Women man­agers who have broken the so-called “glass ceiling” and occupy organisational executive suites have proven that effective leaders do not come in one stock. Sally Helgensen in her book ‘The Female Advantage’ examines the way women lead in private, public, and nonpublic organisations.

The first generation of female ex­ecutives, because they were breaking new grounds, adhered to many of the “rules of conduct” that made their male counterparts success­ful. Now, Judy Rosener observes, a second generation of women is making way into top management, not by adopting the style and habits that have proven successful for men but by drawing on the skills and attitudes they developed from their shared experience as women. These second-generation managerial wom­en are drawing on what is unique to their socialization as women and creating a different path to the top. They are seeking and finding opportunities in dynamic organisa­tions to show that they can achieve results, albeit in a different way. They are succeeding because of, not in spite of, certain characteristics generally considered “feminine” and inappropriate in leaders.

The women’s success takes the macho out of management and shows that non-traditional leader­ship style is well suited to condi­tions of some work environments and can increase an organisation’s chances of surviving in an uncer­tain turbulent world.

In a survey sponsored by the International Women’s Forum, Judy Rosener found a number of sim­ilarities between men and women leaders along with some important differences.

Among the similarities are characteristics related to money and children. She found that men and women respondents earned the same amount of money. This finding is contrary to most studies, which find a considerable wage gap between men and women, even at the executive level. She also found that just as many men as women experience work-family conflict (although when there are children at home, the women experience slight­ly more conflict than men).

But the similarities end when men and women describe their lead­ership performance and how they usually influence those with whom they work. The men are more likely than the women to describe themselves in ways that characterize what some management experts call “transactional” leadership concep­tualized by McGregor Burns. That is such men view their job perfor­mance as a series of transactions with subordinates – exchanging rewards for services rendered and punishment for inadequate perfor­mance. Men are also more likely to use power that comes from their organisational position and formal authority.

The women respondents, on the other hand, described themselves in ways that characterise “transforma­tional” leadership – getting subor­dinates to transform their self-in­terest into the interest of the group through a concern for a broader goal. Moreover, they ascribe their power to personal characteristics like affability, interpersonal skills, hard work, or personal contacts rather than to organizational stature.

Fascinated by these differences, Prof. Rosener interviewed some of the women respondents who described themselves as transfor­mational. These discussions gave her a greater understanding of the important ways in which women leadership style differs from the typical command-and-control style. She calls this leadership style “interactive leadership” because these women work actively to make their interactions with subordinates positive for everyone involved. More specifically, women encour­age participation, share power and information, enhance other people’s self-worth, and get others excited about their work. All these things reflect their belief that allowing employees to contribute and to feel powerful and important is a win-win situation – good for the employees and the organization.

From the discussions with the women interviewed emerged several patterns. The women leaders made frequent reference to their efforts to encourage participation and share power and information – two things that we associate with participative management. But their self-de­scription often went beyond what we usually define as participation. Much of what they described were attempts to enhance other people’s sense of self-worth and to energise followers. In general, these leaders believe that people perform best when they feel good about them­selves and their work, and they try to create situations that contribute to that feeling.

Encourage participation. Inclu­sion is at the core of interactive leadership. In describing nearly every aspect of management, the women interviewed made refer­ence to trying to make people feel part of the organization. They try to instill this group identity in a variety of ways, including encour­aging others to have a say in almost every aspect of work, from setting performance goals to determining strategy. To facilitate inclusion, they create mechanisms that get people to participate and they use a con­versational style that sends signals inviting people to get involved. Whether or not the women create special forums for people to inter­act, they try to make people feel in­cluded as a matter of course, often by drawing them into conversation or soliciting their opinions.

Shared power and information. Soliciting input from other people suggests a flow of information from employees to the “boss.” But part of making people feel included is knowing that open communica­tion flows in two directions. These women say they willingly share power and information rather than guard it and they make apparent their reasons behind decisions. While many leaders see informa­tion as power and power as limited commodity to be hoarded, women seem comfortable letting power and information change hands.

Women managers believe that sharing power and information ac­complishes several things. It creates loyalty by signaling to coworkers and subordinates that they are trusted and their ideas respected. It also sets an example for other people and therefore can enhance the general communication flow and increases the odds that leaders will hear about problems before they explode.

Enhance the self-worth of others. One of the by-products of sharing information and encourag­ing participation is that employees feel important. Women leaders frequently give others credit and praise and send small signals of recognition. Most important, they refrain from asserting their own superiority, which asserts the inferi­ority of others. They often express a clear aversion to behaviors that set them apart from the others in the company – reserve parking places, separate dining facilities, big titles and ranks.

Paths of Least Resistance

Many of the women interviewed ascertained that behaviors and be­liefs that underpin their leadership style come to them naturally. Judy Rosener attributes this to two fac­tors: women socialization patterns and career paths.

In some parts of our world, men and women receive different signals of what is expected of them. Women have been expected to be wives, mothers, teachers, secretaries, and nurses. In all these roles, they are supposed to be cooperative, supportive, understanding, gentle, and to provide service to others. They are to derive satisfaction and a sense of self-esteem from helping others, including their spouses. While men have had to appear to be competitive, strong, tough, decisive, and in control, women have been allowed to be cooperative, emotion­al, supportive, and vulnerable. This perhaps explains why women today are more likely than men to be interactive leaders.

Men and women have also had different career opportunities. As women entered the business world, they tended to find themselves in positions consistent with roles played at home: in staff positions rather than line positions, support­ing the work of others, and in func­tions as public relations, communi­cations, or human resources where they had relatively small budgets and few people reporting directly to them.

The fact that most women have lacked formal authority over others and control over resources means that by default they had to find other ways to accomplish their work. As it turns out, the behaviors that were natural and/or socially ac­ceptable for them have been highly successful in at least some manage­rial settings.

If established organisations should expand their definition for effective leadership, they could create a broader career path for all sorts of executives – men and women – to attain positions of leadership. Widening the path will free potential leaders to lead in ways that play to their individual strengths.

BY CAPT SAM ADDAIH (RTD)