Men Hunt; Women Hug
One of my
favorite courses, taken during my undergraduate years, was Special Topics in
Comparative Psychology. The purpose of the class was to provide an
understanding of how nature and nurture interact and how both the make-up and
function of the brain explain how behavior is influenced by biology and
environment. Through numerous videos, I had the chance to view many species of
animals, how they interact in their environment, and how many of their
behaviors are quite similar to human behaviors. Many observations witnessed
confirm Yukl’s (2013) explanations for gender differences within the workforce,
that of “inherent biological factors”, and “differential treatment during
childhood” (p. 375); however, those same observations support Kanter’s conclusion,
presented by the Harvard Business Review (2010), which notes “the overlap
between men and women is much greater than the differences”.
Since the beginning of mankind,
biological and evolutionary developments have taken place; yet, obvious
differences still exist between the male and female of any species. Watch any
animal video aired by Animal Planet, Nat Geo Wild, or the Discovery Channel and
these differences are easy to discern With the exception of a few instances,
males are larger. They are either adorned with more brilliantly colored
feathers and other markings, or they enjoy endowed, physical features that
demonstrate to the female and other males, these males possess implied systems,
“traits and skills”, obvious “inherent differences” (stereotypes), and
“appropriate behavior” required for the continued existence of the species
(Yukl, 2013, p. 371). In the majority of settings, the females are charged with
the rearing of the young and foraging for food; although large males, such as
lions, are often called upon for their strength and power when females are
unable to bring down larger prey. Unlike humans, animals display little
difference in how they raise either a male or female offspring; except that
many groups of animals will banish young males at a certain point. For the most
part, the female of the species accepts her role in the survival of her species
and seemingly chooses to stay with the young, rather than attempt to lead her
group.
Yukl (2013) cites “difficulties
created by competing family demands” (p. 372) while Kanter notes a “lingering
feeling” stills exists that women will be torn between choosing family or
career (Harvard Business Review, 2010). Likewise, Yukl (2013) refers to a
tendency to choose and encourage those who resemble the male manager and Kanter
observes male leaders are rewarded with higher pay because they are often found
in positions where “pivotal decisions” are required, people pay more for the
trust associated with such decisions, and “people trust judgment of those who
resemble them” (Harvard Business Review, 2010). I agree with both explanations.
At the end of the day, when all biases are stripped away from the debate, it is
the female who is charged with the carrying, delivering, and rearing of the
offspring. They provide the elements of “kindness, compassion, nurturing, and
sharing” necessary for survival (Yukl, p. 371). The male, equally contributes
to survival with “traits and skills” such as confidence, competitiveness, objectiveness,
assertiveness, and decisiveness, that allow for the provision of food and protection
for the group (Yukl, p. 371). In nature, the male is often observed leaving the
family unit; while the female remains. Does she have a choice? If so, does her
choice lead to her personal gratification or the survival of her offspring? The
instinctive, primal, behavior of the female to stay with her young is the
result of centuries of biological and evolutionary changes; just as is the
male’s propensity to leave and stake a territory. When
it comes to leadership, I think the ultimate vision and mission of the
organization contributes to the selection of the leader, is the group more
focused with nurturing and caring, such as social responsibility; or, is the group
focused on increasing assets?
Kanter’s research measures the
success in overcoming centuries of biological programming from the 1970s
forward, a scant forty-five years (Harvard Business Review, 2010). She states
that until such time society experiences a cohort of men “who are just as
family and leisure oriented” as women, then the ultimate goal, one that
signifies the total change collectively sought by women, one wherein women
occupy more positions of leadership at the top levels of the executive peak,
will not occur as quickly as she would like to see (Harvard Business Review,
2010). Yukl (2013) notes the number of women, “who hold important, high-level
leadership positions” falls short of what scholars want to see and the reason is
some form of discrimination (p. 371). Both Yukl (2013) and Kanter cite reasons
such as women’s inability to properly negotiate, management’s hidden efforts
designed to avert equal opportunity, different standards, exclusion from “informal
networks”, and an unwillingness to encourage women (p. 372). For me, it comes
back to nature and its undeniable impact. That which took evolution centuries
to create and influence cannot be undone or changed within less than a century.
While Kanter notes women have made
wonderful strides in obtaining positions with all types of jobs and more
management positions, she, and I suspect others, believes true equality will
never be measured and/or attained until such time women hold an equal number of
executive levels of leadership; and, I am not certain if that is a proper
measure of equality. Yukl (2013) states today’s leaders need to acquire skills
from both sexes, “strong task skills, and… strong interpersonal skills” (p.
373). Kanter observes she finds women seeking jobs in more “people oriented”
fields, while men go in search of more “high risk” fields (Harvard Business
Review, 2010). I believe men hunt while women hug for a reason, each are more
effective with the skill of either hunting or hugging. I further believe, that
even if we get to the peak, whereby women are paid the same as men and hold the
same number of leadership statuses, neither compensation nor rank will explain
the differences that exist, in both leadership styles and actions controlled
through natural physiology. Anti-discriminatory practices aside; we trust those
who resemble us.
As I look back, I have been guilty
of this. My sons were Cub Scouts; and, later, Boy Scouts. I fervently believed that
at a certain age, my sons were better served if they were provided with
leadership from male Scout leaders rather than female leaders. Yes, I was a Den
Mother for years and served as Committee Chair for the Pack and the Troop; but,
I purposely did not camp with my sons. Now, I am an accomplished camper. My
father taught me the art of survival in the wild; and, if I need be, I could
survive in the wilderness. I passed this same love of nature on to my daughter
and she loves to camp and is now teaching her daughter. For some reason, I
thought my sons would benefit more from lessons taught with a male perspective.
My husband does not camp; and, perhaps that played a role with my decision.
Ironically, I did teach my sons with ins and outs of the kitchen and house
cleaning 101. My oldest son is a chef and the youngest was the featured chef
for many Scouting campfire suppers. For whatever reason, I did not believe my
sons would trust me to teach them about camping and wilderness and am myself
guilty of perpetuating the stereotype of men and women and camping. A group
seen as providing routinized tasks, such as lionesses caring for young or
searching for food will look to the dominant lioness as their leader. My
routinized tasks, cooking, cleaning, laundry were the lessons I taught. That
same group, when threatened and are in need a leader who can make a crucial
decision and trust that decision will insure the group’s survival, look to the
dominate male. I looked to the male Scout leaders to teach my sons wilderness
survival skills, even though I am more than capable of surviving the wild.
Nature provides very few exceptions
where the male has become as family oriented as the female; and, this is the result
of eons of evolution. Both the issues of gender difference and pay gap are at
the beginning of an evolutionary process. I do not know if total equality will
ever be achieved. Just as centuries of trials and
tribulations have brought about changes for survival of the species; change
within leadership and a resolution to the pay gap will require a longer time
frame than that which has been chronicled to date.
References
Harvard Business
Review. (2010, April 2). Women, Ambition and (Still) the Pay Gap. [Video
Yukl, G. (2013).
Leadership in Organizations. (8th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment