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 ...
The "HOLY TRIUMVIRATE" of the late 20th century; a repeat of which is badly need now.
Ok, is that bad?
Male leaders?
That seems like the gold standard to me.
The "HOLY TRIUMVIRATE" of the late 20th century; a repeat of which is badly need now.
She’s still going to be weaker than a man.
True, true. But on the other hand, some great leaders lead millions to very bad outcomes, indicating that “leadership,” in itself, is a morally neutral quality, as are intelligence, artistic talent, and other characteristics of human beings. “Leadership,” like “choice,” is good only if the object is good.
Thanks! :-)
In what way? Even if we're speaking only of physical strength, every man is not stronger than every woman. Some women are stronger than some men. You'd pick some male squish over the Iron Lady? Why?
I think Queen Victoria was very dependent on Prince Albert.
After he died she seems to have lost the plot.
Albert is an unsung hero of the British Empire!
Think of it, she was only a good leader in that she mimicked male and male leadership traits.
She didn’t rise to her position by emphasizing her female nature.
I agree. He was quite steady.
I’ve only had one female boss in my career. She was by far the worst - totally ineffective as a leader so having to resort to fear to manage. She was also a flaming moonbat libtard, which probably had more to do with it than her sex. We didn’t get along well at all.
I reject the premise that all positive qualities are masculine and all negative qualities are feminine.
It’s not attaching a positive or a negative to your God/given characteristics and nature.
It’s just a fact of life.
Napoleon might have had to deal with being short, but he also never had a week of weepy, b*tchy PMS to contend with followed by a week of the discomfort and nuisance of a period.
Imagine, on the battlefield, having to handle that!
If Napoleon were female, he would have been hamstrung 2weeks out of every 4, for the majority of his leadership years.
I think you can apply that across the board, no?
You are right! There is a reason why men have, throughout history, been in the seat of leadership and power: because they should be.
And they are physically more capable.
But think how many men have been extremely horrible leaders, murderous, corrupt and insane. We can’t just look at Hillary and draw the line. There have been plenty of good conservative women leaders.
Women haven’t been leaders for very long. Most don’t know how. Often they are worried about how to get ahead and they are all twisted up in the emotion department in how to keep their position. They get jealous easily. After more years they may be able to settle into being leaders, without thinking that they always have to prove themselves, and don’t really belong there. Some women are already decent leaders, just not too many.
That being said, in marriages women are very often leaders, and often pretty good ones. They shouldn’t be, but they are. Many men seem to want a mommy, rather than a wife and are content with women leadership. I would guess that as children they didn’t have to do anything to help out much, except go to school, which they now equate with their job.
You see, that’s the “gender goggles.” If Napoleon’s problem wasn’t being a woman, then what caused the defeat of the fleet at Aboukir? Why did he invade Russia and lose 90% of the Grand Armee? What about Waterloo?
Pause, crickets, crickets ...
Nope.
Innate leadership qualities, generally speaking, don’t exist in females. They are extremely rare in men as well. Leaders are rare. In my lifetime, I believe I’ve seen two actual leaders, Reagan and Trump.
But I should warn you in advance, Bellflower, just for the sake of honesty, I am a very proud sexist pig, I don’t have a wife, likely never will, because I am just not willing to give up my freedom, and I prefer to spend almost all of my free time with dogs. So, there we go, take my opinion for what its worth.
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.