Elizabeth G. Heij, Chief, Division of Horticulture, CSIRO, Adelaide
Talk presented at International Women’s Day Forum, the University of Adelaide, 24 March 1997, sponsored by the Australian Federation of University Women (SA).
The first thing that needs to be said, right up front, is that when it comes to management styles, women and men are all unique individuals. We can pick out certain characteristics more common to one gender or the other, but the two groups overlap essentially completely. We absolutely must not expect an individual to show a particular style or characteristic just by virtue of gender. With this cautionary note sounded, however, we can certainly explore the implications of styles which tend to be commoner amongst women managers than their male peers.
My own experience, as well as that gained second-hand by reading and talking to others, suggests we have barely seen even the smallest glimpses of an impact of women at the top — and the glimpses we have seen have often been quite different from what we might have assumed.
There is evidence suggesting either that women get tough when they rise to the top or, alternatively, that only tough women are getting to the top. A recent British survey in the Manchester Business School of over 5700 small and medium-sized companies1 found women Chief Executives more likely than men to spread fear amongst their employees. Women CEOs were on average more autocratic, sought less advice, and gave less responsibility. This rang a bell with me personally since my most nurturing supervisor was actually male, and my most driven, aggressive boss was female; and isn't Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s famous 'Iron Lady' another example?
What is going on here? We know there is a significant cohort of women in middle and lower management who more commonly show quite different characteristics when compared with the majority of their male peers. These women (and a smaller proportion of men) have a business vision more attuned to people as opposed to profits and processes. They have less tendency to 'build empires', and therefore greater willingness to share control and empower subordinates. Compared with their male peers, they are more likely to pass good ideas to others for development and eventual recognition. They are generally less dominant and aggressive in meetings and conversations. They tend to seek consensus rather than rule by decree, and show a preference for trusting rather than policing subordinates.
Such women are generally comfortable with team leadership but less comfortable with rigid line management. They are less wedded to organisational processes, committee protocols, and corporate 'icons', and likely to see them as humorous, stuffy, or a waste of time if they add no visible value. They are also less tolerant in general than their male peers of 'status display' behaviour in the workplace, and can sometimes fall out with male bosses by dismissing it as something that just gets in the way.
We know a substantial number of women middle managers do have a consensus style based on these lower-dominance characteristics, and that they are making some impact at lower levels. For example, in my own job as a CSIRO 'middle manager', I have been able to flatten the hierarchical structure of my Division, increase staff inputs to managerial decisions, and spread most of the traditional 'power base' of the Chief-of-Division position across a larger managerial team; and I know a number of other women in corporate or academic management who are initiating similar changes.
So what is happening at the top? Where are the women CEOs motivated by people and ethics rather than profit and power?
From my own experience, I believe a major problem lies in the predominantly male membership of selection panels screening the applicants for top positions. Men tend to select according to the existing masculine leadership model — authority, 'presence', ambition, 'fire in the belly', 'hunger to achieve', determination, ability to make tough decisions, entrepreneurialism, and personal power — in other words, the biological male dominance characteristics of the species, Homo sapiens. An animal behaviourist would quite likely tell us that, in human society, money is a male symbol of power, precisely equivalent to the bright blue bottom of an alpha-male mandrill baboon. Our corporate bosses who pay themselves over a million or so dollars a year, are just our alpha males with the biggest and bluest bums!
A woman interviewing for a leadership job may not have these dominance characteristics in comparable depth, not because she is less talented but because she does not value them herself.
It should be no surprise to find that most females don’t fit comfortably into the customs, ethics, and interpersonal interactions of a male dominance hierarchy. A woman with equal leadership skill might not bear herself with overt determination or wield power authoritatively, but she might have the capacity to communicate, consult, support, empower, listen and mentor. She might also have compassion, tolerance, and an appreciation of the value of ethics and cultural diversity. In the current male leadership paradigm, the special characteristics of such women are seen as too 'soft' to be important in the hard, cold world of commerce. But isn't the decision-making cohort of our business world desperately lacking in these skills? And mightn't they be just what is needed for a new paradigm of success?
So what happens to women in management careers when dominance behaviour becomes a critical selection factor? A recent study in the banking industry by Professor Leonie Still2 of Edith Cowan University, Perth found that for more than 56 women managers who left the ANZ Bank over the last 18 months the main reasons for opting out were not lack of remuneration or family-career conflicts, but frustration over the lack of appreciation and understanding of their particular skills, and of the processes needed for good oganisational culture.
There is no doubt that many talented women managers at middle and lower levels want to run businesses differently, but it appears they are either not being selected for the top positions, or they are giving up and opting out.
Where do these talented drop-outs go, and what happens to their skills? I recently found a very interesting article by Angela Matheson in Vive magazine3 which suggests such women are a significant source of growth in the small business sector, where a growing one third of enterprises are run by women. In this arena, women's organising, multi-tasking, and communication abilities are a big plus. Their main difficulties appear to be lack of ready access to investment capital, and often a lack of confidence.
Three examples from the Sydney business world are particularly interesting:
Successful shoe designer Donna-May Bolinger3 baled out of a high-profile executive assistant position when her job failed to provide sufficient opportunity for creativity. She says 'When you are passionate and want to push boundaries' 'it's an enormous strain to be an employee and have to answer to and compromise with management.' 'I've never been all that motivated by money. I just want to be creative and run my own show. God knows, money is nice, but I'm not interested in being hugely rich. What I want most, I've got: flexibility. If you've got some driving desire and you're trying to evolve a vision, running your own business is the only way to do it. Being employed by others sidetracks your energies.'
Dispute resolver Louise Steer3, a former barrister and solicitor, says of her old occupation: 'The legal profession is a boy's club where you are not supposed to give a damn about people.' 'Many of the people who run the profession are just there to make money, even if it means treating the people they pursue with extreme viciousness.' 'I knew there must be a better way to resolve legal disputes than to treat the world as a battlefield and destroy people's lives.' 'The corporate world has to grasp that people are human beings not human resources.'
And finally, Di Jones3, a highly successful independent real estate broker, baled out of mainstream real estate to run her own, very differently organised business. Di says 'I left the mainstream real estate market because I wanted to do something different. I was confined by the corporate rules and it was almost impossible to deviate from the rigidly defined norms of how to do business. I wanted to do business ethically, without hard sell, and I wanted to make work a pleasure rather than a soul-destroying activity. My belief was that you did not have to resort to lies, manipulation or pressure to get clients.'
Di also wanted a business with a feminine touch: 'Women often have better interpersonal skills, and people feel less threatened by us.' In her workplace, Di has abolished traditional hierarchies and works in the same room as her staff at an identical desk. None of her agents has left in the four years she has been in business.
Can we hope one day to actually see an impact of women such as these at the top of our corporate organisations? Will enough of these talented, people-oriented, ethical, women grow their small businesses and become sufficiently global or mainstream to make a real difference?
The only example I can think of is the British-based international Body Shop chain led by Anita Roddick. Unfortunately, it seems many talented women managers are just not interested in climbing corporate ladders or growing small businesses into large ones.
Maureen Shelley, coordinator of the NSW State and Regional Development Board's Small Business Development and Mentoring Program for Women, observes3 that a lot of women managers of small businesses 'like to stay small, in control, and don't want to expand.' This suggests that many women in business have decided that big is not necessarily best, and that a balanced, satisfying life is more important than money and power — they are simply not interested in making an impact at the top of corporate Australia.
The impact we as women should be striving for — people vs profits, flexibility, diversity, tolerance and better communication — is still nowhere near achieved. In fact the economic rationalism of the deregulated free market, so popular with our current policy makers, seems to be moving us further from the ideal. Even the formal management training offered by our tertiary business schools will continue to act as a conservative force as long as women are grossly under-represented among the instructors. Having now attended a number of management short courses, both within my own organisation and the university system, I am concerned that the male leadership paradigm is still overwhelmingly the dominant mould for future managers.
I see many talented women leaders waiting in the wings, but they have yet to make an impact at the top. To get them there we need to do two things: firstly, make the highest-level positions more attractive and gender-neutral so more women seek them; and secondly, change the selection criteria for leadership jobs to downplay the importance of male dominance behaviours. Which comes first, one might ask — 'the chicken or the egg?'
If we genuinely want our businesses to become both more productive and more 'user-friendly' to all who work in them, we need a balance of talents and management options across the whole spectrum, from money-oriented to people-oriented, from 'command-and-control' to teamwork and consensus, from formal to informal, and from aggressive to empowering. We need a model of leadership which is sufficiently flexible to fit both men and women. We need management teams composed of both genders, so the talents of both can be harnessed.
For example, as a manager, I myself am more confident and comfortable with issues relating to the dynamics and satisfaction of staff in the workplace;
I am less comfortable with the high-profile entrepreneurialism and negotiation associated with commercialising the results of scientific research.
I recognise this and make sure I use, support and recognise these talents in several male members of my management team. Many of my male peer group have the reverse preference, but some, unfortunately, have not recognised the need for some of the ‘softer’ qualities among their lieutenants.
Fabian Dattner, in her wonderful book Naked Truth: an open letter to the Australian working community4, has given us the key:
We are wired to work together, each sex offering something to the other; whatever the benefit of our union, it is for all of us and for all time.
I sense that the best impact of women at the top will one day be a new leadership paradigm — one that fits both genders and allows us to run comfortably in harness together. Once that is achieved, I do believe our business world will be a better place for us all.