Elizabeth Ralph* says there are reasons why female leaders are better positioned than men to tackle a health crisis.
You’ve probably been following the chatter: A few countries seem to have very effective coronavirus responses.
Germany has led on testing.
New Zealand has flattened its curve.
Taiwan has contained the virus and is now donating masks to other countries.
What do these countries have in common?
Women run them.
A caveat: It’s basically impossible to know whether female leaders are better at containing the pandemic.
Spread and death rates depend on many variables, including population density, wealth and past decades of healthcare preparedness.
Societies that elect female leaders might also have cultures that make them better primed to handle a pandemic.
But there are still reasons to think female leaders are better positioned than men to tackle a health crisis.
Here are just a few:
Women collaborate
In a meta analysis of studies on gender differences among leaders, Alice Eagly, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Northwestern University, says she found the most robust difference between men and women “is a tendency for women to be more participative and collaborative in leadership, and men more authoritarian and top down”.
In a crisis that depends on buy-in at all levels — from national governments to local councils — and requires working with public health experts and advocates as well, this approach can be effective.
Women show compassion
“Women are the more communal, the more compassionate sex showing empathy and caring,” says Eagly.
“That’s stereotypically true, but it’s also actually true in data.”
In a situation where people are suffering and dying, where many are fearful, “to emote, to recognise that people are having a hard time” is very important, she says.
Just look at New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern’s (pictured) clear, consistent, empathetic Instagram briefs, which have been heralded as an example of good leadership.
The masculinity contest problem
In their research about organisational culture, Jennifer Berdahl, Professor of Sociology at the University of British Columbia, and Peter Glick, Professor of Social Sciences at Lawrence University, found that for some men, “conceptions of what it means to be masculine and their commitment to always maintain that image gets in the way”, says Glick.
These leaders, says Berdahl, follow a few core tenets: They show no weakness (read: not admitting doubt and not consulting experts), they put work first, they prize physical strength and stamina, and they support dog-eat-dog environments.
This creates “complete organisational dysfunction”, Glick says.
That can be even worse during a health crisis, when consulting with experts is a necessity and when important precautions (like refusing to shake hands or wearing a mask) can appear emasculating, so these leaders avoid them.
Berdahl says this is largely a result of socialisation: Society puts “pressure on men to behave in masculine ways at work”, which leads to a toxic culture.
Women, on the other hand, “are held to very different standards from an early age”.
“They are supposed to be sensitive to the needs of others and listen,” Berdahl says.
“Rather than being boastful, they’re encouraged to be humble.”
“They’re willing to listen to others and willing to admit when they don’t know something.”
“Rather than behave in unilateral fashion … they’re encouraged to be democratic.”
Sometimes, we think of society’s different expectations of women as a burden.
But in this case, it might be helping them be better leaders.
* Elizabeth Ralph is Deputy Editor at POLITICO Magazine.
This article first appeared at www.politico.com.
