Helping Girls Become Strong Women

In the last post, I talked about raising strong girls/women, noting that we don’t have to ban “girly” things to raise strong women, anymore than we have to ban “manly” things to raise nurturing boys. Today, I’ll talk about what that has to do with women’s leadership.

When women first began assuming leadership roles in Corporate America, they tried to be like men, even to the point of wearing a suit and tie (albeit a modified one). However, the “command and control” model wasn’t really working for women, because that’s not how women typically work. Not that women never use that model, and not that they can’t; it’s just that when you analyze women’s leadership style over a large population, that’s not the model that stands out.

Women tend to be more collaborative, and have what is now referred to as a more transformative style of leadership. The interesting thing is, research is showing that this type of leadership can, in many cases, be more successful than the traditional command-and-control model. Strength of leadership is demonstrated most clearly in successful leadership.

All of this leads to the conclusion that if we allow girls to develop their natural strengths and interests (whether that means playing Barbies or baseball), while encouraging them to try new things, we will help them to naturally develop into strong leaders. Trying to force them into a model that does not suit them creates only weakness.

So relax. Introduce your daughter to a wide variety of experiences, and then let her take the lead in developing her interests and gifts.

Sarah Palin and Leadership

As most people know by now, Sarah Palin made the decision to step down from her position as governor of Alaska. This has, of course, triggered a media feeding-frenzy, as every expert tries to guess why she did it. Her stated reason was because she did not want to be a “lame duck” governor, just riding out her term spending tax-payer money while accomplishing little.

Of course, the speculation is that she’s positioning herself to make a run for president in 2012. And perhaps she is. It would be difficult to campaign for a national position while living and effectively governing in Alaska.

Politics aside, what I find so interesting is that no one is talking about whether what she is doing is simply a different, non-traditional, non-masculine way of doing things. Clearly, giving up power because it’s best for her state is non-traditional – when was the last time you heard of a man (or a woman trying to succeed using a traditionally masculine model of leadership) doing that? And if she’s stepping down so she can run for President, is that worse that the candidates (male and female) who retain their Senate seats while actively campaigning for a higher office? How effective are these individuals in the Senate when their main focus is their campaign?

Studies have repeatedly shown that women lead differently than men; that we are less concerned with “command and control” styles of leadership, and more interested in transformative leadership. Those same studies have also demonstrated that generally speaking, traditionally feminine styles of leadership are often more effective and contribute more to the bottom line.

Is it possible that Sarah Palin just has a different way of leading? And is her “different” way necessarily wrong? Or are we just not used to seeing it done that way?