Comments

Makes me think about theories X and Y. The first group leader probably felt good about the end result. The second group likely felt good about the process.

Posted by Pat M at September 30, 2008 12:05 PM

Terrific article on this subject in today's Times: "What caused the crunch? Men and testosterone."

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4848188.ece

Posted by Mark JF at September 30, 2008 12:40 PM

I love this stuff on leadership styles. Can we please move it away from the male/female thing?

What would be more useful would be much more discussion on the leadership traits and competancies rather than the sex.

I have known several female leaders who out testosteroned men. I also know some male leaders (myself included) who work hard at moving away from the "top dog" approach and prefer a consultative, supportive style.

Posted by PaulH at October 1, 2008 2:29 AM

Completely agree, Paul.

Posted by Rob at October 1, 2008 3:35 AM

Paul and Rob -I’m with you

I have discovered a terrific UTube clip to act as a focus for this topic that I know you two guys will like. At the link below are a couple of British business men who reach a good compromise about gender issues in business. They are ahead of their time of course - this was probably 20 years ago.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qsvvr4Y7n4

PS - Hope our US friends appreciate the humour of Brit comedy icons ‘The Two Ronnies’

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 1, 2008 4:00 AM

Paul H...I completely agree. Leadership styles do vary and whether or not the cause is gender, who cares? Leadership is about behavior. Behavior that can be learned or changed if one isn't satisfied with the results. Only in the world of politics is change thought to be a negative. Last Friday's debate and the Sunday talk shows are full of references to speeches made years ago contrasted to a change in one's point of view today. FLIP FLOPPER!!!! Never a new approach to solving an old problem. Amazing and then we wonder why we're in the state of affairs we're in...

Trevor...the clip is terrific and the take away perhaps is, "if you can't beat 'em... join 'em"? Thanks for the laugh as the third Monday of the week begins!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 1, 2008 6:21 AM

Great clip Trevor - the only comment I can make is "Fork Handles"

Posted by PaulH at October 1, 2008 9:32 AM

Labels (in this case male-female) tend to cloud the issue based on the individual's experience with the group/class/whatever that is being labled. Explaining the behavior, rather than lableing it, usually communicates the point more clearly.

In my opinion, more progressive leaders make good use of relationship behavior. More "traditional" leaders lean heavily on autocratic behavior.

Posted by Bob Maitland at October 1, 2008 1:54 PM

It's interesting that this post (and the related one under it) have not received much comment. Might be the distraction of recent financial events. But I think that male-female differences - beginning with how differently men and women LISTEN - are profound and worthy of attention. (I've been coaching managers for two decades to pay attention to the differences - cultural, gender-based, typological, generational - in how their audiences will hear, process, and act on information.) Of course there is always the danger that such distinctions will be used to reinforce negative stereotypes (e.g. "Gen Y workers are coddled primadonnas") so we need to tread carefully, but I wouldn't be dismissive of the evidence of these differences. And, yes, there are exceptions to any generalized rule - and no two members of any "group" are clones of each other. But I would argue that any salesperson, to take one example, is at a serious disadvantage if s/he makes a habit of communicating identically to men and women. Georgetown linguistics professor Deborah Tannen (google her name for info and books) has been writing about this since the mid 1980s.

Posted by John O'Leary at October 1, 2008 1:58 PM

"But I would argue that any salesperson, to take one example, is at a serious disadvantage if s/he makes a habit of communicating identically to men and women."

Simple and yet profound wisdom John - thanks - says it all really.

We learn this stuff as kids don’t we? – For instance I knew talking to Mom and Dad in different ways got desired outcomes for me. So I guess one question is why do many lose that skill in adulthood?

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 1, 2008 2:32 PM

I too wondered about the lack of comments in both of these posts and also thought about the consuming financial crisis perhaps being a reason. I understand. While I had further ideas about this post and the one below, when comments were not added or addressed (Thanks to Helen from the other post!), I assumed that others did not respond because either a) they did not think the post or comments worthy of discussion b) they had not a clue or c) none of the above. In any event, the topic is an important one. Thanks TP for the post. Thanks John for your comment and recommending the author. I'll check her out. Thanks too to, MarkJF, for the article which I read with interest.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 1, 2008 2:44 PM

Hi Judith trust you are well...

I want to respond to your comment because I believe you are right - there is not enough commentary on this post.

This post and the timesonline blog (thanks Mark JF) on this topic is full of "psycho-babble" about the perceived need for women to run everything. It is disturbing to me as the father of two fine young men who have reached an age where they need good male role models outside their home.

The fact is America needs men to re-discover their male side not to get more in touch with their feminine side. Obama is indistinguishable from Pelosi to me... Apparently one is male and one is female - who would know which is which in terms of the type of leadership they offer a nation in crisis.

Where are the great male leaders of C21st in America? Where are the men with the big picture reforms? Where are the likes of Lincoln? Where are these men to find their role models - Pelosi is not one, Obama is not one.. Mc Cain is not one, Palin is a women so she can not be one... Hillary Clinton is a women but she could have been one if she could have gotten beyond the petty detail of her programs and raised above her gender causes...

Men have left the building - they have gone fishin' or they have scampered off to the backwoods of Alaska or Nevada or ...

I despair for America in her time of crisis because there are no male leaders who can step up and hit the ball out of the park... There are no male values anymore worth talking about... Women are in charge in America today - I hope they are up to the challenges that lie ahead of a once great Nation...

The late Paul Newman was a man's man to me even though he cooked and made great sauces... He had the right philosophy for this time in America - a philosophy that has been replaced today by feminist dogma and ideology...

Newman often responded to questions about his long lasting marriage roughly as follows... First I married a great broad (are there any available anymore?)... Second we divided decision making evenly... She decides where we live, what car we drive, where the children go to school, etc... I decide who is to be President,leader of the UN, etc...

My sons and the sons of current American women need more Paul Newmans in their world... Being a male in America has to be celebrated not denigrated...

Cheers Richard....

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 1, 2008 5:39 PM

Richard - Your Aussie male bravado, to say the very least, is piercing through. I'm off to the the gym now, but I will undoubtedly return, perhaps with much to say about what you have just written. But then again, maybe not. I will think more about the Pelosi/Obama comment that you have made and the Newman one too as a male who cooks, therefore, he is in touch with his feminine side, while lifting weights at the gymn. I'm in touch, you might think, with my masculine side. I can bench press about 160 these days, with a spotter. And, you? Glancing through your comments again they seem REALLY wild. I gotta ask; are you serious? If so, you have rushed right through John's adominition. I could have also missed tons in my haste. It's good to hear from you, Richard, even on such disagreeable terms.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 1, 2008 6:08 PM

Congratulations! This post was selected as one of the five best business blog posts of the week in my Three Star Leadership Midweek Review of the Business Blogs.

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2008/10/01/10108-a-midweek-look-at-the-business-blogs.aspx

Wally Bock

Posted by Wally Bock at October 1, 2008 6:08 PM

Judith...

Disagreement is good! We need more people to strongly disagree with each other! We need people to stand for something - anything really - again. The point about Paul Newman being a cook was a 'throw away line' so you again totally miss the point of what I am trying to say. It is interesting though that the best Chefs in the world are men. Good for you that you can press 160 at a gym - in the past men honed their muscles and built their strength by doing physical work not by going to the gym. Great that woman are the new muscle heads in the gym - it shows me that this whole society is screwed up big time..

The bailout, rescue, taxpayer funded relief package is a good example of just how screwed up American society is right now.... This was a dumb package from the get go - $700 billion was the big shocking figure written down on the back of an envelope by Paulson to frighten everyone into submission - it is not the stuff of leaders.... The US and the world will get a slightly less dumb package in a few days and then the whole thing will start again... Where are these great leaders? Where are these great sales people - men or women - who can explain to the US taxpayer what needs to be done.?

Nowhere to be seen right now that is for sure! Why? Because no one wants to stand up and tell the world that this is a crisis that began with Reagan in 1980 - it has been a long time in the making and it will have big consequences before it is over... No one wants to point out that everyone is to blame - everyone including you and me.. We all had a part in making this mess and we will all have to play a part in unmaking it... To make swift progress unmaking this mess we need a strong leader in the White House, in Congress, and in the Senate... We need strong leaders in Britain, Europe, Asia, and even down here in Australia... We simply do not have them... We have a collection of deflectors, celebrities, speech makers, populists, etc. Can they bench press 160 - I know I can't - do they need to be able to do that and more, perhaps? What they definitely need to do is to get this monster (credit, debt, mistrust, market failure, etc) off our backs... Perhaps we do need some one who can do the heavy lifting - like Judith - the problem is if we do there is no one in sight...

Why not get the US voters to draft the Mayor of New York, Mr M. Bloomberg, into the White House - he just might be able to do the job? It is not going to happen so good luck to you Judith and to all of us....

Good to hear from you Judith - stay well and keep pumpin' that iron I am sure it is good for your soul....

Richard.

Richard

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 1, 2008 7:30 PM

Richard – It is also good to hear from you. I suppose that when the men were away at war and when the women were on the bomber line and working side by side with their husbands in the field that their muscles also meant something too. But Richard we are in the 21st Century and in metropolitan areas women and men meet at gyms for not only weight lifting, but it a great place to just kick it. (Where do you kick it?) On most days I find myself biking, running or walking. But on those days that I am working late and up early I pop in the gym with the guys (non-gender specific) and it’s good to just kick it.

In your first comment you have merely rambled on about particular sensibilities or contrivances based on gender notions, but you have not delved into the meaning of any of them. Simply saying that men are not supposed to be cooks, but the best chefs are men will not cut it. What do you mean by this? I assume most women would love it if their husbands en masse were great chefs. Most of my brothers, by the way, are excellent cooks and they have muscles too! They often prepare dinner. Their wives love it. But you know this conversation is so yesterday. This should not even be something that's odd. I do not think so. I kinda feel like Obama who must be forever dealing with old ideologies of the past when being faced with the many realities of now.

To merely say that there is not a distinction between Pelosi and Obama, but failed to say why you thought so does not make for a brilliant discussion on the issues (The comment seemed meant as a put down that wasn’t appreciated. I assume you like the hot-dogging derailed “straight-talking” express. I wonder who that might be?) You must assume that the US framers who were probably not particularly farm -like or frontier types must have been wimps. They were intellectuals and mostly men of principles, even when their actions did not live up to their ideas. To insinuate that men are not “real” men without the bravado is simply ridiculous, idiotic.

John Wayne represented movie characters; they are not real. Though, I am afraid that there are many seeking to live up to such images. I guess all characters are based in some form of reality. You know…art imitating life and life imitating art. But pray tell, what is a “man’s man?” Is he sort of like Tarzan? Richard, your man’s man is a social construct, one that you seemed to have bought into hook line and sinker. In days gone by women worked besides men in the fields and received the same lash as serf or slave. And, today, women work just as hard as men with less pay. We do not want to necessarily do the same things as men do just to do them, even though for a while there was the need to prove that we can. I, for one, do not wish to be a lumberjack. But if there are any brawny misogynistic lumber jacks out there? Beware! Timmmber!!!

You speak of a “feminist dogma and ideology” which replaced that of Paul Newman’s Firstly what is this ideology and did Newman write or speak of what you assume he was? You seemed to have observed a movie star from a distance from his movie and entrepreneurial ventures and assumed who this person was. If Newman has written or spoken of even the vague issues about which you write, please inform us all. Your grandiose ideas of who Newman might have been are somewhat absurd. But, of course, just because I am not aware of his he-man she-man efforts do not mean it’s not so.

I guess that weightlifting might be good for the soul; but it works wonders for the a*^ too! By the way, you speak a lot here about he men of America; how are the men of Australia? One thing I that I liked about the women of Australia when I lived there was that it did not matter how dainty they appeared there remained a rugged frontier-like demeanor and self-reliance that I appreciated.

By the way, can someone please shut down Sarah Palin? This woman is most embarrassing.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 1, 2008 8:57 PM

Judith you truly are a wanker - you have reportedly live in Australia so you know what I mean! Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 1, 2008 10:16 PM

Richard - Do you doubt that I spent nine months in Australia? Well, I did. Sorry to say that I do not know what a wanker is. But I can tell you what I indeed am, a hell of a fighter and a bit of a lover too. Be well...

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 1, 2008 10:21 PM

OK, Richard. Just checked out the the meaning of the word. It is obvious that I have offended you and for this I am sincerely sorry. I did hope, however, that you would answer the very relevant points I have addressed here as I had tried to answser yours. What happened, by the way, to disagreement being good? For all of your bravado you seemed to have whimpered out.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 1, 2008 10:30 PM

Judith I am not offended in the least... I am just not interested in your ranting about petty things that do not matter in the overall scheme of things...

For your information what Paul Newman was saying with good humour and grace - he is often quoted on it - is that he had a good relationship with his wife because he did what he did well and she did what she did well... What he did well was the big picture stuff and what she did well is all the rest... I think that is what men do well - they do the big picture stuff well... When your nation - if not the whole world - is in crisis as now we need people who can do the big picture stuff well...

None of the following do the big picture stuff well...not Obama, Biden, Mc Cain, Palin nor Pelosi, Paulson, etc... They are all little stuff types of leaders, they are process people, Obama is a speech maker not a leader, Mc Cain is a war hero not a leader, Paulson is a finance industry CEO not a leader, and so it goes...

All this relationship stuff that is now clogging up the TPC blogs and commentary is process, process, process... It is needed but it is not the main game right now....

What we need is a person who can step outside the "relationships" that exist now and forge a new way - probably someone who is not particularly well liked (but is well respected) some one who ruffles feathers but cuts through the "me too chorus" with a chainsaw... If that is a woman then great... The woman with the best shot at it was probably Hillary Clinton but she proved not to be up to the job - I do not know all the Governors - perhaps there is a woman amongst them who could really sort out Washington and set up a new framework for government for C21st ... It is all "relationships and process" within Washington today and nothing good comes of it... The new package will not solve anything really and the people in Main Street know it but they have to elect people from the current list... If they could go to outside candidates then they might choose some one who is actually up for the job of being President in 2009 in America with all its problems and pitfalls....

Bloomberg seems like "a cut through" kind of guy - he has nothing to prove because he has done it all and so he might be a good leader.... I believe you guys in the US need a C21st Bobby Kennedy - Bobby was a man with too many faults to list here - but he was a man who could cut through... Bobby learned on the job at an incredibly fast rate and so grew with each new setback, he was shot down in his prime because he challenged powerful people, he took them on....

Obama is not a Bobby Kennedy - he is not a person who will take on the establishment. We know that by the fact that he keeps telling us that is exactly what he will do when he gets into the White House.... Obama did not go to Capital Hill and knock heads together to get the Paulson package passed he stayed outside the main game and played "relationship or process politics"... Obama is a process politician... He is a professional politician... The US and the world needs a non politician in the White House - a person who is willing to roll up his or her sleeves and do whatever it takes to clean up this mess... A person who is willing to be a one term President because he or she will become so unpopular that the Washington collegiate will do everything within their considerable power to get rid of him or her...

But I am just pissing into the wind writing this kind of stuff here on TPC and especially trying to converse with you Judith....

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 2, 2008 12:16 AM

Paul's response got my vote because I find much of the male/female thing characterised by lazy catch-all stereotypes, particularly when it comes to management styles. Sure there are differences, but they are on a graded scale, they're not black and white, owned by one or the other exclusively. And they are certainly not "masculine bad, feminine good" - a proposition that some well-respected management consultants tend occasionally to promote.

The notable element of the post, to me, was the concept of what makes an effective team. Haphazard diversity of itself does not, whatever the body of research says. Diversity needs to be shaped to fit the team's goal. The important thing is to recognise it and welcome what it can contribute, not use it as a stick to beat people with.

Posted by Rob at October 2, 2008 5:55 AM

Richard – Your transference will in no way be passed off to another when it is clear that your misogynistic non-specific ideological touchy feely nostalgic bogus bravado masculinity did not work. What it appreciated most is honesty. You clearly are capable of dishing such nonsense but are quite obviously not able to take truth. I think that I responded quite fairly to your very big picture old world view of the role of men and women and you have responded by calling me a wanker defined as: “1. A person who masturbates. 2. A detestable person.” From your past comments on this blog, I sense that you are better than that. I sense that you are most certainly capable of honorable discussion with a woman (or anyone for that matter) that represents your higher self.

Where you have squarely sought to place me (“ranting about petty things that do not matter in the overall scheme of things...”) it is quite obvious that you yourself are indeed there. (The female social construct of nostalgic non-specificity applies here.) You continue to speak with melancholy about a time gone by where men performed such roles and women others, and longingly yearn for the likes of leaders gone by—even movie stars who have not particularly spoken or written at length about the ideas here. Yet, you relate to them by merely viewing them on TV and through a personal non-relational association of their brief written or spoken views, determine that they are the perfect role model just because they developed a sauce and became a great entrepreneur. Nonsense! (No disrespect intended here to Mr. Newman AT ALL as I honor is life and his contributions to the arts and charity. I, in fact, wrote a piece on my blog in honor of him.)

A big problem with nostalgia is its insistence on the past and avoidance of the future which clouds up the here and now. Another big problem with nostalgia is often that the one remembering only remembers a pristine time when, in fact, there were many less than honorable things occurring. Your bogus bravado bespeaks a period where women roles were less than appreciated, less than honored, less than considered worthy, less than…PERIOD. Your hankering for the past shall not be assuaged. That period is over…PERIOD.

Regarding your “pissing into the wind,” it is just that, for it has not seemingly evolved out of external factors but rather from the toxicity of internal ones. Women are indeed capable beings and we have and will continue to be heard and make great contributions worldwide. Only men caught up in their ego seek to inhibit women. And…your ego seems GIAGANTIC. Perhaps it has something to do with testosterone or maybe not. Testosterone is one thing, a needed thing. But developing one’s capacity for conversation and rant-less respectful discussion that address issues and not merely big picture idealism of gender, politics or leadership is quite another.

I am not impressed with opinions that evolve out of melancholy or nostalgia (meant to represent decisiveness and clarity in one who has a grip on things) that are clearly evident to be what they are, merely machismo meanderings of days gone by. The only problem here is that this kind of rattling can sway some when times are tough to return to the mad melancholy of days gone instead of fighting forward to change. We will not be deterred, the men and women, who desire change. I don’t know about there in Australia, but here in the US we’re clamoring for it. Change is coming!

Richard – I sincerely wish you all the best.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 2, 2008 7:55 AM

And, Richard, your idea of the man doing the big picture stuff (usually the fun stuff) while the woman do the nitty gritty stuff (usually the laborious stuff) while being paid by far less to do it, ain't gonna work any longer. Now, when it comes to marriages, men and women should decide for their particular families how things should go for themselves.

But this transference on the big stage ain't gonna cut it no more. Even, if by chance, there is some truth to the fact that men are big thinkers ideologically and women are also big thinkers AND specific, where is the honor in the ability to see the whole and the specifics? Surely this is certainly relevant.

Many of our ideas of gender evolved out of perceived biblical notions. But the Prophet Joel in the Old Testament saw something greater than perceptions he writes of an equality that's
wonderful:

"And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out MY Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. Your old men shall see visions, and also my menservants and on MY maidservants I will pour of My spirit in those day." (Joel 2:28-29)

I do not see this as apocalyptic in the often accepted sense of this word, but as a renewal, a new beginning; there is always an ending before a beginning. We are now entering into a new beginning.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 2, 2008 8:28 AM

Judith ... Change is already being visited on America and through her to the world... You have lost the argument when you start quoting scriptures to me... I do not believe in your god - talk about being stuck with old ideas... I am not a purveyor of truth, like you... I seek a good start in life for my kids, good outcomes for Australia, and an openness to dealing with all the issues we face right now.... You take everything literally Judith and in so doing you distort it to mean whatever suits your purpose... It seems your only real purpose is to be heard above the chattering cluster... You are so full of yourself and without demonstrated reasons to be so - that is what I meant by being a "wanker"... Your nation is in trouble and your best shot is to quote scriptures and talk about the "truth"... I hope your fellow Americans are more serious about change and less focussed on themselves than you appear to be - otherwise the upcoming recesssion/depression will be deep and long lasting in your country.... Good luck to you Judith - you are going to need it...

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 2, 2008 4:11 PM

Richard - What has been literally revealed are your misogynistic idealogies. I do wish you much love, peace and happiness.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 2, 2008 4:50 PM

Okay, let's award a Gotcha (androgynous figurine standing triumphantly on top of a sandcastle, made in China) to anyone who needs it. This sort of last-word-must-be-mine stuff is leading the forum steadily downhill.

Posted by Rob at October 3, 2008 2:06 AM

Rob - I agree fully with your "last word" comment. The problem is, I can't decide if it's a masculine or feminine trait. Or just a one that some people have, irrespective of gender, race, creed, sexuality, religion etc...

Posted by Mark JF at October 3, 2008 2:36 AM

Mark, hence the androgynous nature of the symbolic figurine!

Posted by Rob at October 3, 2008 2:50 AM

Rob your comment on Haphazard diversity really rings true. To get a diverse group working as a team is usually harder than a like minded group. But if you get it right tends to produce better results in the long term. Often some of the roles naturally only come into their own in the longer term (long term thinkers)

The challenge I have always put forward is that this stuff is done conciously and deliberately - that is often the peice that is missing. We often only examine diversity and it's impact when their is conflict.

Posted by PaulH at October 3, 2008 4:59 AM

Paul, yes indeed. Diversity sounds fantastic in theory, but it's very hard to turn it from an interesting externality into an intrinsic and applicable asset. That doesn't happen just through recognition that it exists, but through more specific identification of traits and preferences, and managing those to meet the purpose of the organisation.

Posted by Rob at October 3, 2008 5:32 AM

Gentleman - Can you please explain to me your definition of a gottcha that exists here? Has this discussion not been on issues that reveal the underpinning of misogyny which by and large constructs the ideas of the role of women? Such ideas always lie beneath and it is good when they are revealed and then honestly dealt with. Now, you might suggest that such a discussion is not suited for this medium, but I would beg to differ, as the topic is so relevant and needs honest discussions.

I don't think becoming an androgynous nation is the suggestion of the post, but a discussion of leadership styles as it relates to men and women is. Is this not relevant to you, gentlemen? Men have lead on every prominent issues affecting finance, security, war, since the beginning of time. We thank you. But why not have a relevant decision and implement policy that discovers the possibilities of diversity on micro and macro levels?

There are no gottchas here. But there are serious thoughts on misogynistic ideology that have inhibited brilliant women from advancing ideas that may, in fact, assist in the problems we now face. It is not even a matter of androgyny (which is often leveled at strong brilliant capable women) but it is a matter of diversity of thought and leadership styles that may bring needed change.

As one of 12 children (7 boys and 5 girls) styles vary based on an array of things including, where we have traveled or haven't, what we have studied or haven't, who we have associated with or haven’t, where we have worked or haven't, and what we want and don’t want. There are differences in the way we think and this difference makes a difference. But it is not just that there are differences, but how these differences affect the whole.

Growing up we were absolutely allowed to express ourselves to implement and change house rules, but there was fairness among the group and my mother was completely in charge. (And, yes, this single brilliant loving independent thinking woman raised 7 well adjusted professional strong men.) Being the youngest, even I most certainly had a chance to have my say; my views were also deemed important. Yes, you might imagine that this was difficult with a group of 12, considering the egos involved of both male and female, the elder and the younger. But we worked it out DAILY (How can this be if a group is not at the table?) Today we are a stronger more loving successful family.

Just because there are barriers to entrances and just because there are challenges of integration, does not mean that diversity is irrelevant. The studies, in fact, prove otherwise as it relates to even bottom-line issues. Anytime you deal with change against the status quote there will always be opposition. Should this have inhibited the US from becoming a country? Should this have inhibited slaves from becoming citizens instead of chattel? Should this have inhibited women the right to vote? There will always be opposition to change and only when we fight for it does change happen.

If claims of androgyny, or any other for that matter, are the offense of such a fight, I honorably take up the sword. En garde!

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 3, 2008 8:58 AM

viagra overnight online

I must be fully gender-neutral now. I saw the headline and thought to myself, "What the hell are 'Monday-Friday Leadership Styles?'"

Posted by Super J at October 3, 2008 9:42 AM

Tadaaaah. And the winner is....

Judith, it is abundantly clear that gotchas are in the eye of the beholder. Where you see none I see lotsa. Since you push for a definition I propose: "a tiresome desire to prove oneself right by repetitive (and lengthy) claims to top spot on the moral and intellectual high ground". Will that serve? Is tiresome perhaps too judgemental? Others may want to contribute their own definition.

I well know where to look for serious thoughts on mysogyny, much though I appreciate your claim, and it would be elsewhere.

Posted by Rob at October 3, 2008 10:06 AM

Rob - Gottcha for me implies a oneupsman(woman)ship. This was not my intention at all. Clarity was. My lengthy comments may have something to do with my particular training which according to you require an editor. OK. But if one does not receive what may be apparent to another the rational thing to my understanding would be be say that thing perhaps in another way that may make sense. For my knowledge, please point to the redunancy here that does not seek to shed a different light?

Scriptures are used as references in the way that I would also use the writings of Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, Beauvoir or Wittig or in a business sense those of Peters, Greenleaf, Taleb or others. There is a depth to all of this stuff that goes beyond the apparent that interests me. Therein lie the reasons why we do what we do. (Perhaps this is a difference in the social construct of men and women.) My desire to understand these matters may never change. I must also say that it has assisted my incredibly in my various business efforts and just in life in general.

Intellectualism and morality for their very sake is foolishness as well as the need to persuade others, though healthy debate is good. Conversion is not what interest me. Discussions that lead to self awareness and action do. What you read is me. As I assume what you write is you. (Are you, by the way, opposed to morality and intellectualism? Does the slippery downward slope begin there for you?) It is a matter of seeking to understand and finding new ways of thinking and being in order to address so many issues that we face in life which, of course, include business.

I thank you, Rob, for your comment. In keeping with the ground rules, I will lessen the length of my responses. I do thank those who have read my lengthy comments; I have read yours (long or short, angrily or kindly written) with interest and sought to respond appropriately. Where I have not succeeded I have at least tried.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 3, 2008 2:33 PM

I guess one might see a ""a tiresome desire to prove oneself right by repetitive (and lengthy) claims to top spot on the moral and intellectual high ground". I however see a person responding and expressing their point of view to an opinion expressed by another person who directed their comment directly toward them. I am thinking a that any of us in such a situation has a decision to make...engage or ignore. If one has spent any time on these pages you would also recognize that the particular person who was challenged does not have on once of back down in them. This is a marvelous thing that, regardless of one's gender or ethnicity, is a characteristic missing in our organizations, communities and governments today! This coupled with more than a bit knowledge and perspective enables these discussions to be lengthy. But again, one option might be to not pull the pin if you don't want to witness the explosion and resulting carnage. These

I too at times get put off by some of the tangents these travel down but again, one has choices. Comment or "change the channel"! It's real simple...

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 3, 2008 9:01 PM

I’ve been commenting on TP Blog for about 200 years now – I think I was in the original class of 1808.

It is a bit of a community and people come and go. Like many communities TPBLOGLAND is made up of different styles, types and opinions. That to me is in fact the richness of TP Blog.

I don’t always agree with people. I don’t always express my views as well as I think I could have. There is also something about language travelling back and forth across the pond between UK and US for instance and so what I sometimes say can be heard in a different way by the receiver. I have learned this in the 200 years of this Blog – sometimes the hard way.

Like most things in life there are rarely ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers - merely difference.

I suggest we just celebrate difference rather than argue about point scoring either way.

Back to the discussions on M-F leadership (by the way Super J this was brilliant - "What the hell are 'Monday-Friday Leadership Styles?”)

The issue about GENDER in leadership is less important than the issue of leadership itself. Men learn from women and women learn from men. Twas ever thus and always will be.

Actually I learn as much about leadership by watching my two dogs who are sibling brothers - Rusty is the Alpha male - Bertie is the follower.

Come to think of it my next book might be ‘Leadership Lessons from Rusty and Bertie’

Have a great weekend all - greetings from chilly England - life is good and that Autumn freshness is upon us ... wonderful!

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 4, 2008 5:48 AM

I found this on globalgiving.org. It's a different take on why women rule
http://www.girleffect.org ...powerful.

Posted by Stephen at October 4, 2008 7:16 AM

Stephen - Loved it! Thank you!

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 4, 2008 7:57 AM

I am sorry Judith but I disagree with you. You say that "Men have led on every prominent issues affecting finance, security, war, since the beginning of time." - I don't believe that is true - I believe that certain TYPES of men have led on these issues but not men in general.

I don't disagree with the point that women have been held back (partly due to sexism and partly due to being the wrong "style")This is historical fact. The point is that plenty of amazing men get held back too! all because they are the wrong "type" or "style". The problem is that because men are in charge we actually loose sight of the fact there is a huge problem with men (and their ideas and talent) being held back as well as women. The Sex question sweeps the behaviour and style question under the carpet.

The finance sector does have a certain culture - one in which I am sure I would fail miserably in. I agree that this culture may have been a strong contribution to the current problems.

However To say that this is a male culture problem is actually insulting to a lot of men who don't behave in a macho, "top dog" fashion. There are a lot of us about (silent majority?) and personaly I am a little sick of the stereotypes around men and the assumption because I am male that I am programmed to bahave in a certain way.

Posted by PaulH at October 4, 2008 8:46 AM

I respectfully disagree with Trevor. We are not talking here at this particular time about leadership in general. We are talking here about leadership specifically, as in the role of gender in leadership. There is a time and season for everything. At this particular time, in this particular season, and on this particular blog (especially considering the slide Stephen posted) LEADERSHIP IS ABOUT GENDER. Or, at least, it is about leadership styles that may, in fact, along with men, bring the needed change.

Earlier Rob made a point that I also respectfully disagree: "Diversity sounds fantastic in theory, but it's very hard to turn it from an interesting externality into an intrinsic and applicable asset. That doesn't happen just through recognition that it exists, but through more specific identification of traits and preferences, and managing those to meet the purpose of the organization."

If diversity is looked at merely as a peg for which to find the appropriate slot, a slot may never be found. (Who, by the way, is determining these "traits and preferences?") In such considerations, where is the discovery therein? Where is the development process therein? When considering men, qualifications have been simply a given, even when they are not necessarily present.

The wonderful thing is that through process and interaction qualifications come. If women have been locked out of the process there has been, in effect, a certain kind of professional development deficiency. Yet, we rise. The "intrinsic and applicable asset" HAS been borne out time and time again. Whether we choose to acknowledge this is our choice, though perhaps not for the good of all. Acknowledgment is essential to development of the whole.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 4, 2008 8:48 AM

Paul - I readily concede to the tone here, while not conceding to the very real fact that MEN HAVE LED ON EVERY PROMINENT ISSUE AFFECTING FINANCE, SECURITY, AND WAR SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.

I must also concede to chuckling at the distinction of sex and style. The two have been so intrisincially used as a weapon against women that it's funny to hear it in the reverse. This I applaud. Maybe we have advanced. :-)

The spirit of your message, Paul, is sincerely respected and appreciated. I Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 4, 2008 9:05 AM

Sex and style have been used against women for years...but not by "leaders". Arrogance or ignorance in managerial or "executive" positions is not leadership. Leadership is the application of traits, attitudes, characteristics and behaviors that are not specific to gender, ethnicity, or any other orientation. Could the leader of Team One learned from and adapted his style to that of Team Two and achieved the same results? Absolutely! Ask those who were being led. Is a woman using Team One Leader trais guranteed to get Team Two results? Ask those who are being led. It's not the gender, it's the style. Who perpetrates these stereo types? Those who profit from them of course,be they authors, consultants, or coaches.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 4, 2008 12:29 PM

Nice, Dave. All we have to do now is get beyond "gender, ethnicity, or and other orientation." And I believe we are doing this. Thank you. Your words are appreciated.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 4, 2008 1:23 PM

To everyone contributing to this commentary...

For me "leadership" has little to do with "style" and everything to with three simple things... Integrity, transparency, and equity....

Leaders must have personal integrity - without it they are not effective.

Leaders must always act within "transparent frameworks" (that is their ideologies, values, mores, cultural perspectives, etc must be crystal clear).

Leaders must seek equitable outcomes - they must project a sense of fairness and compassion when they decide on any particular course of action.

I want to recommend a book that is simple and easy to read - it takes no time at all to devour it from cover to cover. In simple language and with the wisdom born of being in leadership positions this author shows us what we have to do to become a leader who has personal integrity, a love of transparency, and a passion for equity.

To find out more about what I mean here please read 'The ten commandments for business Failure' by Donald R. Keogh.

Donald Keogh is the former President of the Coca-Cola Company. He must be a charming man to just simply "sit and visit with" given the way he tells his stories of life in one of the world's most successful businesses. He seeks to tell us all the truth as far as he knows it about what corrupts people and why they fail. In so doing he outlines what each and everyone of needs to do if we are to succeed.

Keogh has written a great little book which has a loving and a respectful foreword contributed by his good friend of almost 50 years, and a former neighbour, Warren Buffett...

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 4, 2008 10:12 PM

Thank you, Richard. I will order it.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 4, 2008 10:21 PM

Dear Tom,

I have been following your thinking on women with a lot of interest. I work internationally and have done for most of my career.

It strikes me that the US and Western economies in general are facing an unprecedented challenge to our way of life. And this challenge is coming in the economic areas. (As well as culturally, but thats another rant)

However, as you point out regularly women in the workforce is probably our number 1 competitive advantage.

This is a post from my blog on the percentage of women in the workforce.

http://www.consultingpulse.com/2008/09/explosion-of-women-in-business-1960.html

While I am no expert on the comparative advantages that women provide in contrast to men - The graph in this post paints a clear picture of western economies utilizing almost all of the available workforce. A model for national productivity...

viagra overnight shipping no prescription

Kind regards,

Daryl Mather

Posted by Daryl Mather at October 4, 2008 10:45 PM

For some the gender issue is not the biggest barrier in leadership - Margaret Thatcher – some would say the most macho leader ever in British politics. I could not stand the woman and I think the stuff we are suffering now is rooted in her policies of individualism over community.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 5, 2008 6:08 AM

Androgyny, as pointed out before, is not the focal point; neither is merely trans-ideology, if you will, for this will come effect and not necessarily real change. The fact that Margaret Thatcher became as you might say "butch," cancels the style arugment. (Admittantly, this style stuff is so very subjective! All women do not behave in one way and vice verse. Paul pointed this out.) It is not about becoming the other, but allowing the other to influence us through means that will bring real change. The change can't be more of the same. Hmmm?

united states viagra online

Thanks, Daryl, for your astute comments. But as I'm running late for Sunday service, I've gotta scram. Perhaps more later. Thanks again and I'll check out your blog.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 5, 2008 8:33 AM

Among TP's slides in the post above, this gem can be found:

“Diverse groups of problem solvers—groups of people with diverse tools—consistently outperformed groups of the best and the brightest. If I formed two groups, one random (and therefore diverse) and one consisting of the best individual performers, the first group almost always did better. … DIVERSITY TRUMPED ABILITY."

—Scott Page, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies Diversity

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 5, 2008 5:26 PM

Judith, all of my years of front line leadership have taught me that the people closest to where the work gets done really don't see gender, ethnicity, or even orientation as issues. We know it's our behinds when performance expectations are met and share responsibility and accountability and we use the tools we have, mainly each other. Those who have to change the way they see things are the senior managers and executives who do the hiring. Why do they not see the obvious? No accountability! Or plain fear. The very same folks who don't see a whole lot of stuff that is obvious to improving performance, productivity, and results! Ironic...aren't they supposed to be the smart ones?

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 5, 2008 7:25 PM

Trevor: here's what Mrs. Thatcher said in her, "no such thing as society" speech. It has been deliberatley distorted and mis-quoted ever since. Read the whole paragraph and then explain to us how Mrs. Thatcher can be accused of "individualism over community":

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Posted by Mark JF at October 6, 2008 4:50 AM

Hear! Hear! I so agree with Mrs. Thatcher. This leader makes a lot of sense inthe above quote. The only problem is that you can't legislate the hearts of people. This is where government policy is obligatory. Where there are those who are in need of services who cannot fend for themselves and when the hearts of those around them are hardened, the government, the collective body of the people, in my mind has a responsibility to assist. For me, this would include children, seniors, and the disabled. Loving your neighbor as yourself is simply loving those around you at home, in your neigbhorhood, and on your job. It is considering others for the betterment of the whole.

Culturally it can be argued that women are taught to put out to others and to keep things together. Hence, it can be argued that we are taught to compromise and to listen, even when we do not raise children. (Yes, I understand that men too raise children, though the bulk of this responsibility still rests with women.) Are men culturally taught the same en masse? Perhaps the presence of women can be the balancing measure. This is the importance of the diversity that Dave writes of. But change is needed across the board, including men, women, senior management and the front line. After all, while decisions may be made in a vacuum, the dust is airborne; it settles in sneaky places.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2008 8:34 AM

Hi Mark - it is indeed a very good quote from Mrs Thatcher and I have no real problem with what she says in that speech – what a shame she didn’t act in that way. What actually happened in reality during her doomed leadership bears no relation to her ideals. Her policies ripped the heart of numerous communities – some have never recovered.

Typical of her numerous failures was her idea to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people of Britain to introduce the very unfair ‘individual’ Poll Tax only to have to eat humble pie and abandon it because she finally accepted what millions of people had told her for years –that the idea was doomed to fail.

I think for a very short time of maybe a year or two she was a reasonably effective leader but I’ve often wondered why - if she was the great leader some like to pretend - did so many senior Conservative politicians stab her in the back in such a public way? She had clearly become a liability because she was completely out of touch with real people - and had to be offloaded – she presumably had insufficient self insight to see the writing on the wall – great leaders know when their time is up.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 6, 2008 3:08 PM

There is an idealogical notion of what great leaders are. And, this is good, I guess, as it gives us who are striving to do better daily hope that we can arrive there too. But the reality is that if you ask these leaders they are probably in doubt all the time about decisions they make.

I recently read about one of my personal heros, the great Mother Teresa, who was, in effect, an awesome business woman. She was often in doubt, even about her personal faith, and I'm sure she thought that many of her decisions and thoughts did not represent her highest self. I have also read about her negotiations for her Missionaries of Charity. Speaking of leadership style? Wow!

Politics obviously come with hardnosed negotiations and attachments, even when the best of deals for the people are made. This is not to say that we should not aim to align our ideas with our practices. We should. But politics is no joke, as that addition of the $150B to that already extraordinary $750B connotes.

May God bless the heirs of Margaret Thatcher, personally and professionally. She represented much.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2008 4:05 PM

I think you are right Judith – most great leaders probably don’t know they are great leaders. The ‘leadership’ label is bestowed upon them by others. For the ‘leader’ it is just their normal way of working. I’ve often said that I respect some of the qualities shown by Mrs Thatcher as a leader – not least her strength and determination. I just didn’t like the woman – in particular her (so obviously) contrived ‘caring’ image that was manufactured by her spin doctors to try and present a softer/kinder image than the reality we all knew in the early 1980’s.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 6, 2008 4:28 PM

There is an old American Indian saying "we can not truly judge other people until we have walked in their shoes"...

Judith, if you want to get an impression of what Margaret Thatcher thought it was like to walk in her shoes as Prime Minister all you need do is read her autobiography. 'Margaret Thatcher The Downing Street Years' published by Harper Collins ISBN 000 2550490 1993...

I had the privilege to meet her when she came to Australia as the relatively new leader of the Opposition in Britain... Some of her conservative rhetoric in her speeches at that time was truly colourful - it shocked me to think that she could boil-down such complex social, moral, and political issues to overly simplistic one liners...

When you talked to her though it was different - she was thoughtful, present, inclusive, generous, reflective, and focussed. She brought you into her confidence, swiftly and easily, and from that point of 'intimate connection' you could discuss the most delicate of issues. She worked like my boss at the time - she had a position that she wanted you to shoot holes through. If you could do that then you could 'turn her' to your ways of thinking about issues and outcomes.

Unfortunately she was such a strong woman that most of those around her were not up to challenging her so she ended up being surrounded by fools......

I would be happy to send you my copy of Margaret's book...

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 6, 2008 7:45 PM

Wow, Richard, on two accounts! 1) You met Margaret Thatcher 2)You would send me your copy of her book. I generally accept your kind offer and I will forward my address to you. Wow, thanks! Thanks also for your personal account of the Prime Minister. When face to face with one much can be seen, especially before the glare of the spotlight. I have always admired her.

The quote, Richard, is so true. It is one that we need to be reminded of often. Another such quote is one that I came to know on this blog: "Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." I find that if I'm not actively conscious of such things it becomes all too easy to think of self which may not be the best for all. Many times I'm quite successful. Other times I'm not.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2008 9:32 PM

The Thatcher point raises an interesting question - what is the lifespan of a leader (I don't mean in years - that depends on circumstances) I mean in terms of being able to achieve things. At what point does it crumble? Do all leaders need to move on regularly to keep the momentum. Having just changed roles myself I can now see how stale I was previously.

I have mixed views on MT - I think when she came to power GB really needed a kick up the backside and she certainly delivered that - but like a lot of "turnaround" leaders she was not strong at sustaining over a long haul, past the period of revolution and the second half(ish) of her office was a disaster for many as Trevor has pointed out.

Posted by PaulH at October 7, 2008 1:55 AM

Thanks Paul - as I said in earlier comments I admired Mrs T’s strength and determination and I am with you 100% about the kick we clearly needed in her early days …. That said … we are talking of a very short period of effective leadership and you are so right about the latter period of her leadership. ‘Disaster’ is a good word.

The effect of her leadership on communities is best depicted in the wonderful movie ‘Brassed Off’ (1996) which furiously accuses Margaret Thatcher of ruining life in northern pit towns, tearing families apart and having children live under the fear of being evicted from their homes.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 7, 2008 3:46 AM

Well, Oliver Stone's movie "W" will soon be out. Let's see how accurate this movie will be. Movies are theatrical, not necessarily factual. You men may be by far more sentimental and touchy feely than us women give you credit for. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2008 6:36 AM

Good point, PaulH. Thanks!

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2008 6:37 AM

'You men may be by far more sentimental and touchy feely than us women give you credit for. :-)'

Judith - absolutely! I cry at ANY movie with even the slightest sentimentality. I even hereby publicly admit I’ve watched ‘Ghost’ at least half a dozen times and cried buckets every time! I think its Demi Moore that does that to me! :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 7, 2008 11:39 AM

Obviously!

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2008 12:14 PM