Obstacles for Woman Leadership (Issue 17)

Well, I have to say that I think the simple answer to the question is both yes and no. Obviously, society has an influence on women's potential role as leaders. Especially since when given the same resume, with the same qualifications, employers are more likely to pick the applicant with a male name. However, rarely is that the case in the real workplace. Not often do any two people, regardless of their gender, have the exact same qualifications.

And I must say, I agree with Browne when he says that people are more likely to apply for jobs that interest them, and that differences in preference exist among differing sexes. For example, most women are not physically capable of doing jobs that require extremely heavy lifting. If a woman is strong enough, then she should apply for such a job if it interests her. But to expect a 50/50 male/female spit in such an occupation is outrageous.

The same goes for CEO positions. Like it or not, right or not, women do more housework than men, and society expects them to do so. Women often take off more time for childbirth and raising than men do. This means that overall, they take more time off from work for such things, and lose opportunities for job experience during those times. That means that their applications (especially those of mothers), are more likely to be less qualified than male applicants, even if the male applicants are fathers. This would also make mothers slightly less qualified overall (from a strictly resume standpoint) for a CEO position. Of course, that alone doesn't account for the vast difference in the sex of CEO's, especially considering that not all women are mothers.

However, I would again like to mention that men and women often have different interests, personal ideals, and aptitudes. I will readily admit that society plays a role in forming those differences. No doubt about it. But, the fact still remains that if women expect themselves to do more housework and childrearing, and if they place more value on those things than financial gain or economic power, they are less likely to apply for CEO positions. Especially if they expect those positions to take time away from things they perceive as more valuable.

Personally, as a female, I have zero interest in being a CEO. I would not want to deal with the stress, immense responsibility/liability, or the large number of overtime hours required. I would much rather be a mother with a part-time, preferably work-from-home job if finances allow. I think it's a shame that so many parents want/need to work outside the home and spend less time with their children. I place much more value on educating and emotionally supporting children than on personal economic power. As such, that is another large factor as to why I would not want to be a CEO. On the other side, men are told (by society, again, as I will admit) that the ideal father is a successful businessman with a high-paying job. If they value that more than childrearing, they are more likely to desire a CEO position.

I also agree with Browne that dimorphism probably plays a role, though I think he probably overstates it. I agree that brain (and thus behavior) dimorphism is unlikely to be substantially different in humans than in other closely related species. However, I think that humans capacity for reasoning can overcome much of the mental dimorphism.

Questions

1) Would you want to be a CEO? Are your reasons culturally based, or motivationally/personal interest based?

2) Do you think that sex differences that would influence leadership exist biologically to any degree? If so, what role do you think that human reasoning plays in altering/overcoming those differences?