Posted on 03/17/2018 5:35:47 PM PDT by simpson96
Most people will draw a man. Researchers investigate the consequences.
This series of images emerged from a simple prompt: “Draw an effective leader.”
Tina Kiefer, a professor of organizational behavior at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, fell upon the exercise accidentally, while leading a workshop full of executives who did not speak much English. Since then it has been adopted by organizational psychologists across the world.
In terms of gender, the results are almost always the same. Both men and women almost always draw men.
“Even when the drawings are gender neutral,” which is uncommon, Dr. Kiefer said in an email, “the majority of groups present the drawing using language that indicates male (he) rather than neutral or female.”
And yet, her clients often insisted that what they meant by “he” is actually “both.”
Several researchers in organizational psychology who have had a similar experience with this exercise decided to investigate further. How might holding unconscious assumptions about gender affect people’s abilities to recognize emerging leadership? What they found, in a study posted by the Academy of Management Journal, seems to confirm what many women have long suspected: getting noticed as a leader in the workplace is more difficult for women than for men. Even when a man and a woman were reading the same words off a script, only the man’s leadership potential was recognized.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
My husband said he pictured a liter of cola lolol..
This is what we are going to do.
I’m going to throw my posts in an Excel sheet and give each sentence a line. Then I’ll skip a line and leave it blank, so you can offer your objections or agreements to what I’ve actually said, rather than what you THINK I said.
The electronic spreadsheet was invented by, get this: A MAN!
The best female leaders I know of, are effective precisely because of their femininity- not in spite of. Those women who are openly sensitive, caring, and nurturing. They are maternal. And maternal influence can have a powerful sway with building trust among both men and women.
A homemaker can run a household, and a woman can be a CEO, or direct a film cast and crew. Yesterday I posted a thread on Becky Hammon, the first female assistant coach in the NBA, head coach of a championship winning team during summer league...and currently in the running to be the first ever female head coach of a men’s NCAA team.
See post 103.
Maternal qualities and being a nuturing caregiver make for effective leaders who people trust and lean on for support.
Thank you for your input.
I can agree that sweet motherly characteristics would be comforting to say, kindergartners, and the maternal characteristics would indeed make the teacher a good leader in that classroom.
A Platoon of Marines? No.
Still stuck on the battlefield and so obsessed and blinded by pregnant females, that you have become not only inarticulate, but come off as deranged.
Is it your contention that only men on a battlefield can be a "leader"? I guess that lets out all of the generals in WW II, who directed action a safe distance away for the action, all of the lowly privates, and non-coms too.
But hey, what about the "leaders" from the side/s who LOST? Are any of them "leaders" and if so why?
Joan of Arc was pretty damned good as a battlefield "leader"...until she lost, that is. But she was a far better "leader" than say, John, I WAS IN NAM, Kerry ever was. ;^)
How about one of THE greatest "LEADERS" of the 20th century? His "leadership" skills weren't so great in South Africa the Boer War ), worse at home in the UK during WW I ( the disaster that was Gallipoli anyone ? ), but hot damn, what a REAL "leader" he was and fantastic re WW II and just afterwards.
I know that you have a penchant for great libraries, but is it just the buildings you love? Goodness knows, it sure isn't the books; unless it's only fiction you are drawn to!
And before you tell me that no, no, nooooooooo...you are "as pure minded as the driven snow", and that I am the one who has the dirty mind, let me assure you, that nobody reading both of our posts would find such an assertation factual. After all, I'm not the one who keeps posting on about sexual matters and bodily functions; that's what you have been doing, in most posts, which have gotten more and more descriptive, as time goes by. What next, are you going to try to simulate sexual congress, in print, in your next reply?
But then, to use your tack, you're just a woman, so of course your mental acuity and leadership qualities are lacking.*
And get this...the first computer program, even before there even was a computer, was invented by an often pregnant, laudanum woman, in the mid 1800s, who was the daughter of Lord Byron, named Ada Lovelace.
NOBODY, BUT YOU, IS TALKING ABOUT A PLATOON OF MARINES!
And the * was meant for the following, which somehow disappeared as/when I posted the reply : *not that that was meant for all women; but that is the sort of thing you keep posting, just in different words.
An interesting question has been raised with that pic as to whether the Hillary body double is on display again—too young and trim, etc.
I suspect that is a lot of the issue for both men and women—being reminded of reporting to their mother.
The Times, never very stable, has lost its mind in the era of Trump. It even has invaded their food columns - something the Guardian hasn’t bothered to do.
I’m a huge fan of Elizabeth I although I am Yorkist by nature, not Lancastrian. She just was one tough broad! Whenever I’m in London, I visit her wonderful portrait at the National Gallery. Painted from life, it shows a true elitist.
The working-class Glenda Jackson certainly caught her immense charisma and cold charm.
You forgot Cleopatra, a very ambitious clever woman who was a disastrous leader for her people and herself.
In the end she committed suicide, her children were executed and her body was paraded through the streets of Rome.
I want to say that first off, I totally agree about military. Women should not be in the military (WADR to those, including my favorite cousin, who are/were). Especially when paired with men - they get pregnant (even if it’s immoral indeed, it does happen), and that is not a way to have a war.
As far as general leadership, they can handle it. The PMS thing hardly ever changes my feelings or behavior; never has. Maybe some women, but not nearly as stereotypically incapacitating/altering as it’s made out to be.
Many of the men you think of had to deal with constant irritation and illness, including the incomparable Washington. They were strong enough to deal with it, but then again, since illness was SO common then, it probably was expected to keep working unless you were truly bowled over by it.
IMO, women should only have leadership in the home: cooking, cleaning, gardening, raising children, doing handiwork. Leadership over men? No. If she did those things that come naturally to her she would not have time to work outside the home. Proverbs 31 woman comes to mind.
Most men have a natural gift towards leadership. The rare woman like Deborah in the Bible or Margaret Thatcher who earned the trust of the people are such exceptions. Most women are not cut out to lead, including Sarah Palin.
I read mostly non-fiction in general, except for a few fiction books recommended by a friend in the past few months.
And your posts of course.
I agree with you.
I also contend that Mrs. Thatcher did not succeed based on her female nature and characteristics, but because she mimicked qualities usually found more readily in male leaders.
You say that John Brown filled a hole in the life of Queen Victoria.
I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.