Female leadership - Why is gender equity so elusive?

According to former ABC chairman, Justin Milne, leadership style and relations with government were contributing factors in the board’s decision to dismiss Michelle Guthrie as ABC’s managing director. Occurring just after reports of sexist bullying in the Liberal party, commentary on women in positions of power has been dominating the public arena. However, the issue of women and leadership also touches on several themes that are omnipresent in organisations, namely leadership development, employee selection and performance management.

Coverage of Ms Guthrie’s termination point to several contextual factors, namely unprecedented volatility and disruption in the media and technology sectors as well as significant budget cuts, all of which made her role extremely difficult to execute. With this in mind, Guthrie’s dismissal seems to fit the pattern identified by the research. In times of poor performance, female leaders tend to be preferred over male leaders. Described as the ‘glass cliff’, it’s thought that a preference for female leaders is because stereotypically, females are viewed as being good people managers and able to take the blame for organisational failure. British Prime Minister, Theresa May, is thought to be spending much of her time trying to safely navigate off said cliff.

Criticism of Ms Guthrie is also in relation to her task-focused management style, behaviour that is typically inconsistent with female leaders. Our 27th Prime Minister, Julia Gillard’s strong and assertive style garnered similar derision from commentators. Research has shown that women are generally perceived as less natural in most leadership roles and are also seen as inappropriate or presumptuous when they display the assertiveness, independence or competitiveness required in these roles. In other words, female leaders who act like ‘male’ leaders are likely to be seen less favourably. Indeed, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel provides some convergent evidence. Described as one of Europe’s most powerful leaders, her success has been credited to her lack of assertive masculine leadership style in favour of a more female congruent emotional, deliberative and patient approach. Female leaders who behave in a manner expected of females seem to be better placed to engender positive evaluations.

Dr Kirstin Ferguson, Mr Milne’s replacement, is on record stating that ‘gender isn’t a determinant of leadership and that there are male leaders and female leaders with different skills and qualities’. Unfortunately, statements like this display a poor understanding of the evidence and perpetuates the narrative that there aren’t at least perceived differences in male and female leadership. When it comes to leadership we can’t ignore the empirical research - there are gender differences – in terms of who is seen as more credible, who is a more likely scapegoat and what behaviours are preferred for male vs. female leaders.

I wonder if part of the reason so many politicians, leaders and organisations ignore or downplay the significant barriers to women obtaining and succeeding in leadership is the lack of a clear solution to the problem. The introduction of quotas has been suggested (again) as a potential solution but there still does not seem to be an appetite for a serious national discussion about how this mechanism could be used to ensure an equitable representation of females in political office. I think that part of the reluctance in seriously considering quotas, for political office and other positions, is the fear that a high quality male candidate may miss out to a ‘lesser’ female candidate due to the quota. I can appreciate this concern and completely agree, the best candidate should be selected for the job. However, according to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, nearly three-quarters of reporting organisations have a male-only team of key management personnel and the latest August 2018 statistics reveal that full-time female workers receive 14.6% less than their male counterparts. If one is to ignore the presence of systemic and cultural barriers, how else can the disparity be explained when more females than males graduate from university and females comprise almost half the Australian workforce? Surely the lack of female leaders reaching positions of power isn’t due to a lack of education or participation in the workforce?

The factors which influence the selection and success of female leaders is complex but there are some very clear and tangible steps that organisations can take to try and reduce prejudice.

1. Encourage female employees to seek mentorship from senior male and female colleagues as a way to build their social capital and informal networks.

2. Involve men, particularly male leaders, in conversations on issues of equity and inclusion. Men can be powerful agents of change, particularly if they are made aware of the contribution that they can make. For instance, recently published research examining all CEO succession events in the US involving women that occurred between 1992 and 2009 among the S&P 1500 and Fortune 500 firms found that male CEOs can be a formidable force in supporting women to leadership positions.

3. Educate those making selection and performance management assessments about unconscious biases in relation to females in leadership positions.

We need to move away from thinking about leadership as an issue of equality and rather one about equity. There is no level playing field so why pretend that there is? Quotas and other formal initiatives are potential intermediary solutions to address the real barriers faced by women. Once we have addressed the issue of equity we can then start talking about equality. There is lots of work to be done but to channel my three-year old’s current favourite phrase, ‘you (or rather we) can do it!’.