.

You get a somewhat different picture if you ask followers and leaders about male and female leaders. They notice differences that are in line with stereotypes about men and women, reporting that female leaders are more nurturing, empathic, and responsive than male leaders, but they will also report the negative side (e.g., moody). Male leaders, on the other hand, are perceived to be more action-oriented and more focused on tasks. As a Catalyst study concludes that according to leaders and followers in the workplace, "women leaders take care, men leaders take charge." Realize, however, that this involves people's perceptions of leaders, colored by stereotypes and expectations.

Finally, there is a growing body of research that has studied the leadership styles and leadership "potential" of men and women, typically men and women managers (but also women in non-managerial positions). For example, using the theory of transformational leadership as an indicator of successful leadership (transformational leaders are inspirational, positive role models, concerned about followers, empowering, and push followers to be creative and take chances), research shows that women, as a group, have more transformational qualities than men. In other words, and based on this research, women have more leadership potential and tend to lead more effectively than men (I discussed this in an earlier post).

So, what are the implications? Well, as attitudes about women leaders change (they are changing, albeit ever so slowly) and the "labyrinth" becomes less difficult to navigate, we expect more to women attain high-level leadership positions. Noted leadership scholar, Bernard Bass, predicted that by the year 2034 the majority of high-level leaders will be women, based on their more transformational qualities. Of course, men in leadership positions are also realizing that the old way of leading - taking charge (command and control) - may not be as effective in today's world and in the future, so they learn to adapt and change how they lead.

What are your thoughts?

Books reporting research on gender and leadership:

NEW

8

Organizational Leadership

Leadership styles

Men and women lead differently, but effectively

By Chelan David

Smart Business Los Angeles | August 2006

ShareThis

The different communication styles between the sexes are well documented. Men tend to be more direct and goal-oriented while women tend to be relationship-oriented and seek harmony. However, it is important not to pigeonhole the skills that each gender brings to the table as far as leadership abilities go.

The capability to meld different communication styles is essential for organizations hoping to fully realize their potential. While males account for the majority of leadership positions, the influx of females into the workplace indicates that the tide may soon be shifting. “It has been about 30 years since women first began entering the workplace in a large number,” points out Yael Hellman, Ed.D., a professor in organizational leadership at Woodbury University. “Women now make up more than half of all college students and about half of all law and medical students.”

Smart Business spoke with Hellman about the different types of leadership styles that men and women exhibit, the dangers of gender stereotyping and how to provide an environment that encourages equal opportunities for advancement.

How do men and women differ in their leadership styles?It is tempting to assume that the differences between men and women would automatically favor men, but they don’t. In today’s organizations, flexibility, teamwork, trust and information sharing are replacing rigid structures, competitive individualism, control and secrecy. The best leaders listen, motivate and provide support to their people. The leadership communication styles that women typically use make them better than men at negotiating. Some communication strengths for female leaders include: they enhance team work, they encourage innovation through collaboration and they increase opportunities for continuous improvement because of open access to information. Some strengths for male leaders include: they tend to set strong boundaries, they assign clear responsibilities and they weed out weak performers.

9

What are some of the similarities between the sexes?The similarities among men and women managers are surprising. An extensive review of research suggests that similarities in leadership styles tend to outweigh the differences. Because of career self-selection and organization selection, people who choose careers in law enforcement or real estate have a lot in common. So do individuals who choose managerial or supervisory roles. Similarly, organizations tend to recruit and promote into leadership positions people who project leadership attributes.

Do gender differences in communication patterns translate to power at the workplace?Yes. Problem solving, influencing superiors, delegating responsibility and other take-charge types of skills are key components of interpersonal power. Research suggests that women robbed of this interpersonal power in a company must rely more on their positional power and their place in the hierarchy of their organization. As women rely on the formal authority of their positions for their influence base, they comprise only approximately 16 percent of Fortune 500 corporate offices. Therefore, their positional power is limited.

How can gender stereotypes affect an organization?Companies may suffer by not developing and retaining some of the best talent, which is key in remaining competitive in the global business world. The perceptions by senior executives of women and men are often more informed by gender-based stereotypes than facts. This leads to misrepresentation of the true talents of women and contributes to the startling gap in business leadership.

The effects of gender-based stereotyping can be devastating, potentially undermining women’s capacity to lead and posing serious challenges to women’s career advancements. Women are stereotyped as being better at feminine caretaking skills such as supporting and rewarding. Men are perceived as having essentially masculine taking-charge skills such as influencing superiors and delegating responsibility.

The stereotype that dominates current corporate thinking is that men are better problem-solvers than women. Since men far outnumber women in top management positions — women make up less than 2 percent of the U.S. Fortune 500 and Fortune 1,000 CEOs — this may keep women at lower management and professional positions.

How can an organization create a culture that is conducive to equal opportunities for both sexes?Despite the fact that companies have shown an increased commitment to diversity, inclusion and advancement of women in the workplace, the representation of women in leadership positions remains stagnant.

Companies need to take active steps to combat stereotyping by instituting more rigorous and unambiguous evaluation processes, as well as educating managers and executives about stereotyping. The achievements of women leaders need to be showcased, particularly those in male-dominated fields. Development of a gender-sensitive

10

workplace should be viewed as an overall company policy which strives to improve gender equality and enable women to participate equally in decision making. Those companies with a supportive, equitable business culture enjoy better financial results, improved market share and improved access to a growing, well-educated segment of the workforce.

YAEL HELLMAN is a professor of organizational leadership at Woodbury University. Reach her at (818) 252-5145 or yael.hellman@woodbury.edu.

NEW Do Women Lead Differently Than Men? Americans could elect our first female president in 2008. What the most powerful women of the past can teach us about how to rule in the future.

By Barbara KantrowitzNewsweek

Oct. 15, 2007 issue - She was born into a profoundly dysfunctional family. Her father married six times—and essentially ordered hits on two of his wives, including her mother (whose major crime may have been giving birth to a daughter instead of a son). Jealous relatives plotted against her. As a teenager, she was locked up in a tower. If she were alive today, she could write a best-selling memoir about her abusive childhood and appear on "Oprah." Instead, Elizabeth I became one of the most powerful and respected leaders in history.

This year, as Americans contemplate making Sen. Hillary Clinton our first female president, it is instructive to look back at Elizabeth and other women who wielded power long before the age of speechwriters, personal stylists and YouTube campaigning. Cleopatra, for example, ruled ancient Egypt with fierce political savvy while giving birth to children by Julius Caesar and Mark Antony (twins in the latter case). If she worried about balancing work and family, she left no record of it. This was a woman who understood the importance of the grand gesture. Once, according to a history by Pliny the Elder, she bet Antony that she could spend 10 million sesterces (a Roman coin) on dinner. In the midst of a pedestrian meal, she dropped a valuable pearl earring into a cup of vinegar, watched it dissolve and drank it.

In their pursuit of power, women have been as ruthless as any man. And they haven't had to apologize for it. In 18th-century Russia, Catherine the Great vastly extended the borders of the Russian Empire, became a generous patron of the arts and enjoyed many lovers (royalty does have its privileges)—although any story you may have heard about shenanigans with a horse is apocryphal. More recently, elected leaders like Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher proved that women can be just as tough as men, and often tougher. And just like a man, they can pay the ultimate price in their pursuit of power, as Gandhi did when she was assassinated in 1984 by Sikh separatists.

11

Even in this stellar company, Elizabeth I still stands alone. From her coronation in 1559 until her death nearly 45 years later, she guided England with great skill. The country was transformed from an economically troubled backwater beset by religious strife into one of the strongest nations on earth. Commerce flourished. Walter Raleigh and Francis Drake explored the New World. Shakespeare, Marlowe and Spenser produced their greatest work. England defeated the Spanish Armada in an epic battle.

In the 400 years since her death, Elizabeth's legend has been burnished by hundreds of plays, books and movies—most recently, "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" with Cate Blanchett, which opens Friday. (Portraying Elizabeth is a good deal for an actress; the role earned Helen Mirren an Emmy and Judi Dench an Oscar.)

In many of these re-creations, Elizabeth is a remote, archaic figure—the unmarried Virgin Queen (exactly how virginal is a mystery). But she was actually a public-relations whiz. On the day of her coronation, she rode through London under a brocade canopy as crowds cheered. Then she immediately tackled her nation's toughest problem—religion—by reinstating the Protestant Church. She discouraged persecution of Roman Catholics, however, telling her counselors, "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls."

Over the years, Elizabeth downsized her Privy Council, her closest advisers, in order to run her government more efficiently. She also made it clear that while she listened to them, the final decision was always hers. She exercised power as firmly as any man, but used her femininity to reinforce her popularity. In her most celebrated speech, just before the defeat of the Armada, she addressed the matter directly. "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman," she said, "but I have the heart and stomach of a king." Her particular blend of strength and compassion would play just as well in 2008.

NEW

Female executives lead differently from MENFemale leaders operate differently in the workplace than their male counterparts. Women tend to be more assertive, persuasive and willing to take risks, and they have a stronger need to get things done than male executives, according to a new study conducted jointly by Caliper, a Princeton-based management consulting firm, and Aurora, a London-based firm which advances women and sponsors a 20,000-member businesswomen's network.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Top female executives also were found to be more empathic and flexible and to have stronger interpersonal skills than their male colleagues.

12

The study included an in-depth personality assessment by Caliper, a demographic analysis and interviews with 60 female leaders from top U.S. and U.K. companies. The female leaders were matched to a representative sample of male leaders from Caliper's database.

"We're looking at a different paradigm of leadership, and it plays naturally to the strengths of women," says Regina Sacha, vice president of human resources for FedEx Custom Critical. "The tide has turned. The leadership skills that come naturally to women are now absolutely necessary for companies to continue to thrive," continues Sacha. "It certainly is the reverse of how it was when I first started out in the workplace. It seems like poetic justice."

COPYRIGHT 2005 Society for Human Resource Management COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group

"Female executives lead differently from men". HR Magazine. FindArticles.com. 25 Aug, 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_6_50/ai_n13826251/

COPYRIGHT 2005 Society for Human Resource Management COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group

Do women lead differntly then men?

I suppose that you mean in politics. Yes definitely women lead differently. This does not mean good or better.The biggest leader in the world is THE MOTHER and Most mothers do very fine job better than fathers.

In every aspect of life, Women has different outlook. Women are more cautious than men, Most women scare to

13

take risk which is good some times. In general women respect life more than men.NEW

Women vs Men: Do Women Lead Differently than Men? – 1

women lead differently than men? It seems the answer is “yes.” Survey results show men and women tend to agree on the exact behaviors that reveal the differences for women leaders and men leaders. Let’s look at the facts:

97% of women and 79% of men believe men and women focus their behavior differently as leaders … specifically (1) Women believe men lead by “promoting themselves and their abilities.”; and (2) Men believe women focus on “seeking input from all concerned sources” and are found to be more empathic and flexible and to have stronger interpersonal skills than their male colleagues.

In other words, leadership behaviors between the sexes differ by: (a) women concentrate on relationships with others by seeking input, organizing, and managing a team; while (b) men hone in on the final outcome and promoting their professional abilities.

So what are the skills and behaviors women in leadership should direct their developmental efforts? Let’s begin with setting and completing goals. According to a 2009 survey conducted by The Executive Leadership Council… women, specifically women of color, “should seek high-visibility stretch assignments to improve their access to senior management and C-Suite positions.” 

Seeking challenging assignments will provide the opportunities to practice skills and cultivate character-driven behaviors required to reach success. Women are most likely to find these opportunities for real-time practice in the challenges in their current job or in new assignments sought out in community. Consequentially, challenging assignments provides learning by doing, seeing what works and what doesn’t, and trying it again. Lastly, challenging assignments can motivate women to improve. If you don’t improve the skills and character-driven behaviors you’ve targeted, you’ll likely not do well in the assignment. It will be obvious to you and others that you aren’t reaching your leadership development goals.

I encourage women to stretch themselves in developing their leadership skills, if climbing the corporate ladder or being a community advocate is their desire.

Stay tuned for the next post: Women vs Men: Do Women Lead Differently than Men? – 2.

14

© 2010 Karlyn D. Henderson, M.A. All rights reserved.

Karlyn D. Henderson, M.A., Leadership Development Strategist, consults and coaches senior and executive women in leadership to climb their ladders of success and achieve a quality work/life balance by conquering challenges and breakingthrough barriers. Check out her  BLOG: Leadership Notes at http://karlyndhenderson.com and follower her  twitter@HendersonKarlyn.

NEW

10 Tips For Leadership Success

July 9th, 2010 @ Karlyn D. Henderson, M.A.

1. Get rid of negative thinking. Negative thinking only blocks positive action and is self-destructive.

2. Feed your mind with spiritual, pure, and progressive thoughts, just as you would feed your body with good, wholesome food.

3. Remember that failure is a mind-set; however, success is a mind-set, too.4. Success begins the moment you acquire self-confidence.5. You must plan for success. Fail to plan, fail to succeed.6. Don’t wait for opportunity to find you, find opportunity, make things happen by

creating your own opportunities rather than waiting for you “big break”7. Some failure is expected, however, learn from your failures. Remember to have

faith in your potential when you fail and succeed.8. Obstacles are blown apart by perseverance and determination.9. Success does not necessarily mean material success. Success includes spiritual,

peace, emotional maturity, self-respect, and family success.10. Finally, don’t give up!  Worthwhile things are often the hardest to achieve.

A Leaders 3 Most Underutilized Words July 2nd, 2010 @ Karlyn D. Henderson, M.A.

It’s tempting to banish the words: “I don’t know” from a leader’s vocabulary. After all, you are a leader and leaders are supposed to have all of answers. More so, you gain your followers trust when you have the answers.

.So what happens on the rare occasion when you don’t know?

.Such a candid admission from a leader can actually build credibility, but only if “I don’t know” is followed by the words, “but I know where I can find the answer.”  And frequently, leaders will turn to other leaders and valuable resources to find the answers needed to move the organization and/or team forward.

15

.Consider the resource, Success and Savvy in 60 Minutes, a leader’s laser coaching session to draw insights on leadership topics like: vision casting, communication, authority, team building, followship, and much more.

.Not only will Success and Savvy in 60 Minutes help unearth answers, it will also provide a method of effective communication between you and those you lead. All of which makes those three underutilized words much easier to use.

Do Women Make Better Bosses?Do “female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers”?

That is the view of Carol Smith, the senior vice president and chief brand officer for the Elle Group, expressed in a short interview published inside The Times’s business section a week ago Sunday. Ms. Smith also said that male bosses “love to hear themselves talk” and that in some previous jobs she purposely arrived late to meetings so she could miss the men’s conversations about golf and football.

The interview, conducted by Adam Bryant, The Times’s deputy business editor, generated a lot of reaction and debate among readers last week.

What does research show about the differences between women and men as managers?

Alice Eagly, Northwestern University Leora Tanenbaum, author of “Catfight” Joanna Barsh, McKinsey and Company Susan Pinker, psychologist and columnist Gary N. Powell, University of Connecticut Sharon Meers, former managing director at Goldman Sachs

Advantages, Yes, but Also a Double Standard

Alice Eagly is chairman of the department of social psychology at Northwestern University.

As a researcher on managerial behavior, I have read hundreds of studies that have compared women and men as managers. When we summarize all of that research, some differences do show up, although only “on the average.”

16

As with all averages, there are many exceptions. But here’s what we know from research:

Women are less ‘bossy,’ probably because people dislike bossy women even more than bossy men.

First, as Carol Smith illustrates, women are less “bossy,” probably because people dislike bossy women even more than bossy men. As a result, female managers are more collaborative and democratic than male managers. Second, compared with men, women use a more positive approach by encouraging and urging others rather than a negative approach of scolding and reprimanding them. Third, women attend more to the individuals they work with, by mentoring them and taking their particular situations into account.

Finally, there is the matter of getting the job done efficiently. Most managers, male and female, get their work done in a timely way, but some do not. When you find one of those barely functioning managers — that is, someone who avoids solving problems and just doesn’t get the job done, that person is more likely to be a man than a woman. Why? Perhaps because a woman would be fired or demoted more quickly for poor managing.

So, are women better managers than men? In terms of their day-to-day actions, women managers should have advantages. But the answer is really not so simple because managers do well only if people accept their authority.

In roles that have been held mainly by men, women’s competence is often questioned. In these situations, women managers can face a double standard. They have to be extra-competent to be recognized as effective. Where women managers are more common, this type of bias is less likely to prevail.

Belittling Other Women

Leora Tanenbaum is author of “Catfight: Rivalries Among Women: From Diets to Dating, From the Boardroom to the Delivery Room.”

Yes, countless female managers are great at making lists and sure, lots of men love to hear the sound of their own voices — endlessly. But none of this behavior matters if it’s accompanied with a denial of the continued existence of sexism in the workplace.

Many women who make it to senior management feel a need to prove their own superiority.

17

Consider: Women are routinely undervalued and assumed to lack competence. Successful men don’t have to worry about when and if to become parents; successful women do. Men earn more and are promoted more.

Troublingly, many individual women who make it to senior management refuse to acknowledge these very real conditions. They position themselves as uniquely and unusually qualified, implicitly belittling other women in a move to prove their own superiority.

Upon becoming president and C.E.O. of Hewlett-Packard in 1999, Carly Fiorina immediately distanced herself from her corporate sisters. Fiorina announced that “there is not a glass ceiling…. My gender is interesting but really not the subject of the story here.” Whether or not Fiorina was a superior CEO because she was a woman is certainly debatable — she was forced out in 2005 — and she was succeeded by another woman, Patricia Dunn, who was accused of spying on the company’s board members.

The best managers, female or male, are those who admit that the corporate structure favors men and who recognize their responsibility to help others follow in their footsteps.

More Emotional, for Better or Sometimes Worse

Joanna Barsh is a director in the New York office of McKinsey and Company and co-author of “How Remarkable Women Lead ,” to be published in September.

We’ve been researching remarkable women leaders for the past five years. Indeed, we’ve now interviewed well over 100 women and a few good men. We’ve also developed a research survey that almost 2,000 men and women have responded to from around the world.

In a word, women have an edge over men in terms of what we call centered leadership. Women tend to look for meaning more than men at work (no surprise, men go for pay and status more often).

Women are natural relationship builders, but in general they take fewer risks than men.

Women also bring emotion to the workplace, and when those emotions are positive — that is quite powerful. Psychologists tell us that women experience emotions more at the extremes than men.That’s why many women do replay negative events over and over.

18

But female optimists are a different story. Whereas many men rush off in any direction when adversity strikes, optimist women diagnose the situation, make a plan and then act. Are pessimists doomed to the cycle of spiraling down? Not at all. Positive psychologists teach learned optimism, and we can all take a lesson there.

Then there is connecting. Women are natural relationship-builders. But the debate rages as to whether men or women are better at networking. Our own work suggests women hold back, more reluctant to use reciprocity to build “transactional” relationships. That said, the research shows women are more inclusive and build consensus to reach decisions — something that may be increasingly important for large, complex and changing companies today.

When it comes to engaging, men are risk-takers. The women who have made their way to the top have also taken risk — it is the best way to develop at an accelerated pace. In general, we have found that many women don’t. We wait until we have all the necessary skills or the full answer.

Our model ends on energizing, because most women still do more of the household work. Energizing is critical for leaders — both to sustain one’s own path and also to infuse energy into the organization. One area where women can improve is to stop (yes) multitasking when our full attention is required. When you attempt to facilitate a phone conference while doing email, your brain switches between tasks, and you lose focus and energy.

When men and women assessed their own centered leadership practices, it turned out that women scored higher on almost all factors by a marginal amount. We haven’t got enough data to validate that finding, but there’s room for thought.

Are these the right attributes to gauge leadership? We believe they are even more important in today’s marketplace.

Women Are More Effective Mind Readers

Susan Pinker is a psychologist and columnist for the Globe and Mail in Canada. She is the author of “The Sexual Paradox,” about the roots of sex differences in the classroom and the workplace.

No doubts: Some sex differences exist, and there’s new evidence to prove it. Women are often better communicators because their brains are more networked for language. The majority of women are better at “mind-reading,” than most men; they can read the emotions written on people’s faces more quickly and easily, a talent jump-started by the

19

vast swaths of neural real estate dedicated to processing emotions in the female brain, and boosted by jolts of oxytocin at critical moments in their lives. (Amazingly, oxytocin, a hormone circulating in greater quantities in women, squirted up a man’s nostril boosts his mind-reading skills, too.)

While women may be more empathetic than men, individual female managers who have climbed the ladder may not be.

And the thicker corpus callosum connecting women’s two hemispheres provides a swifter superhighway for processing social messages, such as reading the morale of a group, or the mood of a colleague. And there are measurable sex differences in empathy, as President Obama suggested when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. There are more women who are champions at imagining what other people are thinking and feeling, and more men who struggle mightily with this skill.

But is this profile true of all women, and does it mean women make better managers? The answer is no, and no.

First, all scientific evidence is based on statistical averages; an individual’s unique qualities are always blended into the group’s. So, even if men are taller than women, on average, variation means that there will always be some women who are taller than some men. And just as women are more empathic, on average, there are certainly men who are softer, and better empathizers than some women.

The readers’ complaints about difficult female managers that appear under the interview with Carol Smith make that clear: aggression is certainly more common among men, but for many reasons, the women who rise up the ranks may be on the more competitive and aggressive side — and their subordinates often feel it — especially the women who work with them.

Competition within each sex is more fierce than it is between the sexes, and one study shows that women report less stress if the boss is a man.

One reason is that competition within each sex is more fierce than it is between the sexes, and within-sex tension increases when resources are tight, as they are in this recession. One study published in 2008 by two sociologists at the University of Toronto, Scott Schieman and Taralyn McMullen, reinforces that maxim. When the scientists looked at physical and mental distress among 1,000 American employees working in a variety of jobs, they found that men worked best with gender-mixed managers: one male, one female. Women, however, worked best with one male manager — reporting fewer headaches, backaches anxiety, and difficulties concentrating than they did when they worked for a woman.

Which shows that Carol Smith is wrong about her blanket statement about women being better managers. But she’s right about something else. Whether we’re talking about

20

mentoring, managing or office politics, the research is clear: “Men and women together are the best.”

A Transformational Style

Gary N. Powell is professor of management in the School of Business of the University of Connecticut in Storrs. He is working on the fourth edition of “ Women and Men in Management” and is author of “Managing a Diverse Workforce” and editor of “Handbook of Gender and Work.”

Carol Smith sounds like an excellent manager. Further, her statement that women as a group are better managers than men as a group is supported by recent research. Female leaders tend to display a “transformational” leadership style, which has been demonstrated to contribute to leader effectiveness, more than male leaders do.

Good managers have been seen over three decades as exhibiting more masculine traits than feminine traits.

Transformational leadership includes charisma (communicating the purpose and importance of a mission and serving as a role model), inspirational motivation (exuding optimism and excitement about the mission’s attainability), intellectual stimulation (encouraging others to think out of the box), and individualized consideration (focusing on the development and mentoring of subordinates as individuals).

Ms. Smith is a good example of a transformational leader. When she sits at the middle of the conference table rather than at its head, arriving after the requisite jokes have been told, she communicates, “We are all in this together and I am part of it, but let’s not waste time,” which is the starting point of transformational leadership.

So why aren’t there more women in the corner offices of corporate America? Although more women than ever before are in the managerial ranks of businesses at all levels, women continue to face significant disadvantages in the leader role than men do not face.

First, polls suggest that about twice as many people would rather work for a male boss than a female boss, although “it doesn’t matter to me” is the slight favorite. Second, in my research with D. Anthony Butterfield, good managers have been seen over three decades as exhibiting more masculine traits associated with men, such as autonomy and independence, than feminine traits associated with women, such as warmth and sensitivity to the needs of others.

21

Many people still see an incongruity between the female gender role and the leader role, which makes it harder for women to attain corner office positions and puts them in an unwelcome spotlight when they do. In 2006, after PepsiCo announced that Indra Nooyi would become its new CEO, the headline of the New York Times story was, “A Woman to Be Chief at PepsiCo.” No headline has ever announced “A Man to Be Chief at Acme Corp.”

A Female Specialty: Feedback

Sharon Meers is co-author of “Getting to 50/50,” about working couples, and a former managing director at Goldman Sachs. She and her husband created the Partnership for Parity at Stanford Business School and the Dual-Career Initiative at Harvard University.

The best thing about female managers? They get you paid more. Women bosses tend to fight harder for their subordinates, according to negotiation research, getting better raises for their teams.

I’ve worked for many great men. But, in my experience, female managers are a special breed. We won’t know for decades if the differences are due more to nature or nurture but they are largely good — and stem from the fact that senior women are still outsiders.

Harvard Business School research says star women are more likely than male stars to remain persistently high performers. Why? Women don’t get the same access to mentors and networks and have to build muscle that men don’t. Star women have to innovate to outperform — building stronger client ties, finding outside advisers, seeking opportunities with results that can be measured objectively.

Women often take an alternative approach to leading teams — encouraging more open discussion, cultivating talent and sharing credit. Feedback is the place where women bosses may add the most value.

Straight talk from a boss at Goldman Sachs.

After seven years at Goldman, I got my first female manager — and more straight talk than in my entire career. She minced no words when I messed up, but she also made it clear she was on my side: my advocate. That powerful combination — candor and trust — inspired her team to accept and act on feedback in a way I hadn’t seen before.

In hundreds of interviews of workers and bosses for our book, we repeatedly heard employees complain about the feedback style of male bosses (everything from excessively harsh to evasive). Male bosses were no more satisfied: Many are now so

22

unsure what’s O.K. in the workplace, they fear female workers’ crying or complaints to HR.

So here’s the real question: How to make the positive qualities we see in female managers more common in men — and more useful to all? A new report from Catalyst shows how companies win when we escape the idea that men and women are so different and work harder to get on the same page — so that men and women bring out the best in each other sharing the same C-suite.

NEW

You ask the question, “Do Women Make Better Bosses?”

As a sociologist with an advanced degree and many years of experience as a senior manager of research at several very well known US companies, where I interfaced with many executives in both my own companies and our client companies (most of which were Fortune 500 companies or major multinationals), the perspectives advanced by the various contributors do contain several valid themes.

My experience supports the notion that women managers tend to be better team players and more collaborative than comparable male managers. The male managers tended to be more in it for themselves, more aggressively competitive, more competitive with each other and more ego-centric. The male managers also seemed to be more taken with the power and command they had attained and seemed bent on getting more (more power and more money).

On the other hand, and this brings in a more sociological aspect and perhaps cultural aspect, the male managers tended to have a deeper and wider network and culture of support both from peers and from those above them in the companies they were in and also from outside their companies. The men, unlike the women, consistently benefited from the essentially seamless career trajectory in the business world, uninterrupted by pregnancies, child care responsibilities and domestic housekeeping chores which their male counterparts generally avoided.

Thus even if women were on par or even better managers than comparable men, a combination of their “careerus interuptus” and the perception by the large cadre of top male managers that women were less likely to be there continuously, retarded or undermined the upward mobility of talented female managers.

The observations of the contributors regarding certain positive attributes of female managers, such as being more patient, more collaborative and better team players, may in part be due to female managers’ perceptions, often realistic, that no matter what they do or how hard they work to get ahead, at some point they are going to reach a glass ceiling or what amounts to corporate friction or resistance that will slow their upward progress.

23

Evidence supporting my sociological and social psychological perspective is clear. Just look at the ranks of the top executives of major US corporations, look at the highest paid executives in almost any field except nursing, social work or other female dominant, low status, lower pay professions. Just look at the percentage of the Senate and the House members who are female in relation to their majority of the US population. Just look at the percentage of women who are generals in the US armed forces, police captains and above, Justices of the Supreme Court, and in the medical profession, women tend to be far more highly represented in the lower status and lower paying specialties (either by choice or by discrimination).

Following are the percentages of female physicians in a number of major medical categories, from a recent AMA report (http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/physicianworkforce/female.htm)

General pediatrics (52%), OBGYN (41%), dermatology (37%), pathology (33%), psychiatry (32%), general & family practice (31%), general internal medicine (31%), neurology (24%), diagnostic radiology (24%), anesthesiology (22%), emergency medicine (22%), opthalmology (17%), pulmonary diseases (14%), general surgery (14%), otolaryngology (11%), gastroenterology (11%), cardiovascular disease (9%).

Source: Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the US, 2006 Edition (AMA, 2006)

Interestingly and supporting my earlier point at how extra-career life issues tend to alter female career paths, the same AMA document noted the following:

“Ellsbury et al. (2002) describe reasons why female physicians may be more hesitant to practice in non-metropolitan areas compared to male physicians. Female physicians considering practice in a non-metropolitan area typically have greater concern about

1. spousal employment opportunities (58 percent of women compared to 26 percent of men),2. flexible hours (66 percent versus 25 percent),3. availability of child care (33 percent versus 3 percent), and4. opportunities for part-time employment (38 percent versus 14 percent).

Physicians in non-metropolitan areas work longer hours and work in smaller practices, on average, compared to physicians in metropolitan areas. These factors possibly have a greater disincentive effect on female physicians who tend to have greater preferences for flexibility in hours to bear children and raise families.”

Given the various deflectors and retardants to female upward mobility and career development, discussions of management style of female executives and other professionals need to take into account sociological and cultural factors that may influence how women operate in the corporate and professional worlds.

— LetsBfairUSA

24

25