OT: Only semi OT - Leadership and gender

[vtcwbuff]

Not trying to start a sexist fight here but is leadership more prevalent in males than females? My feeling, based on nothing but observation over a military career is that the slippery characteristic called leadership is fairly common in males but much less so in females. I'm not saying that women are incapable of leadership, just that either (in my experience) it is far less common in females or maybe that it's more difficult to recognise - especially by males.

UConn has been lucky in the past. When players like Rizzotti, Ralph, Bird and Taurasi were on the floor there was no doubt who was in charge. Most recently Renee Mongomery was the court leader. Who was it during the dark years post Taurasi?

Of course my opinion may be skewed by my own gender.

 

[John Fryer]

Not trying to start a sexist fight here but is leadership more prevalent in males than females? My feeling, based on nothing but observation over a military career is that the slippery characteristic called leadership is fairly common in males but much less so in females. I'm not saying that women are incapable of leadership, just that either (in my experience) it is far less common in females or maybe that it's more difficult to recognise - especially by males.

UConn has been lucky in the past. When players like Rizzotti, Ralph, Bird and Taurasi were on the floor there was no doubt who was in charge. Most recently Renee Mongomery was the court leader. Who was it during the dark years post Taurasi?

Of course my opinion may be skewed by my own gender.

I have always associated leadership type qualities with people, male or female, who usually display strong/high Alpha personalities.

As I recall, up until the last couple of decades women weren't encourage to display Alpha tendencies, if they had them.

Those who did were generally considered to be un-lady like.

I could be wrong about this. But I doubt it.

Peace,

John Fryer

 

[alexrgct]

Gender is, in and of itself, a social construct. Sex is the biological term. There has been an historical bias that rewarded dominance in men and encouraged submission and subservience in women. Even after many institutions that perpetuated this fell or eroded (thanks in large part to the leadership of many strong and brave women, btw), progress in this area is still generational and incremental. Having said that, more and more women are going into business, politics, and the military, and they're making their mark.

My point is that there is no connection between the ability to lead, IMO, and sex, but there has been with respect to leadership and gender. That's changing, and rapidly in historical terms (even of it seems slow as it happens in real time). Programs like UConn's WBB program, which have showcased wave after wave of strong, tough, capable young women, have been immensely valuable from a social standpoint. As a father of a little girl, I am happy such programs exist.

 

[Moose]

Programs like UConn's WBB program, which have showcased wave after wave of strong, tough, capable young women, have been immensely valuable from a social standpoint. As a father of a little girl, I am happy such programs exist.

Exactly. Thanks Alexrgt.

The Huskies and former Huskies are great leaders: Charde, Ketia, Ann Strother (have started their own charities), Ashja and Swin (have their own businesses). Geno is just asking for that little bit extra from this current group to have them be great.

If anything, lets celebrate the leadership shown by the woman who represent, and have represented, the Uconn WBB program.

 

[Icebear]

Gender is, in and of itself, a social construct. Sex is the biological term. There has been an historical bias that rewarded dominance in men and encouraged submission and subservience in women. Even after many institutions that perpetuated this fell or eroded (thanks in large part to the leadership of many strong and brave women, btw), progress in this area is still generational and incremental. Having said that, more and more women are going into business, politics, and the military, and they're making their mark.

My point is that there is no connection between the ability to lead, IMO, and sex, but there has been with respect to leadership and gender. That's changing, and rapidly in historical terms (even of it seems slow as it happens in real time). Programs like UConn's WBB program, which have showcased wave after wave of strong, tough, capable young women, have been immensely valuable from a social standpoint. As a father of a little girl, I am happy such programs exist.

The US military is finding all of this to be very true, alex, as a place where the visible structure very much supports women in strong leadership position even if the hidden old boy network stills struggles with the transition at times. Ability and execution is highly valued and rewarded.

 

[vtcwbuff]

IB - This is non-PC but what I experienced. I'll respond from a perspective of a military career that is 20 years in the past. During that time I served with a dozen female officers and perhaps twice as many female enlisted. Out of all the female officers there were many I respected, a couple that were my boss and only one that had that quality that I think of as leadership. Many, if not all, had the ability to manage, most of them led but it was by virtue of their rank not by any personal leadership ability. A few were placed in positions where they foundered. More than a couple were easily intimidated.

I don't know about the general population, but many women have a difficult time in the military leading a bunch of hairy assed men. I was fortunate to work for a woman that had "it" and everyone she encountered knew it. I knew she was going places shortly after meeting her. She ended up an Admiral.

 

[magical2]

Not trying to start a sexist fight here but is leadership more prevalent in males than females? My feeling, based on nothing but observation over a military career is that the slippery characteristic called leadership is fairly common in males but much less so in females. I'm not saying that women are incapable of leadership, just that either (in my experience) it is far less common in females or maybe that it's more difficult to recognise - especially by males.

UConn has been lucky in the past. When players like Rizzotti, Ralph, Bird and Taurasi were on the floor there was no doubt who was in charge. Most recently Renee Mongomery was the court leader. Who was it during the dark years post Taurasi?

Of course my opinion may be skewed by my own gender.

Woo vtc Remember that history has been controlled by men. So in the public arena in so many areas,politics,businesses,the military, to name a few men have ruled. Areas where women were even alllowed to participate they have more than proved their leadership capabilities. So much more to add to this.
Remember, you said it yourself,"observations over a military career.Well as you know the military has been controlled by men. In the past historically, where women have even had the opportunity to lead,they have done great! We have lived in a paternalistic society. As women have had more opportunities,and society is changing,but still behind. Stats available to make your head spin,prove statistically their abilities. Since you seem to have brought it up in the context of womens sports, they can lead

 

[Icebear]

I am only going by a conversation I had with a local recently retired One Star who I spoke with one evening in a local watering hole. He compared the beginning of his career and the last decade and was very optimistic for what is occurring. Like many things this younger generation brings a very different experience concerning gender roles including leadership. His key point was that women were extremely good at building team consensus and respect for leadership.

 

[CL82]

I think that an individuals view point on this will be skewed based upon how you define leadership. Broadly (pun unintended) speaking, women tend to be more concerned with concensus then men. Among others with that view point those skills would undoubtedly be valued. Men tend to be more task oriented. The focus is on getting job the done and feelings be damned. Certain professions place high value on those skill sets. So I'm not sure it is fair to judge leadership based upon the a definition of leader that skews toward either. That said those general tendencies don't define whether someone can learn the opposing skill set but it has been my experience that they are generally correct.

I read an article about this years ago, in which it described a situation where a team failed at a task and was doing a post mortum. The article said that women were far more more likely to offer up an I'm sorry at the meeting. The woman was expressly regret at the collective failure. The men in the group viewed it as an admission of guilt. That kind of miscommunication can be fatal to effective leadership.

Communication has big implications. I work in what was (and still is, although much less so) a male dominated profession. We were in a meeting with 1 woman and 5 men. The woman used profanity like a drunken sailor on Singapore shore leave. It was grossly out of place. I got the sense she was trying to talk "like men do", missed the mark by huge amount, and accordingly was written off a bit. I think those types of things happen less today but I do think that gender differences and bias has impact on effective leadership.