Gender Dynamics & Followership

Modern brain science has spawned a wealth of new research detailing the differences between male/female responses to situational stimulus at the neurological level. This has lead to several new expositions on the differences between men and women in personal, family, community and professional life. One such area of study is gender differences in approaches to leadership. While numerous books have been written detailing the characteristics of female leadership none, to my knowledge, have been written on the characteristics of how females follow each other, or female followership. As some leadership definitions are entirely dependent on the definition of those who follow (for example: “A leader is someone who is followed”, Emmanual Gobillot, The Connected Leader, p.64) a detailed analysis of following from a gender perspective seems highly relevant.

There is a growth trend in research of follower dynamics in general, and some works explicitly acknowledge gender related differences in leader follower dynamics. Ira Chaleff’s “The Courageous Follower”:

“I must acknowledge, however, that gender issues sometimes complicate the already sensitive dynamics in the leader-follower relationship, and I have not attempted to deal with them in this book.”

Chaleff and other researchers seem to have been engaged most by the need to establish followership as a field of study at all. With seminal works spawning numerous research and analysis in the study of followers, now providing a specific focus on gender related issues seems highly appropriate.

While a leader is either male or female those following a leader will in most cases include both genders. The dynamics between followers and leaders and between followers themselves are critical to a groups success. This research sets out to explore several dynamics:

1. The archetypal dynamics of how women follow women and how men follow men. This will establish the recurring patterns and anti-patterns exclusive to each gender.
2. The differences in dynamics between female and male leadership and those who follow them. Foe example, how this effects the perception of leadership characteristics such as being in charge, delegation of work, and maintaining vision.
3. How the genders follow each other and how the mixture of gender related followership patterns and anti-patterns identified in item 1 above may impede or support the success of leadership or followership for either sex.
4. A special focus on the the female leader and male follower dynamic as it is the emerging modern dynamic and thus the one that is in need of the most clarifying insight.
5. A special focus on how male and female followers may impede or compliment each other.
6. A special focus on misunderstandings that arise in any of the dynamics identified above.

Effective leadership requires effective followership. Effective followership requires effective leadership. While the characteristic differences in leadership styles between the sexes is well on the way to being understood, the differences between how followers can best engage these differing styles seems to be lagging. It is the hope of this research that an exploration of these gender dynamics will lead to greater success for teams, communities and societies in realizing their vision and an increased sensitivity to how we can support each other by stepping outside our innate gender based expectations.

Authors Note:
Most of this “research” is actually direct personal observation. It may also reflect, rather embarrassingly at times, the authors own psychology more than anything else. My goal is to generalize the observations into research and experimentation along with a proper thesis and conclusion.

Women & Leading Change

In the book “The Heart of Change” John P. Kotter states that successful change programs focus on engaging peoples emotions rather than their minds. He states:

“Changing behavior is less a matter of giving people analysis to influence their thoughts than helping them to see a truth to influence their feelings”. (“The Heart of Change”, p.2)

The irony is that organizations tend to value analysis over feelings. This may be do to the power of feelings to effect change. Only a CEO or high level executive is allowed to “act from the gut”. Everyone else must justify their change efforts with thorough analysis, i.e. sew the seeds of their own defeat.

Louann Brizendine states in “The Female Brain” that a women’s reality is defined by her emotions. It would seem that emotional awareness would lead naturally to more awareness of factors influencing change. However, as organizations devalue emotional intelligence, she will be less likely to be able to act on that knowledge in ways that have real impact.

Women Leaders & Male Followers

Women in leadership positions are likely to enquire as to the opinions of their followers. They may see it as their role to make these inquires so as to develop their own sense of what needs to happen. This is in contrast to male leadership that would more likely involve a leader who already has a good sense of what they want to do and expected other people to “get clear” on the objectives through discussion or dialogue.

When women inquire into their followers opinions they are inclined to open themselves to influence in ways that men are not. In order to reap the full benefits of influence women are also inclined to listen fully to a followers perspective. This requires a relinquishing of some authority as to the progression a meeting. Female followers naturally understand this dynamic and take and relinquish control in deference to sustaining the dialogue. Women are not only seeking to influence one another but seeking to be influenced so as to align with a common view of reality.

When men interact they are more likely to struggle for control and once control is achieved attempt to maintain it. In the book “Leadership And The Sexes: Using Gender Science to Create Success in Business” Michael Gurian and Barbara Annis state that “[male banter] is a constant testing of strength and weakness, a constant pushing of limits so that males remain always at the top of their game”. This dynamic is not always overt and when men and women are conversing in a group subtle tendencies within the gender dynamics can tip the scales to male dominance of a meetings progression and thus outcomes. Make special note that men may not do this intentionally and an entire meeting may progress amiably but the disruption of the female “give and take” by the male tendency to “take and hold” can disrupt the female method of understanding reality. This can leave women feeling unsure of their own understanding leading to insecurity and alienation from leadership positions.

In some meetings it may become apparent to a female leader that her authority has been usurped. A man hogging the spotlight may suddenly come into focus as a blow hard. Men can easily fall into this position if not properly challenged by equally forceful countering opinions, or if they lack self awareness at the critical moments that would allow them to concede control.

On the issue of men conceding control it must be clear that this can easily lead to the stereotype of women being the weaker sex in need of male deference. This fallacy is easily dispelled by analysing the fundamental dynamics that require a man to feel his session of control is somehow a gift to women in the room. As men are not as connected to their feelings as women, and they are less open to casual influence, they experience session of control as a conscious act of weakness in deference to a women's inability to engage head on. A man who thinks in this way is thinking within their own limits and assuming that others also experience those same limits. However, women converse in different ways altogether. The male rules of “take and hold” are barriers to female problem solving dynamics. Thus a man “ceding control” to women should not expect to participate in a softer, gentler version of the male dynamic but an entirely different approach all together. This alternate approach may be difficult for men to actually become positively engaged in if they are not exceedingly conscious of the subtle dynamics at play.

Men may perceive feminine social signals as coercive or indirect flanking maneuvers and respond in very negative terms.

There are times when the interplay of female and male dynamics makes for positively ideal problem solving. But to often this ideal may end up dominated by male personalities who are unaware of the damage they are doing to potential outcomes by unconsciously disrupting the female conversational style. For example, a group of women secretly rolling their eyes at another women’s line of reasoning may use a silent, shared perspective the permeates the group to leverage the outlier back into the groups perspective. This can require the concerted effort of the entire group as it attempts to subtly separate the valuable contributions from what is considered nonconstructive. This will be done in ways that validate the value. Men tend to attack weakness and would immediately seize on irrational or uninformed claims to discredit the speakers position. They would then take what value remained.

If the gender specific styles are combined the male style will disrupt the female style as it is oblivious to the female social dynamics at play. Women who do not agree with the position being attacked may feel obliged to step in and defend the weaker position in an attempt to maintain a balanced social standing within the group.

Increasing awareness as to how women influence one another and arrive at shared understandings of reality can start to unlock a lot of value that is currently missed in mixed organizations. Male dynamics are more naturally disruptive of female dynamics than is true in the reverse. This is because male dynamics are more centered on an individual and thus resistant to social disruption. Female dynamics are more focused on the group dynamics and thus more susceptible to social disruption. Men may even use social disruption as a means of advancing their point of view. Where as women may use subtle social pressure to influence other women to “come back to the group”, men may see this as a challenge and further entrench in their position. Facilitation of meetings can go a long way to balancing the gender dynamics but some forms of facilitation will be more successful than others.