The Washington Post asked “Would the current financial crisis have happened, or been anywhere near as severe, if women had been in the top leadership positions on Wall Street?”
Probably not and here’s why? (Be sure to read through to the last paragraph or you will miss a most important point.)
Leadership has for decades been seen and practiced as a male endeavor. If leadership is the catalyst for all human potential how can it employ qualities that reflect less than 50% of the population? Successful leaders use the full spectrum of masculine and feminine attributes as needed.
Social science research indicates that men are seen as more individualistic, domineering, control oriented and aggressive. Women are viewed as tending to build relationships and community; emotionally oriented, and supportive of others. Neither is better. Both are necessary.
Two years ago I conducted interviews with 50 leaders – 25 men and 25 women – to learn whether and how women are influencing the practice of leadership. All 50 participants believe that the presence of more women in managerial and leadership roles over the past 15 years is having a positive effect. They stated that women have emphasized the need to think more intuitively, to collaborate, to use emotional intelligence, to be inclusive and to demonstrate support for others. The men and women in this study consider these qualities to be more typical of women. Decision making – a trait they saw as more masculine – remains very important, but aggressive behavior – also viewed as stereotypically masculine – is both less important and less acceptable.
These studies shed light on how the country’s financial situation might be different today if more women were leading on Wall Street. First, because women focus more on relationships and social values, they might have asked how building enormous wealth for a handful of individuals would benefit society. Women’s more inclusive and collaborative tendencies would also have invited diverse views to important discussions and decisions. One prevailing perspective would not have carried the day. Questions would have been raised. Alternatives would have been explored. We would not have seen entire leadership teams march like lemmings over the cliff.
A substantive change in perspective requires at least 3 women on top leadership teams. With fewer than three members of any minority group, questions about the prevailing culture are often not raised, and if raised they are either ignored and discounted.
One of the underlying problems that led to the financial crisis is a leadership culture that does not question its assumptions. Why? Because one group prevails and when this is the case, the dominant view does not see its own assumptions. It simply operates in the culture it creates without being aware of that culture or the world views upon which it is based. It takes an “other” to reveal and clarify the hidden assumptions. When only one or two “others” are present it requires extraordinary courage to give voice to a different view. And even if this voice is raised it is often ignored, not heard or discounted. This would be the case if women were the dominant group as well. So please bear in mind that if women had been over-represented and men under-represented, we would simply be having a different set of problems today. What we really need is a leadership culture that integrates masculine and feminine perspectives.
Please share your thoughts.