Stereotypes Of Women Essay
Must women adopt male characteristics to succeed?
This paper will discuss the question of whether women must adopt male characteristics in order to succeed. Furthermore, this we will examine the different barriers and obstacles faced by women to attain success, and offer opinions as to why it has been traditionally difficult for women to achieve success in leadership positions. New evidence suggests that women have recently been advancing to senior positions in large organizations. However, they are still underrepresented in positions of authority within the public world of work compared to their male counterparts (White et al, 1992). Does that mean masculine style is what organizations are looking for in …show more content…
their leaders, and is adapting male characteristics the only possible way for women to succeed?
Success has often been described with adjectives such as “competitive,” “aggressive,” or “dominant,” which are typically associated with masculinity. The Oxford dictionary describes success as “the accomplishment of an aim or purpose”. However, in reality success is a term that cannot be confined to a strict definition. Do factors such as timing, chance, luck and preparedness affect success? Is it possible to succeed without reaching the end goal? Within a work environment, an individual’s idea of success may be getting a promotion and moving up the cooperate ladder. While, another individual who has achieved a good work life balance may feel content with their life. Are they successful?
Many of the above points debate on the subject of ‘what is success’. An individual’s perception regarding success may have been build by the norm, stereotypes and the different types of socializations the individual has been influenced by. Success in business and management has always been coupled with masculinity. Whether it 's dressing in tradition of the successful man or leading in the style of other successful men. Despite all the gains that women in business and management have made over the past several decades, one thing doesn 't seem to change; success still feels like a man 's game to many women.
To completely understand the subject in hand, it is vital to comprehend another part of the question, which looks at adoption of male characteristics as a means to succeed.
Many have speculated that sex role stereotypes are the main cause for the lack of women in leadership positions. Throughout history masculinity and femininity have been seen as opposites. A successful woman is frequently regarded as an anomaly and women who become successful leaders are of often offered the presumed accolade of being described as “being like men”. For example, Margaret Thatcher was often described as the “best man” in Britain. Early research on sex role stereotypes in the late 1960s and early 1970s suggested that masculinity and femininity were seen as opposites. Men were expected to be masculine and women were to be feminine. In the study ‘Shattering the Glass Ceiling’ (1992) by Davidson and Cooper found that there were numerous invisible barriers in forms of ‘glass ceilings’ preventing women reaching the top of management hierarchy. These sex role stereotypes translated into the type of work women did. Throughout the earlier part of the century women were only employed in limited number occupations, resulting in occupational segregation. Such studies suggested that during a time when women adhered to their sex role stereotype, majority failed to succeed at top
levels.
In more recent times many women who have reached high management positions have been, given their scarcity, been labelled as ‘tokens’, as many see it as a way for corporate management to avoid criticism on basis of gender discrimination. This inequality is reflected in the ‘Female FTSE Board Report 2012’, which reports that only 15% of all FTSE100 directors were women, a figure that has only marginally increased in the last two decades. The disparity persists despite women making up 49% of the workforce. Such underrepresentation of women in top leadership has caused many to ask why women are not making it to the top. Many of these leaders have said that success for them did not come through by taking the softer approach based on supposedly inherent female characteristics of submissiveness and passivity, but came by being competitive and assertive, in some cases being more masculine than men.
To understand where feminine and masculine characteristics originated, it is important to understand that characteristics often associated with success such aggression, assertiveness and self-confidence (characteristics linked to masculinity) may in fact be a result of childhood socialisation, rather that traits individuals are born with. In a study by Tannen (1990) she observed that in childhood socialisation, a majority of girls are made to believe that self-confidence and dominating traits will only put them at a disadvantage and make them less likeable among there peer group. While the contrary was true with the ways boys were socialised. They were made to believe that self-confidence and self-worth would enhance their status among peers. As a consequence of such socialisation men are more likely to be selected for the positions of power and success. On the other hand, women are less likely to engage in self-promoting behaviour. Such behaviour leads to women not being put in positions of power and usual end up struggling against a male dominated hierarchy that inherently promotes masculine ideals. This view is supported by Sheryl Sandberg (COO of Facebook), who says out of all the people entering the workforce out of college only seven percent of the women negotiate their first salary, compared to 57 percent of men. And most importantly, men attributed their success to themselves, while the women attributed it to other external factor, such as luck. Sandberg argues that this matters greatly as no one gets a promotion if they don’t think they deserve their success. This idea raises new debate in answering should women adopt male characteristics in order to succeed, because if women adopt more masculine characteristics as Sandberg suggests, women would inherently be going against their childhood socialisation.
In evolutionary context many feminine dispositions such as the ability to work in egalitarian teams, network, and support others were vital to ancestral women who needed to support one and their children. Leiserson (2005) argues that a woman’s ability to foster a supportive atmosphere may be tied to motherhood. This enables them able to provide support and motivation to others because they learn it through motherhood and even suggests there is a definite similarity between maternal and leadership instinct. Moreover, because women are inherently empathetic leaders, showing more personal involvement and genuine concern for subordinates, they are better equipped to deal with employee’s emotions and other challenging situations. Cleveland (1985) echoes this point when he writes: “It is not an coincidence that women are breaking into the executive roles just when the key to success in executive work is; working with each other people skills”. Cleveland hints to a change in paradigm, which is in stark contrast to the leadership models followed throughout the past, where top down, masculine led format bred aggression, competitiveness and individualism. We must acknowledge that in today’s changing business arena, the old paradigm may no longer be effective.
In a study by O 'Neill (2005) women with masculine characteristics received twice as many promotions compared to feminine women, or those who acted ‘ladylike’. Women with feminine traits were more liked in the work environment, but were seen as less competent in traditional managerial settings. The study concluded by presenting the conundrum that has plagued women in the business arena in the recent times. To succeed, women must be assertive and confident, but women who did display masculine traits were often punished for behaving aggressive and in ways that were contrary to the feminine stereotype. In a recent study of leadership and management by the NHS found that women in senior positions tend to behave as they think men behave. This notion often drives women away from healthy assertiveness into emulating more aggressive male models. The key to success for women might be simultaneously presenting themselves as self-confident and dominant while tempering these qualities with displays of characteristically feminine traits.
To look at all aspects of the questions it is important to look at other factors that might be preventing women from succeeding to taking leadership roles. Given that stereotyping gender roles and traits regarding success can lead to assumptions, it is important to not overlook the fact that many women have responsibilities outside of work. The reality for most women is that they are responsible for running a house and caring for children. One can in fact argue that the biggest hindrance to women’s success is family commitments. Women on the job ladder often have tough choices to make and many find it difficult to reach positions of success. Women with families have to ask themselves weather to postpone their career to have a child, and how to create a work life balance. Recent surveys have suggested that women do twice as much housework, and three times as much childcare than their partners. Hence, this suggests that even if women were to adapt masculine characteristics in order to succeed, life outside of work would prevent them.
A barrier that is perhaps the most significant to women’s success is the “old boys network”. This old boys network often consists of males who have been educated at the same institutions or who have climbed the corporate ladder together. Women frequently are not even considered when it comes to promotions because they are outside these networks. Given the old boy network that has been central to men 's mentoring and advancement, women traditionally have had fewer mentoring opportunities open to them than their male colleagues. The lack of a critical mass of senior successful female role models and mentors put many women at a disadvantage. Moreover, women are often excluded from informal social activities where the groundwork is laid for corporate advancement. This prevents women in terms of developing rapport with their colleagues and potential clients. A significant consequence of women being excluded from these informal networks of communication is that women often remain the “outsiders”. Men 's associations with their male peers play a significant role in their rise to power and prestige. Nevertheless, even if women were given the opportunity of a network or mentor, they will have to pass these opportunities because they may be inaccessible or inconvenient for women with family commitments, so they will not be able to develop similar networking systems compared to their male colleagues.
In conclusion, by looking at studies and researches mentioned above, there might be a strong case to suggest that women who adopted male characteristics were more successful than their feminine peers. However, success for women is a multidimensional issue that is not limited to behaviour characteristics. The question that should be asked is, does it make sense to encourage half your workforce to spend time learning and adopting masculine styles of communication and behaviour, while neglecting many of the natural advantages they bring to a work environment. Moreover, even if women do try to adopt male characteristics in order to succeed, life outside of work can hold them back. In reality, the fact that there is a debate on whether women’s styles of leadership are better than men or vice-versa, hints to a subtle change in the leadership paradigm. In this new model leadership and success is becoming more feminized, not because it fair but it makes good business sense in contemporary business environment.
References
• Tannen, D (1990) You just don’t understand, New York: Ballantine.
• Sealy, R. Vinnicombe, S. (2012) The Female FTSE Board Report 2012. Available at: http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/ftse. Accessed on 01.12.13
• Powell, G.N (2011) Women and Men in Management, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
• Sandberg. S. (2010). Why we have too few women leaders. Available at http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html#404000 accessed on 02.12.13
• HS&DR New Evidence on Management and Leadership Report. Available at http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr accessed on 27.11.13
• Davidson, M.J. and Cooper, C.L (1992) Shattering the Glass Ceiling: The Woman Manager, London: Paul Chapman.
• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/success (online). Last accessed 27.11.13
This paper will discuss the question of whether women must adopt male characteristics in order to succeed. Furthermore, this we will examine the different barriers and obstacles faced by women to attain success, and offer opinions as to why it has been traditionally difficult for women to achieve success in leadership positions. New evidence suggests that women have recently been advancing to senior positions in large organizations. However, they are still underrepresented in positions of authority within the public world of work compared to their male counterparts (White et al, 1992). Does that mean masculine style is what organizations are looking for in …show more content…
their leaders, and is adapting male characteristics the only possible way for women to succeed?
Success has often been described with adjectives such as “competitive,” “aggressive,” or “dominant,” which are typically associated with masculinity. The Oxford dictionary describes success as “the accomplishment of an aim or purpose”. However, in reality success is a term that cannot be confined to a strict definition. Do factors such as timing, chance, luck and preparedness affect success? Is it possible to succeed without reaching the end goal? Within a work environment, an individual’s idea of success may be getting a promotion and moving up the cooperate ladder. While, another individual who has achieved a good work life balance may feel content with their life. Are they successful?
Many of the above points debate on the subject of ‘what is success’. An individual’s perception regarding success may have been build by the norm, stereotypes and the different types of socializations the individual has been influenced by. Success in business and management has always been coupled with masculinity. Whether it 's dressing in tradition of the successful man or leading in the style of other successful men. Despite all the gains that women in business and management have made over the past several decades, one thing doesn 't seem to change; success still feels like a man 's game to many women.
To completely understand the subject in hand, it is vital to comprehend another part of the question, which looks at adoption of male characteristics as a means to succeed.
Many have speculated that sex role stereotypes are the main cause for the lack of women in leadership positions. Throughout history masculinity and femininity have been seen as opposites. A successful woman is frequently regarded as an anomaly and women who become successful leaders are of often offered the presumed accolade of being described as “being like men”. For example, Margaret Thatcher was often described as the “best man” in Britain. Early research on sex role stereotypes in the late 1960s and early 1970s suggested that masculinity and femininity were seen as opposites. Men were expected to be masculine and women were to be feminine. In the study ‘Shattering the Glass Ceiling’ (1992) by Davidson and Cooper found that there were numerous invisible barriers in forms of ‘glass ceilings’ preventing women reaching the top of management hierarchy. These sex role stereotypes translated into the type of work women did. Throughout the earlier part of the century women were only employed in limited number occupations, resulting in occupational segregation. Such studies suggested that during a time when women adhered to their sex role stereotype, majority failed to succeed at top
levels.
In more recent times many women who have reached high management positions have been, given their scarcity, been labelled as ‘tokens’, as many see it as a way for corporate management to avoid criticism on basis of gender discrimination. This inequality is reflected in the ‘Female FTSE Board Report 2012’, which reports that only 15% of all FTSE100 directors were women, a figure that has only marginally increased in the last two decades. The disparity persists despite women making up 49% of the workforce. Such underrepresentation of women in top leadership has caused many to ask why women are not making it to the top. Many of these leaders have said that success for them did not come through by taking the softer approach based on supposedly inherent female characteristics of submissiveness and passivity, but came by being competitive and assertive, in some cases being more masculine than men.
To understand where feminine and masculine characteristics originated, it is important to understand that characteristics often associated with success such aggression, assertiveness and self-confidence (characteristics linked to masculinity) may in fact be a result of childhood socialisation, rather that traits individuals are born with. In a study by Tannen (1990) she observed that in childhood socialisation, a majority of girls are made to believe that self-confidence and dominating traits will only put them at a disadvantage and make them less likeable among there peer group. While the contrary was true with the ways boys were socialised. They were made to believe that self-confidence and self-worth would enhance their status among peers. As a consequence of such socialisation men are more likely to be selected for the positions of power and success. On the other hand, women are less likely to engage in self-promoting behaviour. Such behaviour leads to women not being put in positions of power and usual end up struggling against a male dominated hierarchy that inherently promotes masculine ideals. This view is supported by Sheryl Sandberg (COO of Facebook), who says out of all the people entering the workforce out of college only seven percent of the women negotiate their first salary, compared to 57 percent of men. And most importantly, men attributed their success to themselves, while the women attributed it to other external factor, such as luck. Sandberg argues that this matters greatly as no one gets a promotion if they don’t think they deserve their success. This idea raises new debate in answering should women adopt male characteristics in order to succeed, because if women adopt more masculine characteristics as Sandberg suggests, women would inherently be going against their childhood socialisation.
In evolutionary context many feminine dispositions such as the ability to work in egalitarian teams, network, and support others were vital to ancestral women who needed to support one and their children. Leiserson (2005) argues that a woman’s ability to foster a supportive atmosphere may be tied to motherhood. This enables them able to provide support and motivation to others because they learn it through motherhood and even suggests there is a definite similarity between maternal and leadership instinct. Moreover, because women are inherently empathetic leaders, showing more personal involvement and genuine concern for subordinates, they are better equipped to deal with employee’s emotions and other challenging situations. Cleveland (1985) echoes this point when he writes: “It is not an coincidence that women are breaking into the executive roles just when the key to success in executive work is; working with each other people skills”. Cleveland hints to a change in paradigm, which is in stark contrast to the leadership models followed throughout the past, where top down, masculine led format bred aggression, competitiveness and individualism. We must acknowledge that in today’s changing business arena, the old paradigm may no longer be effective.
In a study by O 'Neill (2005) women with masculine characteristics received twice as many promotions compared to feminine women, or those who acted ‘ladylike’. Women with feminine traits were more liked in the work environment, but were seen as less competent in traditional managerial settings. The study concluded by presenting the conundrum that has plagued women in the business arena in the recent times. To succeed, women must be assertive and confident, but women who did display masculine traits were often punished for behaving aggressive and in ways that were contrary to the feminine stereotype. In a recent study of leadership and management by the NHS found that women in senior positions tend to behave as they think men behave. This notion often drives women away from healthy assertiveness into emulating more aggressive male models. The key to success for women might be simultaneously presenting themselves as self-confident and dominant while tempering these qualities with displays of characteristically feminine traits.
To look at all aspects of the questions it is important to look at other factors that might be preventing women from succeeding to taking leadership roles. Given that stereotyping gender roles and traits regarding success can lead to assumptions, it is important to not overlook the fact that many women have responsibilities outside of work. The reality for most women is that they are responsible for running a house and caring for children. One can in fact argue that the biggest hindrance to women’s success is family commitments. Women on the job ladder often have tough choices to make and many find it difficult to reach positions of success. Women with families have to ask themselves weather to postpone their career to have a child, and how to create a work life balance. Recent surveys have suggested that women do twice as much housework, and three times as much childcare than their partners. Hence, this suggests that even if women were to adapt masculine characteristics in order to succeed, life outside of work would prevent them.
A barrier that is perhaps the most significant to women’s success is the “old boys network”. This old boys network often consists of males who have been educated at the same institutions or who have climbed the corporate ladder together. Women frequently are not even considered when it comes to promotions because they are outside these networks. Given the old boy network that has been central to men 's mentoring and advancement, women traditionally have had fewer mentoring opportunities open to them than their male colleagues. The lack of a critical mass of senior successful female role models and mentors put many women at a disadvantage. Moreover, women are often excluded from informal social activities where the groundwork is laid for corporate advancement. This prevents women in terms of developing rapport with their colleagues and potential clients. A significant consequence of women being excluded from these informal networks of communication is that women often remain the “outsiders”. Men 's associations with their male peers play a significant role in their rise to power and prestige. Nevertheless, even if women were given the opportunity of a network or mentor, they will have to pass these opportunities because they may be inaccessible or inconvenient for women with family commitments, so they will not be able to develop similar networking systems compared to their male colleagues.
In conclusion, by looking at studies and researches mentioned above, there might be a strong case to suggest that women who adopted male characteristics were more successful than their feminine peers. However, success for women is a multidimensional issue that is not limited to behaviour characteristics. The question that should be asked is, does it make sense to encourage half your workforce to spend time learning and adopting masculine styles of communication and behaviour, while neglecting many of the natural advantages they bring to a work environment. Moreover, even if women do try to adopt male characteristics in order to succeed, life outside of work can hold them back. In reality, the fact that there is a debate on whether women’s styles of leadership are better than men or vice-versa, hints to a subtle change in the leadership paradigm. In this new model leadership and success is becoming more feminized, not because it fair but it makes good business sense in contemporary business environment.
References
• Tannen, D (1990) You just don’t understand, New York: Ballantine.
• Sealy, R. Vinnicombe, S. (2012) The Female FTSE Board Report 2012. Available at: http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/ftse. Accessed on 01.12.13
• Powell, G.N (2011) Women and Men in Management, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
• Sandberg. S. (2010). Why we have too few women leaders. Available at http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html#404000 accessed on 02.12.13
• HS&DR New Evidence on Management and Leadership Report. Available at http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr accessed on 27.11.13
• Davidson, M.J. and Cooper, C.L (1992) Shattering the Glass Ceiling: The Woman Manager, London: Paul Chapman.
• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/success (online). Last accessed 27.11.13