Quit Whining* and Start the Revolution

     One should be hesitant about addressing the topic of gender and leadership. Like politics and religion, it is a topic that really should not be discussed at dinner when in polite company. All too often, the discussions produce more heat than light. It is, nevertheless, an important topic, if for no other reason than a significant portion of the intelligentsia is concerned with it.

     “Gender,” as Laura Sjoberg—in her book chapter entitled “Feminist Approaches to the Study of Political Leadership”—and other feminist theorists have reminded us, is a socially constructed term, not to be confused with sex, which is a biologically constructed. My former colleague, Diane Knippers, was wont to say, "Sex is better than gender."    However, when social scientists like Sjoberg discuss gender they speak of masculinity and femininity, rather than male or female. This may be a distinction without a difference, but not in the minds of the theorists.  

     So how does this tie in with leadership? Sjoberg argued that the term “leadership” itself is gendered. Because gender is socially constructed by “behavior expectations, stereotypes, and rules which apply to persons because they are understood to be members of particular sex categories”, and leadership attributes are typically associated with masculinity, therefore leadership is gendered masculine. She unpacked her idea this way:

This is because the definition of what it means to be a good leader is couched in masculine terms; there is a substantial correlation between characteristics that define a good man and characteristics that define a good leader. Therefore, men are assumed to have leadership capacity, while women’s masculinity is doubted until proven.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were leaders capable
of leading others and working together across gender.

     My question then is, so what? If gender is socially constructed, let’s remove the masculinity from leadership so that we can get past this debate and on to putting qualified and effective people in positions of leadership, where they can make a difference, no matter what their “gender” is.

     My suspicion is that the real agenda is not one of putting people into places of possibility, but gaining positions so that individuals can exercise power. This Foucaldian approach is ultimately nihilistic; it divides and conquers rather than embracing and leading. Ultimately, this is not an approach to leadership. It’s an approach to coercion.

     What, then, do we do with gender and leadership? Well, first, I would eschew using the term gender. It really isn’t helpful. It divides and puts people off. If however, one were to focus on the biological characteristics of sex, traits and personal aspects that are deeply rooted but enduring, one can get past the notion of trying to “fix” the other person’s defects. Second, and more importantly, I would focus on leadership and the qualities that make a good leader, no matter what that leader’s biological sex is. Undoubtedly, females can be good leaders; so can males. Females can bring characteristics to leadership that males lack, and vice versa.

     The better approach, I think is to focus on contingent leadership and fit the person into the correct situation, all the while being open to whoever has the skills and giftedness that the position requires, whether female or male. Then, we can get on with accomplishing the mission rather than getting bogged down in “socially constructed concepts” that cause more harm than good. Basically, to borrow the phrase, “Quit whining* and start the revolution.”

*Originally, I had used the term “bitchin,” often found in the vernacular. A wise friend, however, pointed out that “bitch” refers to a woman and might be considered a gender stereotype. While of shock value, using the term would undermine my argument for setting aside gender to focus more on leadership. Touché. Whiners, however, can be of either sex and are just as irritating and divisive. So, please, if you’re going to whine, pass the cheese. At least that way we can have something tasty, too.