"Women are better leader!" According to some studies, more than 50 percent of the population believes that women in leadership positions will be better at mastering the challenges of the coming years than their male colleagues. But what is the reality? Even on the supervisory boards of state-owned companies, women are often significantly underrepresented in management. This is not about the battle of the sexes per se. Rather, it is about integrating the male and female poles—two poles that could hardly be more different.
The man is the eye. He brings himself into the world. He hunts, fights, penetrates, conquers. Men tend to be rational, status-driven, and proactive. Women are the ears. They take in the world, listen, and reflect. They tend to be emotional, pragmatic, and reactive. Men seek recognition, women seek attention. He wants to hear how great he is. She wants to be listened to, understood, and empathized with.
Men overestimate themselves when they have low competence and often have unjustifiably strong self-confidence. Women underestimate themselves when they have higher competence. They tend to lack self-confidence. Men invest a lot of time in forming professional networks and cliques to push each other forward and exclude women from power. Women dislike this time investment. They pragmatically focus on their goals and the necessity of their work.
Does this description seem too simplistic to you?
Of course, it's not perfect, but with 80 percent coverage, it's very accurate. So which of these poles is better? The answer: neither one nor the other. They simply exist. It's not about one being better than the other. It's about integrating the best of both worlds into a larger, better whole. It's not about gender redistribution in the economy. There are already too many women pretending to be better men.
We need women who are completely women. They should be given more power. Women and men, ears and eyes—both worlds must be united for a strong future. As a coach for executives, I experience every day the constructive energies that are released when these poles are integrated. The female pole brings exactly the kind of thinking that the economy of the future needs. So does a quota for women make sense? Yes! Absolutely. But only as a door opener—only until awareness has been raised. Then it's time to let go again, quickly! Before external regulation has too much influence, the market will regulate it better. How? Quite simply through results.
Functioning, mixed-gender teams will be superior
We need women who can withstand discrimination, which will always exist, with a healthy dose of self-esteem. To achieve this, we need men who not only recognize women's strengths, but also give them the power they need. Anyone who has a healthy relationship in their private life knows that having a counterpart helps you grow and become stronger.
The question of whether women are better leaders is completely irrelevant. The fact is: they lead differently—and we need to integrate the female perspective into management levels. Nevertheless, a quota for women, for example, should only be seen as a kind of impetus and not as a general regulation. Instead of "We need more equality in the boardroom," we need to say, "We need more openness to learn from different leadership styles and benefit from them. We need to integrate the female and male poles!"
Yours, Boris Grundl
That's why you're not really happy.
Why success and fulfillment have nothing to do with each other.
