When people describe their ideal leader, they talk about their ideal father figure: someone strong, decisive, dominant but also caring. Two unintuitive claims can help to clarify the masculine-feminine aspects of leadership:
- Many men have some feminine personality traits while some women have a more masculine style. Masculinity is not identical with being male; femininity is not exclusive to women. This is about personality traits and interpersonal style, not sexual orientation or gender.
- The most effective leadership is feminine; management can be either masculine or feminine.
Masculine and feminine usually refer to traits associated with men and women respectively but it is arguable that there is a continuum of such personality traits along which some men can be more feminine in their interpersonal styles and attitudes while some women can have more masculine qualities. Margaret Thatcher, the former British Prime Minister, is a good example of a woman with a fair dose of masculinity, in the sense of being dominant, strong, decisive, competitive and assertive. In fact, she had these qualities so strongly that, after getting to the top in British politics, they were her downfall by being overplayed.
Most people who get to the top in organizations have more masculine traits than feminine. They are more aggressive, competitive, dominant and decisive. Women who ascend to such roles often have these traits as strongly as their male colleagues. Whether such traits are biological or cultural is a side issue. The main point is on how people behave when aspiring to senior executive roles.
Leadership scholars have long been calling for more feminine qualities in male leaders. The argument is that, to get the best out of people, leaders need to be nurturing, collaborative, empathetic and team orientated. To build effective partnerships with other organizations, they need to have emotional intelligence, active listening skills and be cooperative to foster shared ownership of mutually agreeable solutions. Their approach to conflict needs to be more win-win than win-lose, which means having some control over their competitive, dominant inclinations.
Masculine and Feminine Leadership
The Feminine Side
Viewing leadership as a role fails to account for leading by example or the sort of role-independent leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. Leading by example is a fascinating anomaly for our conventional role-based view of leadership because it can be shown not only by front line employees but even by groups, including whole countries. Defining leadership as a role or type of person is self-serving as it is in the interest of those who want to be in control as well as those who like to depend on a strong personality to feel safe.
Leadership defined more broadly is a type of influence makes it like selling albeit with different goals in mind. The common feature shared by leadership and selling is that no one can be forced to buy any product you are selling or direction you want to lead people toward. The buyer can easily walk away. Similarly, you can try to lead by example but others are free to choose to follow or not. No one was forced to follow the leadership of Martin Luther King, jr. but many did so freely. Leadership, like selling, is a kind of influence. It can be shown only; it is never a type of authority, role or type of person. For instance, scientists, artists and technical experts can show leadership quietly if they can cite convincing evidence or set a compelling example even if they have none of the qualities required to direct and motivate a team.
Masculine Leadership
Masculine influence cannot readily foster collaboration and inclusion as it is dominant, decisive and aggressive by definition. If leadership is a type of influence, not a role, there cannot be any autocratic leadership. It’s a contradiction in terms.
However, masculine traits can help when leading by example. People not in charge of groups as well as those with formal authority can lead by example. When that leadership example is the hardworking, aggressive and competitive pursuit of difficult targets, that can inspire others to follow suit. Such an example is counterproductive, however, if those following never learn the feminine side of leadership.
There are three kinds of leadership:
- Advocacy, inspiring others to change direction (masculine or feminine)
- Leading by example (masculine or feminine)
- Engaging leadership (feminine)
Masculine advocacy: Calling for new strategic directions in an aggressive manner to beat the competition. This style can be inspiring but it’s not the best for taking people with you. A feminine approach is better for fostering inclusion and shared ownership.
Masculine example: Displaying hardworking, aggressive, competitive actions to set an example. Working hard to influence people can be seen as both leadership and managerial motivation depending on the aim and type of actions.
Feminine advocacy: Calling for collaboration, teamwork, support and the need to nurture others; aiming to take people with them rather than pushing or selling.
Feminine example: Demonstrating teamwork, collaboration, inclusion and an engaging style; doing more asking than telling or selling.
Feminine vs Masculine Management
Management, like leadership, cannot be defined as a role or type of person either. It’s like investment – an effort to get the best return on any set of resources. All employees, as well as the self-employed, have their time, talent, energy and priorities to manage (invest to get the best return). People with good management skills can be appointed to senior organizational roles, however. In such roles they can be autocratic, aggressive and domineering, thus very masculine. But they can also behave with a more feminine style by using an engaging, empathetic, supportive and collaborative approach to attaining high performance. This means using engaging questions instead of commands, orders or threats. Typical engaging questions that managers might ask include:
- How can you show that you are a star performer (if you want advancement)?
- What do you think is the best approach to getting this done?
- What obstacles might there be and how can you get around them?
- What can you do to get higher performance out of your team?
- Your attempt to achieve the target didn’t work; what might you do differently?
- You blamed colleagues for letting you down. How could you have avoided that setback?
As these questions are coaching related, engaging and empowering, they have a more feminine quality than using commands, threats and punishment. All of these questions are variations on “What do you think?” Such questions engage people more deeply in problem solving and create a deeper level of commitment and ownership in those so engaged.
Managers need a balance of feminine and masculine qualities. They need a feminine style to create shared ownership, develop people and enhance empowerment. But sometimes they need to make tough decisions about people or to address conflict with colleagues or partners when a co-creation approach will not work, situations where masculine qualities may be required.
Why bother with the labels of masculine and feminine at all? The point is that we can all be more effective with greater self-insight into our strengths and weaknesses. Recognizing our strengths and weaknesses can help us be more strategic about ourselves: deciding what is the best use of our time and talent or the best style to use in a given situation.
Key Features of Feminine Leadership
- Empathy
- Active listening
- Emotional supportiveness
- Collaboration
- Co-creation of solutions for shared ownership
- Engaging others
- Employee development
- Coaching
- Deeper empowerment
Key Differences
- Masculine leadership directs and controls; feminine leadership facilitates and engages
- Masculine leadership decides; feminine leadership facilitates shared decisions
Similar qualities are useful for both functions: leadership and management, just with different objectives: Leadership, to push for a change in direction and management to achieve high performance. It can be difficult to separate the two functions in practice for managers in formal authority roles as they will often show leadership as well as make management decisions. Followers may find it hard to tell the difference: “Is the boss issuing an order or trying to persuade us?” The point of this distinction, again, is for heightened self-awareness and the opportunity to use make the best use of all you have to offer, to get the best return on your efforts. Better self-awareness could also help you to question whether wanting a strong, masculine father figure as a leader might be disempowering for you. It might incline you to feel dependent on another person’s strengths.
Concluding Thoughts
Do people need to display masculine qualities to get to the top and, if so, how readily can they switch to more feminine styles to get the best out of people and foster deep collaboration. The solution to this problem must be in those making top selection decisions and what kind of culture they want to develop or reinforce. It’s not like the Middle Ages where winners for the top dog slot were determined on battlefields.