Why companies need female managers

[andrewducker]

Half of the managers I've worked for at my current company have been women. This has most definitely been a good thing.

This is a fascinating piece on why.

Comments

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

I wonder how many of the list of assertions about differences between men and women in that article are actually backed up by the balance of serious scientific opinion? And what the arguments are in favour of taking a prehistoric model of brains as being basically unchanged today.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

As a prehistoric archaeologist, I have to say that a lot of what is written up as archaeological evidence in the article is distorted or literally a matter of scholarly opinion, not fact.

'In prehistoric times, double-income families were the norm, and women provided 60-80% of the evening meal.'

This is recent work on gender archaeology based on anthropological work in the present. It's most likely correct, but children were also helping bring in that percentage. She's talking about the 'gathering' part of 'hunter-gatherer'.

'But following the invention of the plough and with the resulting need for hard manual labour, the power balance shifted.'

The idea that the prehistoric double-income model was egalitarian is not accepted. In general, all of our evidence shows the balance of power was always shifted towards a male-dominated society. Most models show that the meat brought in by the hunters was prized far above the 60-80% gathered meal, but again, this is based on data collected from the last remaining hunter-gatherers in the present period.

"For starters, men and women are thinking differently. Brain scans prove it, as does plenty of other research."

This is wooly, even by BBC standards. As far as palaeolithic humans, we don't have the information. We use primates alongside the cranial data we have to try to understand the development of what we'd call modern human cognition. But it'd be a stretch to say we could say anything like this as a definite "proven" thing.

[andrewducker]

It is proven for modern-day men/women though, who have clearly different brain structures. The precise nature of how those differing structures affect ability are the subject of a lot of debate, but there are some obvious trends. How much of those trends are built in, and how much are cultural are, again, the subject of much debate :->

[andrewducker]

Oh, and have a link to a variety of studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio#Correlation_between_digit_ratio_and_psychological_traits

As ever, further research needed, take all with pinch of salt, gross generalisations do not apply to individuals, etc.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

What irritates me about the article is that the evidence she's reaching for only applies to modern humans. 'Prehistoric' is a wooly term in the article because it could mean prehistoric homo sapien sapiens, or it could mean the early humans that came before. There is no easily made connection between the cognitive process of early humans and the cognitive processes of modern humans. And those early humans were hunter-gatherers too.

I'm not saying the anthropologist in the article was dumbing it down - I'm saying the reporter distorted it a bit to make it more palatable, considering the reporter starts us out by saying, "She's no feminist!"

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

My students did a presentation on something like this at the start of the year. However they were examining IQ. Men seem to be better at different things to women (and women at better things to men), but everyones different and there are lots of reasons that could contribute to this.

Actually, I've been thinking about child development, and thinking that 5 year old boys and girls are different, even biochemically becoming different, and wondering what effect that has on their personality and the effect of people reacting to them.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

Actually, I take it all back.

"move forward to a lifestyle we had a million years ago"

This isn't supportable given the evidence she's citing, for the reasons I outlined above. The connection between early humans and modern humans is not easily comparable. Throwing gender into it makes it even harder. Some of the evidence in genetics is being mapped out now - Neanderthal genetics is being compared to humans just so we can answer whether or not we bred with them.

It's not nearly as clear cut as the article says, and at the heart of the matter is the fact that archaeologists and anthropologists - except this woman - agree that there was no such thing as an egalitarian society, and that there wasn't even an acceptance of "Ladies work this way" and "Men work this way" and that there was some kind of balance that didn't negatively affect the female population. I'm offended by the article because by saying we should return back to the social model we had a million years ago, the article alludes to the idea that we'll have peace between the sexes and everybody will win, when that is just not true when you look at the prehistoric evidence.

[andrewducker]

You know, the quality of comments like this, and the breadth of knowledge available on my friends list is one of the reasons I love livejournal.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

Heh. Okay I went a little melty there. I'll stop ranting. :)

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

No, don't! It's wonderful to hear people ranting because they really understand a field. Good antidote to the BBC science reporting.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

My favourite quote on science and why it matters (and to my mind, why it matters that it's reported absolutely correctly, because if I can understand it, it shouldn't be hard for a reporter to write it up so anyone else can understand it):

To quote an anonymous writer to TalkOrigins.org (June 15, 2003 feedback): "Evolution matters because science matters, and too many people (including some presidents) are willing to believe that science is something you can pick and choose from, with "good" science being anything that supports your own views and "bad" science being anything that doesn't. Physicists are great guys because they say nothing to offend us, biologists are mad scientists leading us down the path to perdition with their genetic meddling, evolutionists are self-delusional fools, and anyone studying environmental science is a left-wing tree-hugging extremist whose sole goal is to destroy the American economy and lead us to one-world government. If scientists in a given discipline argue about any conclusion, whoever says what you want to hear is the right one. Too many people can't accept that although scientists are not perfect, and do make mistakes (sometimes whoppers), science isn't something you can pick through like a buffet, accepting only what is to your "taste" and designating the rest inedible. If people feel free to reject the science of evolution, they feel free to reject any science on no better grounds. Whether my students accept evolution may have little direct effect on my future. Whether they understand biology, ecology, environmental geology (water is a big issue in my community), and other subjects and can make informed decisions regarding scientific issues does matter. If they feel free to reject evolution as part of a "buffet" approach to science, their other choices will be no better informed."

I know it's not directly in response to wooly reporting, but it has been my favourite quote about science ever since I saw it.

[matgb]

Worth observing though that she does say it's 'on avarage' and points to generalities, many if not most men are better at some things and many women are better at others, and the best working environment I've ever had was when myself and a female colleague complemented each other with completely different strengths and weaknesses.

I also agree with Andrew about why I like the collection of knowledge LJ gives us.

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

I know I'm judging the article fairly harshly, but I really abhor generalities when it comes to people talking about issues that are, in fact, quite complex.

Also, ask yourself: was the teamwork you mentioned great because you complemented each other irrespective of gender? My point is, can you actually point out where her gender mattered in order for her to have a specific strength that shored up your weakness, and vice versa?

These are very complex issues and I don't think the article did them any kind of justice. The main crux of the anthropologist's argument - as far as I could discern it - is that if we can accept women as being strong in category x, and men as being strong in category y, then there need not be competition between the sexes because we would benefit by working together.

While that's an argument no sane person could disagree with, history has shown in the past 200 years at least, what has been argued as "women's work" has been based on that exact argument - that women are stronger in category Taking Care of Kids, Looking After Husband, etc. The arguments at the time basically boil down to separate-but-equal, when clearly there wasn't equality there because there was no other choice.

I think she has to be much clearer about what happens when gender becomes the basis for assuming strengths and weaknesses in an employment-related context, because anything that traps us back into the argument that what we can do is defined by our gender makes for extremely uncomfortable reading.

[poisonduk.livejournal.com]

Half may be female HOWEVER how many of them are grade 26+? I had an interesting talk with your new manager this morning which touched on a grade 24 being easy for a woman to attain(Gah I will get it one day, 25 is slightly harder(we could collectively think of a handful) but there's not a 26+ to our knowledge. So women can become managers but not rise to Senior

[matgb]

Bell curve thingy. Men are more likely to be at either end of the ability spectrum. There are more very senior males in a proper meritocratic selection, just as there are more right at the bottom, cf prison population, functional illiteracy, very senio academics, etc.

Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion, whether it's ingrained and "natural" or societally produced is also a matter of debate, but the numbers seem to be there for it.

[matgb]

was the teamwork you mentioned great because you complemented each other irrespective of gender? My point is, can you actually point out where her gender mattered in order for her to have a specific strength that shored up your weakness, and vice versa?

In some cases, it was traditional gendered roles, in others, I was the long term planner she was the medium term solver, I handled the immediate crises much better but she was much better at the "people" side of the role and dealing with problems over the phone.

I agree completely that the danger of "women's work/men's work" is huge, and I say that as someone with "mixed" outlook living with someone who is very much "male" in her outlook (see her comment, the first, on my post linking here). But the overall message, that a good mix is good in most sectors but that you shouldn't judge by one gender supposition or the other is a strong one.

The analysis can also be used in other fields—why there are more male politicians and what should be done to the system in order to encourage more women, etc...

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

There was a really funny joke on Family Guy recently that kinda summed it up for me.


Tom Tucker: Good evening Quahog, I'm Tom Tucker.

Diane Simmons: And I'm Diane Simmons. The Quahog mayoral race is heating up, with incumbent Adam West squaring off against challenger, Lois Griffin.

Tom Tucker: Which leads many political analysts to ask the question: Can a woman really be mayor? Or will she just menstruate all over the city? Stay with us.

(Substitute White House and that's my point in a nutshell. Until we get past the gender issue and get down to the heart of the matter - inequality - nothing will ever really change.)

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I agree!

Critical analysis good!

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Is something (society, policies, etc) stopping women from being able to get to Senior levels? Because whatever is happening on the bell curve for men (as in matgb's post), the fact is, we *have* plenty of men on the upswing of that curve. Where the ladieez?

It isn't just a shift of perception from every level of business practices that we need to get women up to the top. The major corporations and businesses in this country have some kind of policy they say should encourage women to rise to the very top, but it still doesn't happen very often, if at all. Hell, in academia, where this is studied in great detail, there's still a lack of women at the very top accolades and positions of power. Fuck, even Cambridge Uni didn't have a female Vice-Chancellor working full-time in the position until 2003 (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/v-c/richard.html), and she follows in the footsteps of Dame Rosemary Murray, who in 1975 was the first woman to hold the position, the first head of a modern college, and only the second woman to be vice-chancellor of a British university.

We're not talking about gender here, we're talking about ingrain notions of what women can do and can't do on the basis of gender. And that's why that article, leading off with "I'm not a feminist!" irritates me so much.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I get really annoyed at the BBC news site when they report something badly. I got to the stage where I couldn't read the Health section without quietly fuming that they had left so much out...

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

I can't stand to read anything archaeologically related on the BBC. I'm also one of those people that screams maniacally at the television everytime Time Team comes on - even though I was on the blasted show once. >.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I have vague memories of reading something somewhere about journalists... how journalists are just people.

If you lived in a small village and there was a disturbance at 3am, they would be the one who gets up to see whats happening and tell the story from their perspective. However when its empirical research there should be no excuse to bias it! Gah! :)

What did you do on Time Team? ~interested and curious~

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

One last thing then.

She says that we should be moving forward to the lifestyle we had millions of years ago.

Modern human beings emerged, at the latest figures, around 200,000 years ago. A million years ago places us somewhere between Neanderthals, 'Rhodesian' Man, the Heidelberg Man, and Homo Erectus.

An Iron Age expert I worked with a few years ago made fun of the pre-metal periods by characterising the stone age periods as "Monkeys banging rocks". While that doesn't really apply to the last 200,000 years, it kinda does for years 1,000,000 years ago to around 200,000 years ago. And even then, we were still competing with the Neanderthals just to stay alive with the coming of the Ice Age.

So you tell me... wanna go bang some rocks together and see if we can't figure out this whole food-water issue?

[ratmist.livejournal.com]

My 10 seconds of fame. *cough* I didn't even get to meet Baldrick (he wasn't there that day). It was the underwater Scottish crannog one. I gave advice on conserving the waterlogged wood, which was my master's degree.

[poisonduk.livejournal.com]

Interesting thing re child development. Guns are a total no-no for kids in a nursery environment. I was pleasantly amused one day to watch two 4 year old boys quite obviously playing guns wuth the toy hairdryer.. When a teacher confronted him to what he was doing the child innocently replied 'I'm drying his hair, Miss'.

I have never brought my child up to be a girl, she's had plentyu of non gender spcific toys but she still turns towards the crfty toys rather than the scientific ones so I do believe that there is something in our make-up which points us in certain directions.

I however feel that I broke that mould myself as I'm much better off with electronics and geeky stuff and games consoles and secure around those than I am with make-up and clothes. Give me a choice between Maplin and JOhn Lewis and I'll take Maplin anyday!