Should non-gendered leadership be developed?

How can the ways someone influences their teams be characterised – feminine, masculine, mixed, neutral, authentic? The company and its managers could just wash their hands of it. To avoid this, Maria Gribling, Professor of Management and researcher at SKEMA Business School, delved into the uncertainties of the leaders we interviewed in order to ask a very basic question: does a new kind of leadership need to be invented?

Maria Gribling
Professor of Management and researcher,
SKEMA Business School

There do not seem to be any major differences in opinion, because it is a fact: there are almost always (far) fewer women in positions of responsibility in French companies, including those with international breadth, despite increasingly restrictive legislation. Through interviews with mainly women decision-makers from large groups, we tried to see the wood beyond the trees, which is full of multidimensional complexities and opinions that converge or diverge in terms of both the reasons given and the solutions proposed. One question goes beyond the answers and reflects the historical development (of the vision) of women’s place in companies: is leadership gendered?

If the subject is now increasingly topical, it is because organisations and society are both concerned. It gives rise to varying perceptions of the role played by companies in advancing women, and of the part played by women themselves. The decision-makers questioned revealed how decisively their personal and professional experiences impacted their view of the strategy to be adopted, so as to foster a gender diversity that is carefully considered, taken on board, communicated and implemented, and ensures a win-win situation for all concerned. The aim is to avoid a result along the lines of “Whatever; just wash your hands,” in the same way as greenwashing.

Convergences

The respondents agreed that women suffer from impostor syndrome, which is due to cognitive biases that are certainly present in both sexes but have a greater influence on women’s careers. Visibility, role models (“you can’t become what you don’t see”) and networking emerge as potential solutions, but they are not enough if the idea of diversity as an asset to company performance is not recognised and integrated by everyone at all levels of the hierarchy. Quotas are often seen as useful, but their success depends on establishing a holistic approach across the board, to raise collective awareness and generate the necessary support. They are also likely to intensify tensions and damage the perception of women’s competence and merit.

“Divergences” in practices

Some respondents emphasised the differences and complementarity between men and women that enhance constructive thinking and action. Inclusive leadership (empathy, collaboration, valuing others, committed listening and communication, concern for employees’ mental health, etc.) is highlighted to raise awareness in both men and women. Training in this area is often offered to everyone: this stems directly from the realisation that men need to be involved, and is designed to avoid perpetuating the “generic” male management style that has long been the norm: “wanting to do the right thing, companies tend to infantilise women even more” by telling women how to manage. Women’s “difficulties” (personal and social) and the solutions they are offered are sometimes out of sync: they are encouraged to dare, develop self-marketing, public speaking, confidence and assertiveness, force themselves to overcome supposed mental barriers and “be brave”… or to ask the company for help with coaching, mentoring and targeted support. And above all, they should not behave like male managers but “‘invent their own management style.” Or all of the above at once? Maybe. In any case, it’s not surprising that women’s networks are so popular: they offer female solidarity to women who find themselves “very alone.”

A few leads, but the challenges persist

Should women stay with a female management style or adopt/develop behaviour traditionally associated with men? Unconscious biases persist: is it necessary to learn what works with men… using different approaches? The focus still often seems to be on the potential and actual reactions of men, whether or not decision-makers, who maintain their reference status. “Conventional” management prioritises presenteeism and performance at all costs, to the detriment of private life and mental health. It is thus an obstacle for women, and for a growing number of men as well. In addition, there is tension between “what works” in terms of performance in all-male teams and the desire to add more gender diversity. So how can meritocracy and diversity be reconciled? To compound the problem, there are very few female applicants, and plenty of stereotypes about what constitutes strength and weakness in leadership. A great deal of work remains to be done on image and representation in society. Companies have a role to play in this change. Paradoxically, the fact that there are few women in positions of responsibility increases their visibility and creates an additional bias: the perception of injustice, and the threat their growing numbers could represent for men even though there are far more of them. How can their perceived loss of power be addressed?

A question with significant transformative potential emerged from the interviews: how can authentic, non-gendered leadership be fostered? What would its characteristics be, and who could define them without conscious or unconscious bias? As long as strength lies in numbers with male leaders – often much higher –, how can managerial approaches more associated with women be promoted? Especially since, with the shift “from hyper-authoritarian management, where you sink or swim, to management that is […] more human and certainly much more effective […], a lot more risks are involved […], so it’s complicated.”

A recent article by EY on trends at the World Economic Forum in Davos (Risk and reward: A CEO watch list for the year ahead) highlights a decline in companies’ interest in diversity and inclusion issues as a result of all the crises affecting the world and an “anti-woke” backlash against their decision-making bodies. To quote Simone de Beauvoir: “All it takes is a political, economic or religious crisis for women’s rights to be called into question.” The effects have yet to be assessed.