Fast Talk

I don't believe women need to act tougher to come off as strong leaders. I believe they just need to be ascertive, professional, and display the leadership qualities it takes to be be strong leaders. We men have just been in he drivers seat longer because of what society itself has done to hold women back in the past. However, times have changed for the better and I think that more women have great opportunities in becoming strong leaders going forward just by simply being themselves and having the desire to succeed.

Women should just be as they are.Women are not broke I love women.Havent you heard " if its not broke dont fix it.She is not broke.

Only when men become biologically transplated to carry the babies......M.

This question centers around the issue of perception, in this case gender perception, and if/how one should reorient one's image to influence that perception. The tacit assumption is that people in general perceive women as the weaker sex, therefore women need to act tougher, however it is difficult to say that both women and men see other women the same. If a woman acts tougher, she might gain male respect and repel women, the opposite can happen as well in this case. Another difficulty is the issue of the duration of this displayed toughness; if acted on too long, everyone below this "tough" woman could be worn down. From my experience of serving in the military for 6 years, some women thought they had to act tougher than men, and overdid it. Other women didn't think that they had to act quite so tough and used their natural abilities towards being a great leader. Maybe it really come down to how a woman perceives herself?

They do not need to but they generally do. Acting tough women are mimicking a false male stereo type thinking it might work. Most of the time it works, but always with the burden of casting an oxymoronic image of "tough guy woman" The most successful are the great famme feminine, naturally endowed as member of the stronger gender in leading and feeding... the big toughs and the kids...

Not quite. In America, maybe, where ostentatious pomp is often mistaken for confidence. But over the world in general, no a woman doesn't need to "act" tougher. Toughness is a state of mind, and the quietest of people are often the most resolute. Think Godfather -- the least frazzled one is usually in command.

Do women need to act tough to come off as strong leaders? No.
Do they act tough anyway? Often.

However, end game is based on the integrity of the male units within the team she heads. This will be the variable as to the team performance.

Make no mistake, it is hard for a man to take orders from a woman no matter whether she commands control through her quietness or her ‘tough guy woman’ persona. The males in her team will experience many ‘innuendoes’ throughout other layers of his life as a result of working for a woman. Those over time can have significant negative impact on the confidence of a man.

It takes a strong man to work for a strong woman. There are not that many of those around.

"Come off as...strong leader"
There are several weird interconnected things to consider.

#1. Organizational Behavior theory... in how "analyticals", "expressives", "drivers" and "amiables" relate to others including a leader.

#2.Even weirder...psychological stuff in how any given "follower" was raised Mother figure, father figure...abuse...etc.

#3. Then there's a "group perception" like Hillary faces where
she has the stink of the B word
on her and cant shake that group perception.

I would say in more general terms a leader earns "strong leader" credit over time as they demonstrate leadership that ends in good results. Trying to play the gender card in this question is a distraction to the "strong leader" question.

Since the question begs the gender issue...
Compare Margaret Thatcher to Hillary Clinton for example.

Come off as...strong leader. This seems more like a social networking opportunity to bring a political viewpoint into play and from this readers perspective, not a progressive move for this forum.

Sensibility and a balanced ability to reason with an open mind make a good leader, not toughness. No.

I'm not sure tougher is the right word. Sounds odd as I write this, but women must act more like a leader to come off as a strong leader. A man can lead without obviously taking control, or even appearing to be in control. A woman must first be in control, then take control, in order to come off as a strong leader. Make sense?

Leadership is not necessarily about coming across as a strong person or acting tough. Leadership is influence and influence is more than being aggressive or tough, it is about being smart. It is about being perceptive, about knowing how to mobilize people, about knowing what makes people tick, about knowing how to relate with people, about knowing who to go to when in trouble, about being resourceful, about appealing to peoples needs. Women who 'act' tough would not be taken seriously.

No, I don't think so. The best way of becoming a strong female leader is to be yourself but ensure that you conduct a thorough assessment of the business landscape, understand the issues and deal with them individually and appropriately - People son come round to your style of leadership anyway...

I do not think women need to act tougher to come off as strong leaders. I do think that women need to articulate their thoughts and be aware that silence in a situation can be perceived as taking a stand for something you may not beleive in. Some women I know have very good judgement and leadership however when it comes time to voice those opinions in front of those that they lead they falter.

I think tougher is the wrong word. A woman needs to act "real" (can't say like a woman can I) sorry to say men and woman are wired a little different and we need to deal with it.

The CEO of my company is a woman (and pretty young) she is a strong assertive person but I don't see her as "tougher" ...

I always admire leaders, men and women alike, who strive to be equally tough and fair. Even if I may not like the decision of a leader, if it's delivered in a genuine matter with equal parts of heart and conviction, I respect it.

In some regards, yes. I don't think it's appropriate for a woman to appear emotional, just as I don't think it would be okay for a man to act that way at work either. It makes them look like they don't have control of themselves, or the situation. Most importantly though, I think women need to just have their game together, and be able to say a clear "yes" or "no".

No. Ultimately our culture, and that of many others around the globe, needs to firstly, be willing to support the development and advancement of women leaders. And secondly, we need to broaden our definition of what a leader is. If tough is the criteria by which we judge, then maybe so.....but what of compassion, or artful communication, or diplomacy, or divergent thinking, or strategic vision? I say women leaders need more opportunity and everyone else could do well to applaud a little louder and be willing to see some new results, since the tough guy leadership hasn't really been working all that well lately.

Not at all..There is no need for either men or women to act tougher.Instead, they would do good if they were more assertive.

Men who act tough don't come off as strong leaders. They come off as unable to tell the difference between leading and barking. So do women who act tough.

Most women are not taught how to be assertive without being overbearing, all of men’s sports and training teach this, some men learn better than others. Unfortunately, many women get a reputation as overbearing while they are mastering the techniques of assertiveness.

I’ve worked for many women who have (and some who have not) master being assertive without being boorish. I’ve also seen more women then ever who are really prepared to lead and are being given the responsibility they’ve earned.

Once a woman is an established leader, I think she's held to a similar standard as a man. I believe that young women trying to establish themselves do have to act tougher to make themselves candidates for leadership positions. I have watched it over and over again: a young woman who is smart and hard-working gets passed over because when senior leaders (sadly, still usually men) look at her and fear she just doesn't have the ability to lead the room, make the tough calls, handle conflict. Even well-meaning and fatherly executives just don't know if her sweet (often confused with polite, pleasant) nature can handle the rigors of leadership. Meanwhile a young man who is polite, pleasant, smart and hard-working seems like the perfect candidate for that leadership position without any reservations about his toughness. At those early stages it's about perception as much as reality so women are forced to make it clear that they can handle the rigors of leading. And then in those first leadership roles, everyone botches it (barking, wishy-washy, sometimes vindictive, etc.) and I think senior leaders are often more comfortable giving frank feedback to men than women. So, there are a lot of women leaders who fall by the wayside in that first critical job because they can't find the appropriate balance that everyone must strike.

Stacy's response is very articulate and I like the reasoning because it speaks to perception, but my push back is that asserting authority and acting tough are two different things and perception must not turn into projection. Perception therefore must not become the soil of projection, but the root for performance. If there is an element of "fake it till you make it" within the act, it is legitimate to stand your ground as one learns how to cope and ramp up their ability; but to act tough as a substitution for communication, can mean that the projection carries with it a fault-line of inferiority and any kind of fault line can become a self-defeating proposition, because the psyche must not just from strong roots but my mind which isn't occupied by peripheral projections - but can observe and reorientate any given situation. The most successful women I work with know the professional game inside and out but they also know the game because they come from a strong and solid foundation - and they won't allow their psyche to based or contaminated by any projection of fears; they base their game plan on establishing facts not presumptions. That is where it get most tough for a women, because they are held unfortunately many times to a higher standard than their male counterparts; but because they are being held to a higher standard, the psyche of the women that I work with, often turns qualitative disadvantage into an quantitative opportunity, and this becomes an opportunity to be that much more formidable, while retaining the strengths of remaining flexible and sensitive to be always moving forward from a position of strength and rather than from a position of weakness......M.

I think Stacy's post makes sense--but I'd expand it to include the fact that other young men were also passed up for those positions.

I'd like to conclude that observation with a spiffy extrapolation, but I don't have one.

Even for a man it's fastidious but of course especially in some country it's difficult for women, depens of the carecter...

To be a strong leader you have to be tough. For a woman it's more difficult to become a leader. Not in every sector of business, but in most kinds of businesses there are leader how are men.
Usually in Switzerland women have to do more.

To be a professional is to be neither male nor female. All leaders should lead with vision, authority, compassion and respect. To be a strong leader, one must have a strong vision that their teams will believe in, a strong work ethic so they can lead by example and presence which draws people in. In terms of dealing with conflict resolution or change management, one should not strive to be tough or emotional, rather one should strive to detail facts and present their case in as logical of a fashion as possible. A great leader is neither afraid to fail, to have smarter people than them in their organization and always wants to learn from those around them. Show that you are human and listen to the experts (the people actually doing the work); and your troops will defend you and want to see you successful to the end. My career has been built on kindness, analytical thinking, clear communication skills and treating others how I want to be treated. I have a lot of people continually loyal to me because I show loyalty to them. I am not afraid to have an opinion that differs from others because healthy conflict means lively debate, but I never use threats, insults or intimidation to get my point across. And sometimes I may say, I don't agree, I believe I am right, and for this instance I am going to follow my instincts and do what I need to do.

Cathy I read your astute response to this question and it made me think about my own professional standards and how familiarity or casualness may affect it - and immediately I thought of my response to an FC article called "Dead Man Walking by David Case" where I finished my response with the sentence ["I really am only going to significantly grow my learning if I continue to come across pieces that are incomprehensible to a dweeb thinker] - and while on any other day I wouldn't pay much regard to such an errant expression, I asked myself what value I added by expressing the words "dweeb thinker". Your point about following your instincts is what struck home and in that context, my intuition stabbed at me that I had erred in terms of my own standards in the response to Dave Case's article. So I have ended today with my chief take away being about the meaning of standards - from which stems both balance and integrity. Your words were very intelligently received and so did spark this realization within me, and I would like to thank you for having so eloquently expressing them - even though I realize they are related in context to the above mentioned question......M.

Mark ... thanks for seeing my stream of consciousness rant as eloquent. I am a woman in the software industry who has held many leadership roles from a team lead through director positions. I DO NOT believe in glass ceilings, or that woman are limited. I am a strong believer in free will and the ability for one to control their perceptions of life. I have been the only woman in the room for much of my career, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that I have no fear of failure, I am curious and I like challenges. I think that women assume they are emotional, overly detailed in communication and not assertive. Well I have met many men with the same self-doubts. I am a highly sensitive and intuitive creature, and that is what makes me a differentiator in my organization. I have a 360 view of things and can empathize with what others are saying and therefore typically have the best understanding of what is being said in the room. A lot of times I say very little and just listen, but when I do speak the room listens. So my soft side actually is my asset because I can build trusting relationships with people, and break through the toughest veneers with direct and professional communication. I am always questioning my ability to be a leader, and whether or not I am good enough. But in the end, it really boils down to one thing. We are like the leaders of an army. We have to have a vision, we have to keep momentum and morale high, we have to get our army to believe in us, and we have to respect them for going into battle each day for us.

Cathy I can identify with everything you are saying until I reach your last paragraph and that is where my emphasis is different. Everything you have spoken about to this point is leadership personified. It is ironic maybe that your last paragraph speaks to a battle, whereas as man, I speak to different kind of struggle - a paradoxical war, the war that is not a war. This is about identifying what we do in our lives through the lens of peace. I think that bringing peace, flow and evenness to an organization is the ultimate culmination for the leader. This is not about being a peace activist or about social responsibility, it is about viewing peace as a greater personal challenge than war and this is not an external war, it is an internal battle which one may signal as soul, but one must maintain as a factual and pragmatic view. This is not a challenge to what you are saying, it is a reframing, or looking at the same thing you are looking at through a peace lens rather than a war lens, viz looking at the same thing in a different way. To bring peace and order is a mighty leadership challenge, and this is where language matters. It matters because I think it improves victory, victory at the individual, team and organizational level. Sun Tzu in the Art of War says the strategist who wins is the one who does not have to fight. The kind of "peace" that I am addressing here is one that Sun Tzu would readily understand, and it is above all a practice, just as leadership in business is an entrepreneurial practice. For me it is not about having a discussion, it is all about practice. This is what I want to ride into town with, this is what I think the 21st Century should ideally be about. Of course I am not saying I am right, but this mentality feels right for me. I am not selling or pushing an argument upon anyone, my preference is that these things are thought through and not simply accepted carte blanche. This is my viewpoint but what I do believe in is the conversations that matter - for I tend to mostly diminish and regress in any form of triviality that my intuition would deem meaningless and the one thing you have discussed night is certainly highly meaningful, of course I also do recognize that at 1am I should be sleeping rather than thinking......M.

No, woman bring strength to an organization in many ways . There are MANY expressions of poor leadership which embody toughness that don't translate into a contribution to the bottom line. Women and men should focus on understanding the business and developing a style which aligns it's people, process and strategy in a way that makes sense.

Women should simply be who they are in business relationships. Acting with honesty, integrity and utilizing their intelligence to solve problems. Respect will then come naturally.

the word tougher may cause a problem , in as far as toughness is perhaps not the core of good leadership, many touh leaders have failed, the issue is becoming smart , women may tend to break down when things are tough but the solution is not in toughness alone.

Cathy i must say your views on this article are brilliant, they carry emotion and in there the arguement may become sidelined, my issue is that several women who are tough are not necessarily making leardership material ,email me at tevinmatovu@yahoo.com plse to join your blog

I'm not sure tougher is the correct word. I think assertive is the correct word. I have worked in various IT positions and worked my way up to Manager so far. I currently own my own company and planning on getting my MBA.

In my experience, because I have a good attitude and people respect me, I am used as the person to address issues and employees come up to me with their issues.

What I am struggling with in my current position, is where I make a suggestion to another manager about how we should go about solving a problem with technology and then the manager presents it as their idea at the next meeting. I believe this may be particular to this company as many people are in constant fear of losing their job. I am hoping that when I am ready, I will change jobs and work with a company where everyone works hard to get the best result and works together.

Just to throw this out there, does anyone know where one can find people that want to mentor others? I have so many questions and yet no one to talk to about them. Thank you all for your time and enjoy your Sunday.

No, they don't need to but most (those that I have encountered) tend to. I think the problem is the general image/perception we have of women in leadership positions - which offers the two extremes: the powerful b*tch or the lady Madonna. Cory Aquino, Golda Mier, Carly Fiorina, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Mother Teresa, etc. There seems to be a lack of middle ground based on talent and competency alone, not colored by the gender lense.

Tougher is not the long term successful approach. Knowledge expertise and the ability to communicate understanding of issues and problems and shape craetive concepts, solutions and thought provoking thinking that engages dialogue. Read the Fifth Discipline about dialogue, different than what we normally experience in corporate America.