Correlation between gender and leadership qualities?

Question

I have a theory to propose, and would enjoy some (constructive) critism. Known uberfeminist trolls need not apply please :).

From what we've seen in history, I believe that one can make the following comments on the correlation between leadership and the leaders gender:

- Men seem to be better programmed to dominate the "tribe", and maintaining control of the "tribe" as a whole. Examples of this are Napolean, Lenin, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, etc. Some will argue that women were never given the opportunity to become leaders in some of these older societies due to the limitations of cultural stereotypes, but there is a very potent example against this; Communist Russia had sexual equality in everything, infact, women were encouraged to work side by side with their husbands. During the Second World War, women fought in the Soviet army against the Germans, flew in the Soviet airforce, etc. And yet, there was no female Socialist Party head that was a woman.

Note: There are always exceptions to the rule, Elizibeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, etc.

- Women tend to be better leaders of the "group", and some will get confused at my terminology, so here is the explanation. The "tribe" is the summation of all "groups" (or, family units, if you would). Now, this is not to mean that women are somehow lesser leaders, leading the whole of a society means nothing if no one listens to you. An analogy of this is the modern army command structure, the generals don't command/control individual squads, leadership is divided down the command-tree.

Examples of this are not as widely known as no one remembers the one who keeps society running, just the one incharge. But, if you think to your own family unit, which of your parents kept things moving smoothly? Without women controlling many of the one-on-one or small group interactions, there would be no group-on-group interactions.

Wow, poor Robinson, his answer is barely out the door and someone already hits him with a thumbs down.

Ya, I purposely left out organized religion, its done nothing constructive for humanity short of giving us new reasons to hate each other...

Answer 1

Interesting hypothesis.

It seems that it probably has a good basis; women have historically been in very few positions of high authority (perhaps because they didn't venture into the realm).

Communist China was even worse than Russia with the "equality"; you should see some of the stuff THEY advocated.

It could be that people trust men more (because they believe men to be less emotional/because they believe men to be stronger in different aspects as a result of socialization and experience?), that a good deal of assertion is necessary to lead a group (Look at Hitler, Mussolini, and Lenin for some good examples), and, maybe more importantly, that some men seem to symbolize some sort of patrician ideal.

From what I have read and found to be true in media and the like, the most important aspect is assertive and persuasive communication. There seems to be something in one's psychology that makes one back down/become loyal when one hears/reads certain words. Tie in a possible physical fear and you have a good package for a stereotypical (but effective) leadership role.

Likewise, I have noticed that women seem to mediate a lot of things and establish certain ground rules of conduct in home and even in public. They certainly seem to be able to convince males of quite a few things.

Good question. Let's see what kind of responses you get.

EDIT: Baba Yaga, that was REALLY cute:

An overwhelming 64% of American's answered "YES", while only 38% replied "NO". Another 8% were undecided.

Let's see: 64 + 38 + 8 = ...110! YEAH!!!

I didn't know you could have 110% of a population. I stopped reading your garbage (even though it was obviously a joke) when I hit those "percentages."

Silly Baba Yaga, go back to copping out of questions. Go back to believing that the patriarchy causes the wage gap. You SAY you have an education. In what? "History?" What kind? Whose perspectives do you understand? The Chinese? The Arabs? Americans? Who? What do you PRESUME to understand about history? Did your education not teach you critical thought? Apparently it didn't. You support modern day feminist rhetoric while SUBSTANTIAL proof exists against it in so many cases. Can you PROVE the effect of "patriarchy?" No?! Then WHY are you running your ******* mouth about it being "scientific" and "sourced?"

I'm waiting for the next cop out. Maybe you can post a definition, or perhaps another "article!"

Answer 2

While the balance of history substantiates your view, I would have to say that although men being the "alpha male" in terms of pack dominance tend to be the leaders, there are some women who are capable and strong enough to be leaders in society.

Generally, the role of women has been proscribed and traditionally placed the women as keepers of home and hearth. Men's roles were as hunter/gatherers which often took them far afield to care for the tribal and familial needs.

Due to the scope of the world which men traversed, they became the natural leaders within the social order.

I don't agree that women were not given the opportunities to be leaders. I believe that women are leaders in less visible roles.

By and large, the urge to have children sublimates all other desires to "slay the dragon" in the workplace for a large majority of women.

And the women whom I know who have left the workplace to raise a family don't feel badly about the choice they have made. I did it myself!

We are not built the same nor are we 'hardwired' the same in our thinking process. If you ask men and women this same question "If someone is breaking into your home what would you do?", most women with children would say they would go to protect tthe kids while most men would say they would fight the intruder.

That doesn't diminish the role of women. It enhances it.

Women have more opportunity to choose than men do, by and large. Women can choose to be homemakers and keepers of the flame or to become powerful entities in the world of work or to find a combination of the two.

Men generally are looked upon as lesser if they stay at home and let the wife bring home the bacon.

True leadership isn't about the title. It's about what is accomplished at the end of the day by those who have follow your instructions.

Hope that was useful to you.

Answer 3

Unfortunately, your logic is flawed.

You are trying to state a correlation between gender and leadership qualities. You state that "men seem to be better programmed to dominate the tribe," and then give supporting examples, which may or may not be valid.

Therefore, are we to understand that domination is a leadership quality? Or were there other leadership qualities that were you actually discussing?

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that what you are saying is actually true. Just because there have been more male leaders than female leaders does not mean that women lack leadership qualities. There could have been many things that prevented them from exercising those leadership qualities. Your argument is actually correlating only ONE leadership quality: dominance.

Furthermore, correlation does not imply causation (as anyone who has ever taken a statistics class will tell you). Even if it could be proved that there have been more male leaders than female leaders (however this is defined), and that this is due to the trait of dominance (or aggression?) rather than any other leadership quality... it does not prove, or mean, that being male CAUSES one to be a better leader, even on average, than being female.

Nice try. Come back again.

Answer 4

OK, by gender we understand male and female. What do we understand about leadership qualities that allows us to look for correlations with gender? Are leadership qualities and gender the only variables? How about situation? Culture?

As a man, in general:
- If I had a tear in my shirt, discovered newborn on my doorstep, or was sick and needed care, given the choice, I would tend to ask women first.
- If I wanted protection from an enemy, advice on how to repair my car or file my taxes, given the choice I would tend to ask a man first.
(Is help the same as leadership? Yes of course. Anyone who provides direction and I follow, is leading me.)

The most significant thing about these observations is that in those areas I tend to look for help from the gender representing which of my parents might have helped me similarly. I totally admit to looking for leadership in this conditioned way, not always, but enough to recognize how subjective I am.

So we can see that leadership is at least situational, subjective and, because our responses are conditioned, variable over time. I was thinking about who I would go to if I wanted something to eat. As a child it would have been my mother but now that distinction is less clear. My expectations of myself as a leader and of others as potential leaders I might follow have changed over time as I have learned and our culture has changed. (Fifty years ago no responsible journalist would have suggested the possibility of a black or female president.)

Back to the question. If there are correlations between gender and leadership qualities, from my own experience and observations I am inclined to believe that they only exist at a personal level and are by no means absolute.

Answer 5

Good try, but here are some flaws in your theory:

Re tribes: Going way back to the hunting and gathering days, there is no proof to the theory that men hunted and women gathered. My guess it that Neaderthal people did whatever was needed to be done to survive, regardless of sex. The stronger women and men hunted. The weaker women and men gathered.

Re military leaders: In most countries throughout time, women have not been allowed to join the military even as a foot soldier. Even in today's USA military, women are not allowed by law to fight in hand-to-hand combat. Who wants a military leader who hasn't been in the trenches, so to speak?

Re political leaders: In most countries (including the USA), women were not allowed to vote until the 20th century. Some countries still do not allow women to vote. If a woman cannot vote, she cannot run for office.

Re royalty: Queens and Kings are queens and kings because they were given the title by their parents, not because they did anything to earn it.

Re women in Russia: A similar thing happened here in the USA during WW2. Women took over the factory jobs while the men were off fighting the war. When the war ended, the men took back the factory jobs and forced the women back into being housewives. Same thing probably happened in Russia.

Re organized religion: You don't mention it, but in my opinion, this is the root cause of all of the above. The holy books and religious leaders (all men, of course) repeatedly state that women are to serve their fathers, husbands, and sons.

In other words, it is organized religion, not natural abilities and urges of the sexes, that has limited female opportunities at leadership throughout history.

Answer 6

Easy to answer since gender is a social construct these males have been taught leadership while these females were given nurturing activities.
Women biologically have differences that have kept them in the privale sphere since they do become pregnant, give birth and nurse babies.qualities The fact that these women that you list ended up in leadership roles shows that even though women are disadvantaged with the educational opportunities they still show that they are quite able to perform as leaders.
You use the word programmed and I think that basically answers your own inquiry.

Answer 7

I guess you haven't seen much history. The person who lead the people of the island of Britain against the Romans was a woman. Joan of Arc was great as a military leader. More recently, there have been Isabella of Spain, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, and more recently still, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, and now we have Angela Merkel of Germany. And history is littered with men who have been total failures.

Further, the example of the Soviet Union is quite flawed, in that the Party could decree equality and get the appearance of it in the workforce, but that does not mean anybody believed it: as the old saying goes, "You cannot make men good by act of Parliament." Surely you don't imagine that the Communist Party of the USSR did not have an Old Boys network?

A further problem is that you have defined "leadership" in extremely narrow terms. Leadership is required at a variety of tasks at a variety of levels, not just at the pinnacle of political power. We have today effective leaders in the Congress, the Senate, governors, in business, in academia, etc. who are women.

The evidence is that when women are empowered to lead, they lead.

Answer 8

I think your theory might hold more weight if you examined some specific skills associated with leadership. For example, communication, responsibility, self-confidence, intelligence, and decision making skills.

I think you will find that the females who were "exceptions to the rule" exhibited these qualities and that it is the presence of these qualities, rather than gender, which determine success in leadership.

Answer 9

Nice. I concur.