Is Women’s Leadership Only Inclusive?

When we speak of women leaders, the collective portrayal refers to a style of management that is collaborative, empathetic, sensitive, gentle, inclined to listen to their associates; thus women are able to make correct and fair choices. Yet what to say about those women who have used power coercively and without taking responsibility for the community they have served? 

Achieving power and being a leader in current society thus implies a path of awareness that allows for interiorizing an identity of leadership that is authentic, responsible, and respectful of those values, styles, and models of behavior that are still too little represented in current female culture and attributes. And this is true for both women and men.

When we speak of closing or eliminating the gender gap, one of the most popular systemic actions (on the part of lawmakers, institutions, businesses, and associations) regards the promotion of women in professional fields, so as to have more women in positions of power. Women are still a minority in management roles,[1] and a law was needed^[2] to encourage their presence on the boards of listed and pubic companies.

The subtext of this convergence of intents tells us that the leadership style of women and the values that drive them could change the way business is done, the management of politics, and how decisions are made. Women could thus be agents of change or could lead businesses and states towards a more ethical and inclusive perspective. But what should we say about Elizabeth Holmes, the famous US entrepreneur and CEO, who founded a company that promised to revolutionize blood testing using surprisingly small quantities of blood, who was then convicted of fraud and conspiracy? What conclusions can we draw when we see that for four years Anna Sorokin pretended to be a rich heiress with the name of Anna Delvey, to then be arrested in 2017 for having defrauded banks, hotels, and acquaintances in the United States for a demonstrated total of 275,000 dollars or more? There are many negative examples of women leaders^[3], in terms of style and people management. We all remember The Devil Wears Prada, that became a symbol of the worst expression of female leadership. An aggressive and egocentric woman, hard and not empathetic at all; a woman that everyone defines as “a man.”

These and other stories of women in power, who have more or less blatantly expressed relationship styles and behavioral models that are far from the expectations society has of women, require us to reflect more broadly. Is it true that men and women practice different leadership styles? It is true that men are more “male-oriented” and thus more incisive, directive, more oriented towards decisions, goals and performance, and women are more “female-oriented” and thus more collaborative, empathetic, sensitive, gentle, and inclined to listen to their associates? If the male-oriented leadership style has sacrificed people for profit, will the women’s style focus on people and a more sustainable model of doing business? Speaking of female and male leadership styles does not however mean that all men are a certain way and all women another way, thus endorsing a static and rigid perspective. The examples we have cited actually tell us the opposite. So it is important to adopt a more subtle interpretation that leads to recognizing the value of differences and realizing that, while it may be true that women are very probably, but not necessarily, closer to the female style and men to the male style, this difference constitutes an opportunity due to the value it can create for society as a whole. In other words, female and male could be expressed by a leader, independent of gender, depending on their personality, aptitude, context, goals, and the people they address. What we know is that “male domination”^[4] has prevented female from being appreciated and integrated into the dominant culture. This is why, when women break through the glass ceiling, sometimes they end up absorbing the behavioral models more typical of current culture; they are co-opted into their new roles and adapt to the conduct of the pre-existing governing class, to be appreciated and considered equal to and part of the group. For example, according to the “queen bee syndrome” many women in power forget the effort expended, the discrimination suffered, and expect other women to follow the same path with the view “if you want to, you can… as I did.” These are women who are unable to break organizational patterns, change language, behavior, who do not succeed in bringing their own identity and energy. The pressure to conform prevails over the possibility to express new values and styles, that are currently excluded from the prevalent culture. So the issue is not gender, but regards the person; in particular, it regards the path someone takes, before achieving power. Entering a position of power and being a leader in current society implies beginning a path of awareness that allows for interiorizing an identity of leadership that is authentic, responsible, and respectful of those values, styles, and models of behavior still little represented by current culture, and attributed based on female stereotypes. And this is true for both women and men.