An interesting bit of psychology on male & female bosses

[rousseau]

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/03/0...ame-classically-masculine-personality-traits/

Female bosses are personality-wise basically men.

Is it any wonder more men than women are qualified???

Seriously? You've got a bit of cart before your horse here.

"Traditional" personality traits are largely learned behaviors. There are a small handful that seem to be sex-linked genetic traits, but not very many. Instead, we have had many societies that have treated women as secondary to men in all aspects, and have built socially-defined gender roles around that divide. Men are strong and confident... a woman with the same behaviors will be viewed as domineering and arrogant. A man who is emotionally reserved is logical and thoughtful... a woman who is emotionally reserved is a heartless ice queen. A man who exercises for an hour every day and spends 30 minutes grooming each morning is disciplined and professional... a woman who does the same is vain and self-absorbed.

Here's the crux of the problem: leadership roles in business and politics require a person to be confident, assertive, and in control of their emotions. These are traits that we, as a society, have decided are male traits. And when a woman displays those exact same traits, they are viewed as negative behaviors from a woman. In a man they are positives, in a woman they are negatives. So if a man is seeking a leadership position, his behaviors are in accordance with the social expectation of both the role and his gender. If a woman is seeking a leadership position, her behaviors (which are needed for that leadership role) are in contradiction to the social expectation of her gender - and they act against her. Men don't like women who "act like men" and they get passed over for leadership positions as being uncooperative and unlikeable... but women who "act like women" aren't portraying the characteristics needed for leadership and get passed over as well. The small percentage of women who can manage to be both assertive and collaborative, confident and demure, emotionally controlled and ebullient - those are the few who have managed to attain leadership roles.

Just look at this last election. Irrespective of how much I personally disliked Clinton... how many comments were there on her pant-suits? How many disparaging swipes were taken at her for being unfeminine, for being masculine? And let's not even get into the whole calling her by her first name thing - women are consistently treated in an overly casual fashion in business and political encounters, where men are treated with a distanced respect. Women are more likely to be addressed by their first name only, where men are more likely to be referred to by their title, or at least their surname.

This, and I would add that we've also come to associate good leadership with male traits. There is nothing to say classically feminine traits can't make for good leadership, we just tend to select away from it because it's mostly men already in power who are obviously biased.

And I'm not sure men being in power is quite working out as intended.. so

 

[Toni]

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/03/0...ame-classically-masculine-personality-traits/

Female bosses are personality-wise basically men.

Is it any wonder more men than women are qualified???

Seriously? You've got a bit of cart before your horse here.

"Traditional" personality traits are largely learned behaviors. There are a small handful that seem to be sex-linked genetic traits, but not very many. Instead, we have had many societies that have treated women as secondary to men in all aspects, and have built socially-defined gender roles around that divide. Men are strong and confident... a woman with the same behaviors will be viewed as domineering and arrogant. A man who is emotionally reserved is logical and thoughtful... a woman who is emotionally reserved is a heartless ice queen. A man who exercises for an hour every day and spends 30 minutes grooming each morning is disciplined and professional... a woman who does the same is vain and self-absorbed.

Here's the crux of the problem: leadership roles in business and politics require a person to be confident, assertive, and in control of their emotions. These are traits that we, as a society, have decided are male traits. And when a woman displays those exact same traits, they are viewed as negative behaviors from a woman. In a man they are positives, in a woman they are negatives. So if a man is seeking a leadership position, his behaviors are in accordance with the social expectation of both the role and his gender. If a woman is seeking a leadership position, her behaviors (which are needed for that leadership role) are in contradiction to the social expectation of her gender - and they act against her. Men don't like women who "act like men" and they get passed over for leadership positions as being uncooperative and unlikeable... but women who "act like women" aren't portraying the characteristics needed for leadership and get passed over as well. The small percentage of women who can manage to be both assertive and collaborative, confident and demure, emotionally controlled and ebullient - those are the few who have managed to attain leadership roles.

Just look at this last election. Irrespective of how much I personally disliked Clinton... how many comments were there on her pant-suits? How many disparaging swipes were taken at her for being unfeminine, for being masculine? And let's not even get into the whole calling her by her first name thing - women are consistently treated in an overly casual fashion in business and political encounters, where men are treated with a distanced respect. Women are more likely to be addressed by their first name only, where men are more likely to be referred to by their title, or at least their surname.

This, and I would add that we've also come to associate good leadership with male traits. There is nothing to say classically feminine traits can't make for good leadership, we just tend to select away from it because it's mostly men already in power who are obviously biased.

And I'm not sure men being in power is quite working out as intended.. so

Editing because I lost the first part. Basically, Emily Lake is absolutely correct.

What traits are considered admirable in males are often considered to be bad in females. Assertiveness which in this thread seems to be a proxy for having managerial skills confused is considered admirable in males; in females the exact same behaviors, words, actions are considered aggressive and inappropriate.

A few true stories from my workplace. Please note: My employer regularly ranks among the best in the country and is easily one of the most sought after employers in my field and related fields. I don't actually like my job but I love my employer:

1. I was asked to be part of a team doing some minor 'research.' Scare quotes are appropriate here. But you know how it is at work: you say yes to things you can do, at least once. It was a small team of people. One of the team members was a white male. I was on the team: a white female. A third member of the team was an Asian man. Of these team members, I have considerably more background in mathematics (sadly enough). The way things shook out: the white guy, whose team it was, was in charge. He tried to direct things but really had zero idea how to conduct the research, what it meant, how to analyze it, etc. The Asian guy was in charge of the math. The girl (that's me) was in charge of taking notes and doing the write up. Also, I got to put together the presentation, and give the presentation.

2. Two of the women in my work area have louder than average voices. They are not obnoxious or rude or distracting or inappropriate in any way. They just speak louder than average for a woman. They are regularly criticized for this, by other people working in our work unit and in neighboring work units (we have an open work area--it sucks). No man is ever criticized for speaking too loudly.

3. We have one person who is a relatively new hire in my area. One day, one of his former co-workers from his previous work unit stopped by to say hi, ask how things were going. New guy was showing him around, telling him about what we do, etc. and introducing us to his old work buddy. New guy started to opine that he didn't know why I even bothered having a job since my husband had a nice job teaching at a university. Note: the new guy is nominally my subordinate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That begs the question: Why do men selectively going for STEM jobs? Is it because they are naturally more interested in math and science? I actually don't believe that simply looking at not only my own family but also my workplace (I'm in a STEM field--and so are my sisters).

Is it because it is more generally acceptable/assumed that this is a career path that a male would take? Is it because STEM jobs reliably pay better than most liberal arts jobs?

Women tend to be more social than men. STEM fields tend to involve a lot of alone work.

There's also Asberger's--80% male and those on the spectrum have a strong tendency towards STEM fields. While it is in general a handicap it's actually an advantage in some areas and given the loner aspect of STEM fields the disadvantages mostly go away.

Monkeys don't get labeled sissies. It's more than just how people are treated.

Really? How do you know that monkeys are not penalized for violating the gender norms for their species? How much do you know about primate behavior?

See any reports of the monkeys being subject to any sort of sanction for playing with the "wrong" toys?

What do you mean "It's more than just how people are treated?"

I'm saying some of it is biological.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you're right this is a problem with society, not discrimination.

Yes, you are correct - it's a problem with society, and is not a case of discrimination.

That said, however, leading off the thread with a comment of "Is it any wonder more men than women are qualified???" is really, really on the line between social bias and discrimination. You expressed a sentiment that implies that you, personally, believe that men are "more qualified" to be in leadership roles than women are. And while it may not be intentional, and may very well be a reflection of socially created gender bias... the effect of such a sentiment is to support and justify acts of discrimination. You implicitly convey that it is acceptable to youfor women to be discriminated against in leadership positions because of a social bias. And drawing a distinction between that sentiment and discrimination can be quite challenging.

If it's a problem with society you fix it by social means, not by making employers pretend the difference doesn't exist.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you're right this is a problem with society, not discrimination.

Yes, you are correct - it's a problem with society, and is not a case of discrimination.

That said, however, leading off the thread with a comment of "Is it any wonder more men than women are qualified???" is really, really on the line between social bias and discrimination. You expressed a sentiment that implies that you, personally, believe that men are "more qualified" to be in leadership roles than women are. And while it may not be intentional, and may very well be a reflection of socially created gender bias... the effect of such a sentiment is to support and justify acts of discrimination. You implicitly convey that it is acceptable to youfor women to be discriminated against in leadership positions because of a social bias. And drawing a distinction between that sentiment and discrimination can be quite challenging.

If it's a problem with society you fix it by social means, not by making employers pretend the difference doesn't exist.

So how do you stop aggressive, less qualified males from a takeover (socially)?

 

[barbos]

If it's a problem with society you fix it by social means, not by making employers pretend the difference doesn't exist.

So how do you stop aggressive, less qualified males from a takeover (socially)?

But being extra aggressive IS qualification

 

[Toni]

Women tend to be more social than men. STEM fields tend to involve a lot of alone work.

I'm in a STEM field. So are my sisters. I would love a bit of alone time.

That said, good science involves collaboration, an exchange of ideas, etc. You know: social interaction.

There's also Asberger's--80% male and those on the spectrum have a strong tendency towards STEM fields. While it is in general a handicap it's actually an advantage in some areas and given the loner aspect of STEM fields the disadvantages mostly go away.

Not really. First of all, you are ignoring the fact that Aspergers does not affect only males and that Asperger's in females is often unrecognized.

More importantly, you are ignoring the necessity of interaction with others in order to carry out good research.

And most importantly: if all the Aspie boys make all the rules then generally speaking, it discounts women's contribution and pretty effectively excludes women. This does not mean that the science is better. It's not. If it were, men would not have to steal women's work and claim it as their own.

See any reports of the monkeys being subject to any sort of sanction for playing with the "wrong" toys?

I'm missing reports of monkeys being rewarded by playing with the 'right' toys. I'm also missing how playing with a shopping cart develops leadership skills. Because I think if we actually believed that, women would rule the world.

It seems to me that a good leader is one who is flexible, who has more than one skill or interest.

I'm saying some of it is biological.

Based on what research, exactly?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If it's a problem with society you fix it by social means, not by making employers pretend the difference doesn't exist.

So how do you stop aggressive, less qualified males from a takeover (socially)?

But being extra aggressive IS qualification

No it isn't. Most managers ought to be assertive. Putin is too aggressive, for example.

 

[Toni]

If you're right this is a problem with society, not discrimination.

Yes, you are correct - it's a problem with society, and is not a case of discrimination.

That said, however, leading off the thread with a comment of "Is it any wonder more men than women are qualified???" is really, really on the line between social bias and discrimination. You expressed a sentiment that implies that you, personally, believe that men are "more qualified" to be in leadership roles than women are. And while it may not be intentional, and may very well be a reflection of socially created gender bias... the effect of such a sentiment is to support and justify acts of discrimination. You implicitly convey that it is acceptable to youfor women to be discriminated against in leadership positions because of a social bias. And drawing a distinction between that sentiment and discrimination can be quite challenging.

If it's a problem with society you fix it by social means, not by making employers pretend the difference doesn't exist.

What are you on about?

When employers see the main qualification as having a penis and testicles, then that's a problem. The solution to the problem is when the employers learn to look at actual work product and actual qualifications which are not testicles and penises.

 

[barbos]

But being extra aggressive IS qualification

No it isn't. Most managers ought to be assertive. Putin is too aggressive, for example.

I am not talking about how it should be, I am talking about how it is. And if we are talking about CEOs, being an asshole is pretty much a requirement.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But being extra aggressive IS qualification

No it isn't. Most managers ought to be assertive. Putin is too aggressive, for example.

I am not talking about how it should be, I am talking about how it is. And if we are talking about CEOs, being an asshole is pretty much a requirement.

I am saying men advance more because on average they are more aggressive. Aggression causes undue influence, manipulation, and achievment. Assertiveness and rational discussions don't.

 

[barbos]

I am not talking about how it should be, I am talking about how it is. And if we are talking about CEOs, being an asshole is pretty much a requirement.

I am saying men advance more because on average they are more aggressive. Aggression causes undue influence, manipulation, and achievment. Assertiveness and rational discussions don't.

Well, shareholders want their CEOs to bring them money, and if undue influence, manipulation helps in that then this is what they want in their CEOs.

 

[Toni]

I am not talking about how it should be, I am talking about how it is. And if we are talking about CEOs, being an asshole is pretty much a requirement.

I am saying men advance more because on average they are more aggressive. Aggression causes undue influence, manipulation, and achievment. Assertiveness and rational discussions don't.

Men advance more on average because they are men.

The traits that help them advance are reflected in those who will advance them. People tend to see and recognize and like what they see of themselves reflected in others. And they advance that. Those in power advance those who remind them of themselves. Corporate power has been held by men.

Those same traits which are seen as advantageous in a man are seen as negative traits in a woman.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am not talking about how it should be, I am talking about how it is. And if we are talking about CEOs, being an asshole is pretty much a requirement.

I am saying men advance more because on average they are more aggressive. Aggression causes undue influence, manipulation, and achievment. Assertiveness and rational discussions don't.

Men advance more on average because they are men.

The traits that help them advance are reflected in those who will advance them. People tend to see and recognize and like what they see of themselves reflected in others. And they advance that. Those in power advance those who remind them of themselves. Corporate power has been held by men.

Those same traits which are seen as advantageous in a man are seen as negative traits in a woman.

One time I was at a soccer practice for my son when he was 6 years old. There was a practice beforehand we were waiting to finish. It was three year olds practicing. One of the 3 year old toddler males was having a hard time, standing next to his soccer ball. His father was screaming at him, "BE AGGRESSIVE. GET ALL OVER THAT BALL. BE AGGRESSIVE!" Sure this is just an anecdote but some males seem to want other males to be aggressive because they think it leads to optimum conditions for everyone. Look at barbos who says that aggression makes good leaders, even after I mentioned Putin murdering people.

In any case, my point is that if it is really true that testosterone makes men better at work because of "assertiveness," the thing being discussed. Then, let's tentatively accept that testosterone does something and that assertiveness is a good thing. Let's accept those claims tentatively and explore what happens when we do. What I am saying is that if we do accept them, then we have to also look at the fact that testosterone is associated with aggression. Aggression actually isn't the optimal thing in leadership because the claim was that assertiveness was, not aggression. Now, I am going on...saying Clinton would have made a better leader than Trump. If we keep to accepting the claims that assertiveness makes a better leader and not aggression, then it's because Trump is too aggressive. Why is he too aggressive? Well, it must be the testosterone. Even though he is a terrible person and terrible leader he was still successful because he found his way up the chain.

I will add that if most of the world's leaders were female the world would be a better place. Peacefulness is better than aggression. Make love, not war. Hah.

Of course I know that some traits Clinton may have in common with Trump may be viewed differently by much of the public, but that's not the point I am trying to make. As above, I am saying okay, let's accept these premises tentatively and see where it leads our conversation. Watch how some people don't want to deal with the issue of men and aggression or aggression and leadership/management/promotions.

ETA:

Here is an interesting paragraph from Loren's op article:

However, one problem with this solution is that existing evidence suggests that women often face a backlash when they display stereotypically masculine traits. Wille and his team mention this issue and they say that “organisations must strive to counter these biases”. Another criticism is that this approach is arguably all about changing women to excel in existing male-dominated hierarchies, rather than changing workplace cultures to make them fairer.

The first few sentences seem to agree with you Toni. I will add onto this that if women do face backlash from being assertive, then some of how they act is because of how culture will react to them and not inherently how assertive they would be due to personal characteristics. So like you said, Toni, if women do the same thing they are perceived differently partly by some...

The last few sentences: "Another criticism is that this approach is arguably all about changing women to excel in existing male-dominated hierarchies, rather than changing workplace cultures to make them fairer..."

There's this starting assumption, this underlying axiom that men are the normal and that this is about "changing women" even by well-intentioned people. However, I will continue to counter (so long as testosterone and its affect on behavior is discussed) that aggression must also be a factor in men's rise to power and that aggression is suboptimal. In short, men need to change. (allegedly).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am not talking about how it should be, I am talking about how it is. And if we are talking about CEOs, being an asshole is pretty much a requirement.

I am saying men advance more because on average they are more aggressive. Aggression causes undue influence, manipulation, and achievment. Assertiveness and rational discussions don't.

Men advance more on average because they are men.

The good ole boy club definitely helps, but isn't part of the problem of there not being enough women yet as well. As women advance in these fields, it'll be harder for them not to be selected for these positions. Progress takes time.

 

[Emily Lake]

1. I was asked to be part of a team doing some minor 'research.' Scare quotes are appropriate here. But you know how it is at work: you say yes to things you can do, at least once. It was a small team of people. One of the team members was a white male. I was on the team: a white female. A third member of the team was an Asian man. Of these team members, I have considerably more background in mathematics (sadly enough). The way things shook out: the white guy, whose team it was, was in charge. He tried to direct things but really had zero idea how to conduct the research, what it meant, how to analyze it, etc. The Asian guy was in charge of the math. The girl (that's me) was in charge of taking notes and doing the write up. Also, I got to put together the presentation, and give the presentation.

Lol, I actually called out my colleagues for this. We've been doing a substantial amount of planning lately, as our teams are in the midst of a lot of role transition and cultural change. My director is a white male, and my managerial colleagues are: 3 white males, 1 asian male, 2 white females (including me) and 1 indian female. Our roles are diverse, covering a spectrum of DBA and infrastructure management, system and enterprise architecture, data science, analysis, and reporting. I noticed that in all of our meetings, it was always one of the three women who was asked to take notes on the white board, or send out a summary, or something similar. I (not being a wilting violet as expected of my fragile gender) quite blatantly suggested that maybe one of the males in the room could take on that secretarial role for a change. The immediate response was "well, our handwriting is worse" to which I responded "then you clearly need more practice, don't you?". The end result was marginally satisfactory, although still not a win - now our office administrator attends our planning sessions in order to take notes. Our office administrator, of course, is female

2. Two of the women in my work area have louder than average voices. They are not obnoxious or rude or distracting or inappropriate in any way. They just speak louder than average for a woman. They are regularly criticized for this, by other people working in our work unit and in neighboring work units (we have an open work area--it sucks). No man is ever criticized for speaking too loudly.

Yeah, I've run across this too. And when challenged on it, I hear "oh well, their voices aren't as shrill..." or similar such crap.

3. We have one person who is a relatively new hire in my area. One day, one of his former co-workers from his previous work unit stopped by to say hi, ask how things were going. New guy was showing him around, telling him about what we do, etc. and introducing us to his old work buddy. New guy started to opine that he didn't know why I even bothered having a job since my husband had a nice job teaching at a university. Note: the new guy is nominally my subordinate.

Egads, that's not at all appropriate!

 

[Emily Lake]

Women tend to be more social than men.

Wait, what?

- - - Updated - - -

If you're right this is a problem with society, not discrimination.

Yes, you are correct - it's a problem with society, and is not a case of discrimination.

That said, however, leading off the thread with a comment of "Is it any wonder more men than women are qualified???" is really, really on the line between social bias and discrimination. You expressed a sentiment that implies that you, personally, believe that men are "more qualified" to be in leadership roles than women are. And while it may not be intentional, and may very well be a reflection of socially created gender bias... the effect of such a sentiment is to support and justify acts of discrimination. You implicitly convey that it is acceptable to youfor women to be discriminated against in leadership positions because of a social bias. And drawing a distinction between that sentiment and discrimination can be quite challenging.

If it's a problem with society you fix it by social means, not by making employers pretend the difference doesn't exist.

So far, you're the only person who has suggested that employers should be forced to pretend that SOCIAL STEREOTYPE doesn't exist. But, you know, let's unpack that thought a bit, why don't we? I mean, there are social stereotypes for black people and gay people as well. And yes, those are entirely social problems. Would you also argue that employers shouldn't be expected to avoid discriminating against black people or homosexual people? Somehow I doubt you would take that stance.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Lol, I actually called out my colleagues for this. We've been doing a substantial amount of planning lately, as our teams are in the midst of a lot of role transition and cultural change. My director is a white male, and my managerial colleagues are: 3 white males, 1 asian male, 2 white females (including me) and 1 indian female. Our roles are diverse, covering a spectrum of DBA and infrastructure management, system and enterprise architecture, data science, analysis, and reporting. I noticed that in all of our meetings, it was always one of the three women who was asked to take notes on the white board, or send out a summary, or something similar. I (not being a wilting violet as expected of my fragile gender) quite blatantly suggested that maybe one of the males in the room could take on that secretarial role for a change. The immediate response was "well, our handwriting is worse" to which I responded "then you clearly need more practice, don't you?". The end result was marginally satisfactory, although still not a win - now our office administrator attends our planning sessions in order to take notes. Our office administrator, of course, is female

Bwahahaha! By the way, completely unrelated...we also don't know how to do laundry or load the dishwasher the right way.

Women tend to be more social than men.

Wait, what?

Maybe this is why they are better leaders?

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm in a STEM field. So are my sisters. I would love a bit of alone time.

That said, good science involves collaboration, an exchange of ideas, etc. You know: social interaction.

I'm on the border of STEM - Math degree, and a practicing actuary. Lots of scientific method, lots of analytical approaches to everything, lots of numbers, and lots of heads-down solo work. But just like you say - to be good at it requires collaboration and communication. It's something the society of actuaries has been investing more and more effort in over the past 5 years or so.

Not really. First of all, you are ignoring the fact that Aspergers does not affect only males and that Asperger's in females is often unrecognized.

So yeah - my grandfather, male cousin, and nephew all have Asperger. I've never bothered with being diagnosed... but I'd give it about a 90% likelihood that I'm an aspie and so is my mother. But socialization is different for girls - we are taught different behaviors and there's a different tolerance for aberrant behavior... Sugar and spice versus frogs, snails, and puppy dog tails - which by the way, references boys chopping off the tails of stray dogs! Aberrant behavior in girls is much less tolerated, leading to a higher degree of behavioral conformity - we're expected to be quiet, nice, considerate, and supportive. From a very young age, girls are given much less latitude for displaying the behaviors that lead to diagnosis of Aspergers. Misbehavior is expected and tolerated in boys, so the opportunity to express behaviors out of the norm is more prevalent.

More importantly, you are ignoring the necessity of interaction with others in order to carry out good research.

And most importantly: if all the Aspie boys make all the rules then generally speaking, it discounts women's contribution and pretty effectively excludes women. This does not mean that the science is better. It's not. If it were, men would not have to steal women's work and claim it as their own.

Yeah, pretty much. Men have defined what leadership means, and they've defined it in terms of their own socially defined masculine traits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm in a STEM field. So are my sisters. I would love a bit of alone time.

That said, good science involves collaboration, an exchange of ideas, etc. You know: social interaction.

Not all STEM fields are alone work, but many are. It's quite common for me to go an entire day without saying one bit of work-related stuff.

Not really. First of all, you are ignoring the fact that Aspergers does not affect only males and that Asperger's in females is often unrecognized.

80% != 100%. I'm not saying it affects only males, but that it disproportionately affects them.

More importantly, you are ignoring the necessity of interaction with others in order to carry out good research.

STEM covers a lot more than just research.