Shirts or Skirts - who can engage a workforce more effectively?

[Jay Forte]

have a radical perspective that came to me as I was researching managing in today's intellectual age (versus industrial age). It seems that men (and their natural brain biology) were a great fit in the agrarian and industrial ages - great focus on conquering the environment, competition, engineering - exactly the way a man's brain was designed and functions. Few women were in management as their brains function differently. Women, however developed to be more nuturing, verbal and compassionate. That being the case, don't women seem more of a better management fit for today's intellectual or service workplace? Don't women do a better job getting to know employees, matching talents with roles and overall employee engagement? I wrote an article titled "Shirts or Skirts - Who Can Best Manage in Today's Workplace?" - attached.
See what you think...and not that only women should be managers, but isn't it time to truly match talent with role...at every level...including management? Our goal is great performance through engaged employees...societal norms may be outdated. Brain biology may be the better answer. Thoughts?

[Chris Bailey]

Jay, the irony here is that you play right into those societal norms and gender biases that are the problem to begin with. At issue here is the very idea that men are all this way (competitive) and women are all that way (nurturing). When in actuality...men and women share the same characteristics. Think men can't be nurturing? Try telling that to some of the great dads out there. Think women can't be competitive? Tell that to some of the terrific female athletes at this year's olympics. Just because a gender has that characteristic in 'dominance' is really no excuse to keep thinking of it that way. That's how these societal norms got started in the first place.

I have no problem with matching talent with role, but the minute we start getting into a gender-dominated discussion, we lose sight of the individual. And every great manager worth their salt is going to see their employees for unique individuals not whether one is male or female, white or black, rich or poor.

[Jay Forte]

Not sure I agree. I always had that perspective until I started this research. If talents are all about how brains spark...and men and women have truly different brains - then doesn't it mean that there are areas in which they excel or have less aptitude? Men and women (by biology) do not share the same characteristics. Their brains developed differently to insure very particular roles in our species' survival. Our brains work the same but our world keeps changing. Highly competitive environments have a better alignment to the way a man thinks...actual programming. Nuturing environments have a better alignment to the way a woman thinks. I am not saying that they are exclusive - but that they seem better matched. The same way a social employee is better matched to a sales role than an accounting role.


My point is that if we notice what talents are, then shouldn't we see that talents are without gender, age, ethnicity, etc. If women are more nuturing, then shouldn't they have every opportunity to maximize what they do well in the workplace? Shouldn't we focus on who has the best talents and attributes and is the best fit? If we can focus on the inside and not the outside, I believe that today's workplace will naturally start to advance women because the critical millennial management thinking is more core to the way (most) women think than (most) men. There should never be a requirement that management be man,woman, old, young, Greek, Italian, gay or straight. It should be based on best fit. And the thinking is that the natural aptitudes that encourage a more cohesive connection to workers and resulting impact on engagement and performance, seem to show up in nurturers, great communicators and team builders. Go for where you find this talent. Some men can do this well...but statistics show it is more resident in women. That is what drives my thinking that these attributes will indirectly allow the ascent of women into more management roles because they have what the intellectual economy needs.

Ending societal stereotypes is my goal - because the right employee is right not based on any protected class status. And now that we can define the success attributes of a millennial manager, I will still hide the name on the resume and review for the right attributes. I just imagine that these attributes will show up more in women than men based on brain biology...our natural thinking. Some women are wonderfully competitive, most are not. Some men are extraordinary nurturers and communicators, most are not. Biology sees to this. The best performance always happens with the best attributes for the need. Intellectual environments seem to favor women (moreover...how they think.).

Consider reading the following:
Why Men Don't Iron by Anne and Bill Moir
The Female Brain by Dr. Luann Brizendine
The New Feminine Brain by Dr Mona Lisa Schulz
Play Like A Man, Win Like a Woman by Gail Evans


Thanks for your perspective.

[Chris Bailey]

Looks like we may just need to graciously disagree on some of these points. I think where we can both agree is where you work with the talent you have in front of you. And certainly I have no problems with more women in management. Their perspective adds much to any business environment. But I'm still not convinced by your argument that women are just better at men at the characteristics you list above and we should yield to biology in making connections to management.

Perhaps another way to bend your original question around is how can men discover and hone their inherent feminine qualities and women their masculine qualities? I'm not suggesting that men and women are equal in their gender-based characteristics or will ever be the same. Rather, it's a coaching and training question for individuals - regardless of gender - asking what does one need to work on to manage a new generation of workers.

I find that I'm enjoying this debate...be good to see if we can get some others to join in and stretch the learning.

[Jay Forte]

Thanks Chris...I too am enjoying this. As I said in my first post, the point just seemed to present itself and I was looking to find out what other professionals (who really know the concept of intrinsic talent and its role in driving performance) think about it. Though I hear what you say, I still think my point has merit.

Here is a quote from Sally Helgesen - a leadership development consultant and author of an article in the May 2008 "Leadership Excellence" periodical (great periodical) titled New Sources or Power - she refers to changes in demographics of the workforce: "Women bring with them many of the talents, attitudes and presumptions that were formerly honored in the domestic sphere into the public realm. This has had a profound impact upon what is required of leaders. Relationship skills, intuitiveness, inclusiveness, coaching and the capacity to listen - these were considered "soft" skills, antithetical to heroic conceptions of charge-ahead leadership. Recently, these skills have moved front and center."

To me, that confirms my position that today's management is not about command and control and competition but rather about cohesive team engagement through the use of intuition, inclusion, communication and empathy. These are more natural in the brains of women than men (statistically and empirically proven).

Check out the work of Marcus Buckingham in “First Break All the Rules.” In it, he presents research that supports his statement “people don’t change that much…don’t try to add in what was left out, try and draw out what was left in.” That means that our brains are as they are and that we are good at some things and not others. Brain biology dictates that. More women than men are effective at communication, empathy and inclusion…it is part of the way they spark. I have heard it said that in the course of a day, we make 20, 000 3-second decisions. If we are in a role that is in line with the way we think, we probably make good decisions for most of the day. If we are miscast into a role that is not in line with the way we think, we do not respond as well…it is just not part of the way we think. “Hire for talent, train for skill.” Communication, empathy, inclusion and relationship building are talents – and therefore the right person for the role must exhibit these talents – because we know we can’t activate them through training.

Though I never condone hiring a man or a woman because of his or her gender, I do commit to hiring the best mind for the job. Successful millennial managers need the intrinsic thinking that seems more prevalent in women than men. I expect that as I hire the best mind for the role, I may see more women in management than men.

Anyone else have a perspective? Not sure this is a right or wrong debate - but maybe we are on to a leveling or equaling of gender in roles of authority because the economy demands it.

Thoughts? - ps - Thanks Chris for your responses.

[David Zinger]

I learned typing in school. It was a good skill to have.

But that was for keyboards not people!

I am not a fan of typing people on personality, race, gender, or any of the other multitude methods of categorization.

I believe the human brain in incredibly complex and we must be wary of the conclusions we draw. I am not a brain expert but I know that scientists are very careful in conclusions they draw from research.

I don't think typing people is INCLUSIVE. We used to read people years ago by bumps on their heads or if they were skinny (ectomorphs) or muscular (mesomorphs). Then we read people by four initials in the "MY YOUR BIG TEST!"

At times I am introverted and at times I am extroverted.

In psychology we talk about the fundamental attribution error and we don't give enough weight to how the situation influences behavior.

We can't seem to get away from typing, yet I think it can create more difficulties than it solves.

I am a process person (whoops, this could become another type).

There is something deep in my being that feels very uncomfortable with this discussion and the potential for misuse and abuse.

That's the way I see it.

[Jay Forte]

I brought this to the Forum because it struck me as a talent versus skill question. And what better environment to have a talent versus skill discussion than with employee engagement professionals? If we truly believe that talents are intrinsic (we have to hire them into the organization) and that skills can be learned, then the role of relator, nurturer and 'unifyer" are more talents than skills. That means that we need to bring that role into an organization if the role requires it.

Medical writings present that our brain biology defines our fundamental perspectives – competitive or nurturer. This was to insure our survival thousands of years ago; today, we have the same brain but a very different world.

I believe that men and women do not do the same things well. There is a core of women who can act more "male" (not a gender or sexual issue) - but rather are more competitive and aggressive due to their particular brain biology - as there are men who are more significant communicators and nurturers – based on their brain biology. But in general, we are true to our biology despite the societal norms that have been constructed. This is complicated in that we are trained to think in several conflicting ways: don’t stereotype or discriminate and conversely, men are managers. This conflict can be settled as we disregard gender and hire for talent. Whereas the talents that drive successful millennial performance are more a kin to a female brain, the more we hire the right employee thinking, we start to dispel the societal norm that men are managers. Instead, we identify, hire, promote and applaud successful managers of any gender. In the industrial age, the thinking more favored a male’s brain biology. My perspective is that today’s intellectual age more favors a female brain biology. As we hire the right employee we may actually make advances in the progress of women in management.

To me this is a skill versus talent issue, which draws in a biology versus society discussion. Focus on performance and make it more valuable than male/female societal stereotypes and we will not only hire great people, but we will see society change its perspective of traditional roles. Again, just a perspective. Thanks to all who have thrown their perspectives in…the dialog is how we learn.

[Mike Healy]

Hi Jay et al

Interesting debate!!

I think we musn't allow ourselves to be swayed in one direction or another when it comes to male and female stereotypes or abilities. Both sexes do most things equally well most of the time. In the UK women filled all the industrial and agrarian jobs when the men went to war in WW2 and did those jobs well. Some did them better than men, some did them less well. I think you might be doing women a disservice to women by suggesting they play a lesser part in some of the more traditional areas. So while women may be biologically predisposed to nurturing or compassion they will have other strengths, just as men do. Women fought this labelling approach for years when it was used to restrict them to domestic roles. Now that these traits are deemed good in management it is equally wrong to use the same "pigeonholing" techniques and apply them to discount men or to favour women

When it comes to leadership/management its not always about dealing with information workers or nurturing or being compassionate. Look at some of the great social, military and spiritual leaders around to see the diversity of skill and talents that are being demonstrated by both sexes

I do agree that picking the right person for the job is the right idea but I don't think we can generalise and say that one group does it better than another. Men have been shown to be physically stronger than women, generally, but that doesn't mean that men should always be preferred for occupations where one needs to be strong........there are some pretty strong women out there. Matching individual talent to an individual role is the way forward. Lets not fall into the trap of generalising about groups based on biology........we have seen that, taken to extreme, this approach has often resulted in racial and sexual discrimination

[Jay Forte]

Hi Mike, thanks for the comment. See my comment to David.

Jay

[Carol Cole-Lewis]

Nothing like a controversial topic!

My husband is far more "feminine" than I am - he listens better, is more nurturing, and is incredibly verbal. Maybe it's because he grew up in a house full of sisters...

Yes, brain biology – but the division isn't between male and female. I propose it's between plasticity and rigidity.

[Jay Forte]

Hi Carol
I heard from a colleague who had a similar perspective - more "feminine" in thinking because he grew up more with his mother and sister than father. But all of the texts that explain brain biology continue to cite the fundamental differences between male and female thinking. If our perception that talents are unique and therefore we must hire the right talent (natural thinking), doesn't it then follow that we should hire those whose thinking is more aligned with the function - where men and women clearly think differently?

As I said in a response to Chris, I am not saying that women not men should be managers, but if we start to watch the trend of those who are naturally more predisposed to the engaging, nuturing and "humanizing" role of millennial managers, will could/should/will start to see more women than men in the roles. Moreover, maybe we will start to see employee turnover statistics that are less favorable for male managers than female managers - and that may show that woman may have an edge in managing an intellectual workforce.

Thanks for your comment. Again, just thinking out loud.

[Carol Cole-Lewis]

Congress just passed a law that makes genetic discrimination illegal. This type of biological hiring could be argued to fall under this legislation, no?

Actually, I hear you saying we still discriminate by sex, whether consciously or unconsciously. If we didn't, we would naturally see more women in positions of management because they exhibit those traits we see as important to the job function. Instead, we do not because perhaps we are still not blind to sex – or to race, or color, or creed, for that matter.

Are we indeed ready as a nation to put a women (or a black man) into the highest managerial position of our government? I wonder if we do, will we then eventually see a shift towards a nation whose citizens are more conscious and able to promote people of diversity based on their abilities, not their outside appearance?

This "thinking out loud" is not only fun, but also results in better thinking as we share ideas outside of ourselves. Thanks for starting the discussion, Jay!

[Jay Forte]

Just the point I was after. Although we say one thing and have legislation to insure it (bias free hiring), performance seems to show something else. Matching talent with role for performance should be the guide. Maybe we have the perfect storm brewing for change: intellectual economy, female brain affinity, worker shortages, retiring boomers. This could indirectly force the process of hiring for talent not for gender.

My new favorite analogy is the M&M – the candy coating on the outside doesn’t matter – I am interested in the inside or the filling. We hire best when we disregard the outside (short of BFOQ that must be in place). We in fact get additional benefits of hiring the inside talent. We get ethnicity, age, sexual preference, religion and other “bonus” things that come the talents that were hired. This perfect storm may be what most of us hope for as the right people start to be more consistently hired into the right roles. Imagine the productivity and performance that would result.

Thanks for the comments…it is truly great in this free society to openly exchange ideas.