An interesting bit of psychology on male & female bosses

[Emily Lake]

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.

Well, then no problem. How it IS is that mostly men have leadership roles. How it IS is that women who display behavioral characteristics associated with leadership are disliked because those traits are inconsistent with the behaviors expected of women. But you know, that's just how it IS. Guess there's no point in this whole thread, now that you've identified how it IS, and you've decided we shouldn't bother talking about how it should be.

Should we women just hush up and let it go, seeing as that's how it IS? To quote April Ludgate "You're never going to land a beau with that domineering tone... "

No, you should demand total equality, for example serial killers industry, you should work on equality there too.

There are days when I might consider applying for that role....

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I really think this story needs more attention and thought. There are a lot of facets to it. I don't know what a facet is, but I am sure they are there.

One interesting thing is the guy who says their handwriting sucks. What kind of thing is that to say? No, I mean, literally, what kind of thing is it? It isn't sarcastic, it isn't ironic, and it's not meant to be a friendly joke. It's more like saying "Fuck you, you do it." but with a smile. So, how do you classify such a statement? I am going to go with the term "indirect aggression." It's a way to get you to be upset, stomp your feet, and then do it, or to say, "what the fuck" out loud and then get in trouble, but without all the pre-planning because he has the privilege of a structure where the default of everything supports his continued position of non-work, non-taking notes. It's a manipulation.

Now, your response to his indirect aggression was assertive, but it could easily come across as bitchy. As I wrote above, he's put you in a position where your response will be judged--people will look for an outburst or emotion and magnify it because you're a woman. A guy could get away with saying "The fuck you say" and smirk. Because you know, guys are cool. If you are a woman and you say that, you're an inappropriate person with emotional stability problems or , worse, a third-wave feminist who hates men. So, you're being assertive, but because of the structure that is in place, you may come across as the aggressive one.

Other ladies in the situation or in the room at the time may not have responded because walking that fine line is tough.

Since I have been going on about assertiveness and aggression, I thought I'd point this out.

I suppose I should round out the story. None of the men seemed offended by my suggestion. My rejoinder was generally met with laughter and good humor, and it ended up being our director who took notes that time. But it still ended up being our Office Administrator taking on that role. I would suppose that my director thinks that's satisfactory - he's not expected any of his managers to take notes anymore. So like I said, it was satisfactory, but not a "win". Could have been worse... but it did serve the purpose of opening their eyes to the social bias at play.

- - - Updated - - -

What about studies which found out that women prefer male bosses? How do you explain that?

Because social bias isn't sex-linked. It's learned behavior, and it's learned by both sexes. Both men and women have a tendency to associate power, leadership, and decision-making with men. Both men and women have a tendency to associate compassion, collaboration, and patience with women.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, you should demand total equality, for example serial killers industry, you should work on equality there too.

There are days when I might consider applying for that role....

I can't link to YouTube videos at work, but CollegeHumor has one about a female serial killer and the detective keeps stopping inbetween talking about how horrible the crime scene is to go on about how it's very empowering to find a woman who hunts down and murders people.

Worth googling for to take a look. It's funny as hell.

 

[Emily Lake]

What about studies which found out that women prefer male bosses? How do you explain that?

How could anyone even begin to address such a poorly defined question?

Which studies? Are people supposed to read your mind, or are you going to provide a reference or link to the study or studies that you are thinking of?

Given the information provided in your question, the most parsimonious explanation for those studies is that they are a figment of your imagination.

They're not a figment, even though barbos didn't bother to provide a link. It's true.

One of my favorites is the Howard/Heidi study. I'll have to find a link for it later, but here's the gist. A pile of college students of mixed gender were presented with two case studies. The case studies described the daily routines, professional history, and resume of two people, one named Heidi and the other named Howard. Each student received only one of the two studies, randomized.
The students were asked to evaluate how competent they felt the subject was, whether they would want to work with that person, how likable they felt they were, etc.

The responses were tallied up and found that the students felt that Howard and Heidi were equally competent... but that Howard was considered more likable. In general, the students felt that Heidi would be difficult to work with, hard to get along with, and less suited for an executive role.

The catch here is that it was the exact same case study, with only the names and the gendered pronouns changed. The only difference between them was literally the gender of the subject. It's a very real demonstration of the power of social bias.

In studies like the one barbos referenced, what has been consistently found is that when asked in the abstract, both men and women respond that they'd rather work for a man. But when asked about their actual boss (about half of which were women), they reported near equal levels of satisfaction, with a very slightly higher satisfaction level for the female bosses. The indication is that people tend to view their specific female bosses as exceptions to the standard, rather than viewing both men and women as equally competent and equally suited to leadership roles.

 

[rousseau]

What about studies which found out that women prefer male bosses? How do you explain that?

How could anyone even begin to address such a poorly defined question?

Which studies? Are people supposed to read your mind, or are you going to provide a reference or link to the study or studies that you are thinking of?

Given the information provided in your question, the most parsimonious explanation for those studies is that they are a figment of your imagination.

They're not a figment, even though barbos didn't bother to provide a link. It's true.

One of my favorites is the Howard/Heidi study. I'll have to find a link for it later, but here's the gist. A pile of college students of mixed gender were presented with two case studies. The case studies described the daily routines, professional history, and resume of two people, one named Heidi and the other named Howard. Each student received only one of the two studies, randomized.
The students were asked to evaluate how competent they felt the subject was, whether they would want to work with that person, how likable they felt they were, etc.

The responses were tallied up and found that the students felt that Howard and Heidi were equally competent... but that Howard was considered more likable. In general, the students felt that Heidi would be difficult to work with, hard to get along with, and less suited for an executive role.

The catch here is that it was the exact same case study, with only the names and the gendered pronouns changed. The only difference between them was literally the gender of the subject. It's a very real demonstration of the power of social bias.

In studies like the one barbos referenced, what has been consistently found is that when asked in the abstract, both men and women respond that they'd rather work for a man. But when asked about their actual boss (about half of which were women), they reported near equal levels of satisfaction, with a very slightly higher satisfaction level for the female bosses. The indication is that people tend to view their specific female bosses as exceptions to the standard, rather than viewing both men and women as equally competent and equally suited to leadership roles.

Every institution that exists is rife with bias and fallacious thinking. There's one common denominator to it all: institutions are made up of people, and people didn't evolve to think rationally. They evolved to make quick, prejudiced decisions based on little information.

This quote is especially pertinent:

What about studies which found out that women prefer male bosses? How do you explain that?

Evolution. People also generally prefer taller leaders. Also, evolution. Most of our evolution was about physical protection and our leaders ought to then be physically tough, tribesmen and hunters, Great hunters. For the last few thousands years we've generated better and bigger civilizations and so now we need diplomatically skilled leaders, emotionally intelligent, socially intelligent leaders. Women. Not aggressive.

Our psychological make-up today is primed for the hunter-gatherer world, and not a complex social one. And so our biases today were built in a time and place when relying on big, strong men actually mattered.

 

[Emily Lake]

Every institution that exists is rife with bias and fallacious thinking. There's one common denominator to it all: institutions are made up of people, and people didn't evolve to think rationally. They evolved to make quick, prejudiced decisions based on little information.

...

Our psychological make-up today is primed for the hunter-gatherer world, and not a complex social one. And so our biases today were built in a time and place when relying on big, strong men actually mattered.

I'm not discerning what point you're intending to make. Can you elaborate?

 

[rousseau]

Every institution that exists is rife with bias and fallacious thinking. There's one common denominator to it all: institutions are made up of people, and people didn't evolve to think rationally. They evolved to make quick, prejudiced decisions based on little information.

...

Our psychological make-up today is primed for the hunter-gatherer world, and not a complex social one. And so our biases today were built in a time and place when relying on big, strong men actually mattered.

I'm not discerning what point you're intending to make. Can you elaborate?

Sorry, more of a continuation of your post than a reply to it.

Making the point that bias and prejudice is intrinsic to what it means to be human in 2018.

 

[Emily Lake]

Every institution that exists is rife with bias and fallacious thinking. There's one common denominator to it all: institutions are made up of people, and people didn't evolve to think rationally. They evolved to make quick, prejudiced decisions based on little information.

...

Our psychological make-up today is primed for the hunter-gatherer world, and not a complex social one. And so our biases today were built in a time and place when relying on big, strong men actually mattered.

I'm not discerning what point you're intending to make. Can you elaborate?

Sorry, more of a continuation of your post than a reply to it.

Making the point that bias and prejudice is intrinsic to what it means to be human in 2018.

Okay then. I'm inclined to continue efforts to reduce that bias and prejudice.

I'm assuming you are too.

 

[rousseau]

Sorry, more of a continuation of your post than a reply to it.

Making the point that bias and prejudice is intrinsic to what it means to be human in 2018.

Okay then. I'm inclined to continue efforts to reduce that bias and prejudice.

I'm assuming you are too.

My angle is more 'if everyone, everywhere is prejudiced and irrational' then I probably shouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about what people think of me, but that's an aside to this thread.

 

[barbos]

What about studies which found out that women prefer male bosses? How do you explain that?

Because social bias isn't sex-linked. It's learned behavior, and it's learned by both sexes. Both men and women have a tendency to associate power, leadership, and decision-making with men. Both men and women have a tendency to associate compassion, collaboration, and patience with women.

This explanation does not work, because men are OK with female bosses, it's other women which cause problems.
With women it's a constant cat fight it seems, even when female boss has all the right male boss qualities.

 

[barbos]

What about studies which found out that women prefer male bosses? How do you explain that?

Evolution. People also generally prefer taller leaders. Also, evolution. Most of our evolution was about physical protection and our leaders ought to then be physically tough, tribesmen and hunters, Great hunters. For the last few thousands years we've generated better and bigger civilizations and so now we need diplomatically skilled leaders, emotionally intelligent, socially intelligent leaders. Women. Not aggressive.

Our psychological make-up today is primed for the hunter-gatherer world, and not a complex social one. And so our biases today were built in a time and place when relying on big, strong men actually mattered.

Exactly, as I said, thousands and thousands of years of evolution where women were not selected for their leadership qualities. And now feminists come and say "We are all exactly equal, and we demand and expect 50% representation everywhere"

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Our psychological make-up today is primed for the hunter-gatherer world, and not a complex social one. And so our biases today were built in a time and place when relying on big, strong men actually mattered.

Exactly, as I said, thousands and thousands of years of evolution where women were not selected for their leadership qualities. And now feminists come and say "We are all exactly equal, and we demand and expect 50% representation everywhere"

Men try to stop women, even sometimes through aggressive patriarchies. Times have changed. Women are being selected. Clinton won the popular vote. It's time.

 

[Toni]

Our psychological make-up today is primed for the hunter-gatherer world, and not a complex social one. And so our biases today were built in a time and place when relying on big, strong men actually mattered.

Exactly, as I said, thousands and thousands of years of evolution where women were not selected for their leadership qualities. And now feminists come and say "We are all exactly equal, and we demand and expect 50% representation everywhere"

Wow.

Your ignorance of history is almost equal to your ignorance of biology and of evolution.

- - - Updated - - -

What about studies which found out that women prefer male bosses? How do you explain that?

Because social bias isn't sex-linked. It's learned behavior, and it's learned by both sexes. Both men and women have a tendency to associate power, leadership, and decision-making with men. Both men and women have a tendency to associate compassion, collaboration, and patience with women.

This explanation does not work, because men are OK with female bosses, it's other women which cause problems.
With women it's a constant cat fight it seems, even when female boss has all the right male boss qualities.

You are mistaken in every single point you thought you were making.

 

[barbos]

Wow.

Your ignorance of history is almost equal to your ignorance of biology and of evolution.

Nope, ignorance is all yours.

- - - Updated - - -

What about studies which found out that women prefer male bosses? How do you explain that?

Because social bias isn't sex-linked. It's learned behavior, and it's learned by both sexes. Both men and women have a tendency to associate power, leadership, and decision-making with men. Both men and women have a tendency to associate compassion, collaboration, and patience with women.

This explanation does not work, because men are OK with female bosses, it's other women which cause problems.
With women it's a constant cat fight it seems, even when female boss has all the right male boss qualities.

You are mistaken in every single point you thought you were making.

nope, I am correct in every point I made

 

[barbos]

Our psychological make-up today is primed for the hunter-gatherer world, and not a complex social one. And so our biases today were built in a time and place when relying on big, strong men actually mattered.

Exactly, as I said, thousands and thousands of years of evolution where women were not selected for their leadership qualities. And now feminists come and say "We are all exactly equal, and we demand and expect 50% representation everywhere"

Men try to stop women, even sometimes through aggressive patriarchies. Times have changed. Women are being selected. Clinton won the popular vote. It's time.

Hillary was not selected by Bill for her leadership abilities.

 

[ruby sparks]

What about studies which found out that women prefer male bosses? How do you explain that?

How could anyone even begin to address such a poorly defined question?

Which studies? Are people supposed to read your mind, or are you going to provide a reference or link to the study or studies that you are thinking of?

Given the information provided in your question, the most parsimonious explanation for those studies is that they are a figment of your imagination.

They're not a figment, even though barbos didn't bother to provide a link. It's true.

One of my favorites is the Howard/Heidi study. I'll have to find a link for it later, but here's the gist. A pile of college students of mixed gender were presented with two case studies. The case studies described the daily routines, professional history, and resume of two people, one named Heidi and the other named Howard. Each student received only one of the two studies, randomized.
The students were asked to evaluate how competent they felt the subject was, whether they would want to work with that person, how likable they felt they were, etc.

The responses were tallied up and found that the students felt that Howard and Heidi were equally competent... but that Howard was considered more likable. In general, the students felt that Heidi would be difficult to work with, hard to get along with, and less suited for an executive role.

The catch here is that it was the exact same case study, with only the names and the gendered pronouns changed. The only difference between them was literally the gender of the subject. It's a very real demonstration of the power of social bias.

In studies like the one barbos referenced, what has been consistently found is that when asked in the abstract, both men and women respond that they'd rather work for a man. But when asked about their actual boss (about half of which were women), they reported near equal levels of satisfaction, with a very slightly higher satisfaction level for the female bosses. The indication is that people tend to view their specific female bosses as exceptions to the standard, rather than viewing both men and women as equally competent and equally suited to leadership roles.

I love studies like those.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

With women it's a constant cat fight it seems, ...

Hold on there, buddy. I thought we were talking about scientific studies not anecdotes of what it "seems" like to you. You are now saying women are more aggressive which isn't consistent with the science, but you had also said you LIKE more aggression. I think you should try to stick to one narrative and let it be scientific.

 

[barbos]

With women it's a constant cat fight it seems, ...

Hold on there, buddy. I thought we were talking about scientific studies not anecdotes of what it "seems" like to you. You are now saying women are more aggressive which isn't consistent with the science, but you had also said you LIKE more aggression. I think you should try to stick to one narrative and let it be scientific.

Yes, scientific studies, and anecdotes as well. Cat fights are not evidence of aggression, they are just cat fights.
There have been few high profile woman CEO fiascos over the years - Yahoo, HP, Theranos comes to mind. One good example I know is russian business-woman who runs construction company (not a clothing shop or beauty salon). Here is her photo:

Richest woman in Russia.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Men try to stop women, even sometimes through aggressive patriarchies. Times have changed. Women are being selected. Clinton won the popular vote. It's time.

Hillary was not selected by Bill for her leadership abilities.

How do you know?

aa

 

[barbos]

Men try to stop women, even sometimes through aggressive patriarchies. Times have changed. Women are being selected. Clinton won the popular vote. It's time.

Hillary was not selected by Bill for her leadership abilities.

How do you know?

aa

It's a Bill Clinton