Study finds no discernible difference between successful male and female leaders
Leadership traits in male and female leaders perceived differently by workforce
Dated leadership stereotypes around emotional intelligence and personality traits have been disproven in a recent study. Thomas International, an assessment specialist organisation, discovered female leaders have been shown to be no more empathetic than male leaders and male leaders no more assertive and composed than female leaders. While leadership traits have been shown to be the same across the genders, they are perceived differently in the workplace.
The study found that against every measure including approach to risk, competitiveness, conscientiousness, assertiveness, emotion management, relationships and optimism, there is no discernible difference between successful male and female leaders. Contrary to dated popular opinion, women were not found to be more sensitive and men were not more likely to be risk-takers or more competitive than the women in the study.
However, a key difference was found when examining how these traits are perceived by people. Personality and emotional traits found in successful leaders, and which are perceived as good in men, are often interpreted as a fault in women. The study found that ‘losing your cool’ or showing strong emotions is seen as passion when it is a man, but as hysteria when it is a woman. Also, ‘standing your ground’ and being direct is seen as assertive when it is a man and bossy when it is a woman. Women are expected to be more serious at work if they want to be seen as ‘leadership material’. Being too happy is seen as ‘flighty’ and ‘not having what it takes’ the study found.
For the in-depth study, Thomas International assessed the personality traits and emotional intelligence of 137 director-level, female leaders in organisations with at least 100 employees. It then benchmarked them against a demographically, hierarchically and industry matched male senior leadership sample.
Jayson Darby, Head of Psychology, Thomas International, asserted, “Women are as likely as men to have the traits of a good business leader, but women face additional hurdles to their success; the very traits that are proven predictors of leadership potential are judged negatively when they are shown by women. There is an inherent bias in the way people describe female success, and it is holding women back.”
Darby continued, “Our research is a wake-up call for companies. We’ve proven there are simply no meaningful differences between the traits that make great male and female business leaders, yet the gender imbalance remains, and it is affecting gender diversity at the very top.”
The research also shows there are some career advantages that benefit men much more than women. For men, age and education predicted 25% of why a man was in a senior role. These ‘career boosts’ don’t work so well for women—age and education are 150% more likely to predict why a man is a senior leader compared to a woman. The study found women are judged much more on their personality instead.
On the subject of career privilege, Darby observed, “Women in business can’t seem to catch a break, even if they possess the traits that predict success, they have to contend with stereotypes and biases that turn those advantages into negatives. We also observed evidence that the ‘old boys club’ is still an influencing factor, with women benefiting far less from age and education-related privilege. A man with an Oxbridge degree will be offered a huge advantage in their career efforts compared to a woman with an equivalent qualification, even if she has better leadership traits. The end result will be lots of average men getting ahead of more talented women.”
Talent management processes and the language companies use to define success are concrete ways in which companies can begin to eliminate these biases and stereotypes. Darby concluded, “If companies want to really solve the diversity problem in the boardroom, and have great women reach the top of their organisations, they need to start evaluating them impartially.”
Paul Arkwright
Publisher
