INTRODUCTION
Alice Weidel – leader far right-wing AfD party Germany
Welcome to this month’s discussion.
If I were an academic the piece would have been titled something like ‘Women: Diversity and Representation in Leadership Roles’. Such an anodyne title would be less likely to trigger the explosive emotions any discussion of gender roles necessarily involves. It’s a very, very prickly subject.
Sometimes,however, the time comes when it’s in everybody’s interest to call a spade a spade and have an open discussion on what is, incontrovertibly, an important topic. There’s no better time to do that than now.
In an attempt to separate fact from fiction, realities from stereotypes and evidence from wishful thinking I have probably crowded too much detail into one essay. That makes it long, heavy going and stodgy in parts. Sorry, but that’s the only way to drive home the point that the usual ‘misogynist versus misandrist’, boxing match to debate gets us nowhere.
As always, your feedback is welcomed.
THE SUPERIORITY OF DEMOCRACY
Those living in a democracy have little doubt they live in the best of political systems. It seems blindingly obvious in comparison to how people live under other systems. Who would prefer to live in an autocracy or single party state, a dictatorship, a military junta, a theocracy or absolute monarchy? The gap between the many variants of these alternatives and democracy is so wide we rarely examine the system in which we live in any depth. We just accept the obvious, Lucky us!
So convinced are we in the superiority of our democratic ways we regularly try and ‘export’ our system to other countries-by force of arms if necessary (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan are obvious cases) – or by more covert operations conducted with the same goal in mind. Democratic state militaries (alliance troops) often report initial surprise when locals in these unfortunate countries don’t embrace them as liberators but rather as invaders. We’re the good guys. Are you people crazy! ‘Why are you shooting at us?’ In the not-so-distant past Christian missionaries attempting to save the souls of poor heathens were often confronted by a similar lack of enthusiasm. We are all too fond of assuming that everyone should think the same way we do.
At home we operate on equally simple and reassuringly comforting assumptions. What other system gives every adult (barring those who have failed to enrol, those of unsound mind, those serving a prison sentence of 3 or more years or the almost – none who have been convicted of treason) the vote. What could be fairer than that? We all get that right to vote at three levels of government (Federal, State and Local). And we get to do it regularly.
Surely that’s representative democracy at its best?
We get a say in who stands in our electorate (if we join a political party or stand as an independent ourselves) and, via our vote, we have an equal say in who runs our local council, our State (via the election of MPs/MLCs) and the Federal Government (by voting for MPs and Senators).
None of this came about without many a struggle. Early democracies weren’t based on universal suffrage. The ‘one person, one vote’ version we espouse took thousands of years to become a reality. It wasn’t until 1893 (in New Zealand),1902(in Australia),1920 (in America) and 1926 (in Britain) that women had that right…..or the right to stand for Parliament. Those in power (usually, but not always, some form of privileged patriarchy) only relinquish their power with reluctance
LINGERING PROBLEMS
Some bruises of the past are still with us in matters of political ‘representation’.
In spite of all the recent catch-ups women are still underrepresented in leadership positions in government and big business (the higher paying jobs) and overrepresented in the nurture/caring and servicing sectors (the lower paying jobs), even where there is equivalency in job function, women are still paid around 10% less than men.
Most accept this view of the world is a reasonably realistic one.
The feminist movement (and other groups who believe they are discriminated against or marginalised) have, understandably, been in the vanguard of trying to remove or redress the old prejudices and discriminatory practices that are still sufficiently embedded in society to act as brakes in moving toward gender (and other) equality. In a desire to accelerate the rate of change, friction and heated arguments often surface. In large part this is so because parties on different sides believe different ‘stories’ as to what democracy is and/or what it could and should be. So, before moving forward it, makes sense to have a quick look at how these different stories shape and colour how people react.
Most voters accept the model of representative democracy as described in the couple of paragraphs above. All citizens can vote or candidates/politicians who they believe will best represent their interests. That’s a rather simplistic view of how things work in the real world.
It doesn’t allow for the machinations of political parties in their quest to market themselves in ways that will secure (and keep them in) office, the role of factions and personal career ambitions in party politics, the need to attract funding/ donations from ‘friends’ and ‘supporters’, the accommodation of lobbyists and vested interests.
It doesn’t allow for the labyrinthine parliamentary processes of reaching compromises that so often seem to produce outcomes which have little to do with what voters hoped their local member, your representative, would achieve for them or their community.
Nonetheless it’s the model voters think gives them control over the political class-and they’re happy with that, to leave things the way things are.
CALLS FOR REFORM
Some (those more determined to promote ‘true’ equality) have a different idea as to what ‘representation’ truly means. They take a rather literal and statistical approach.
Some feminists, for example, argue that as women represent 50% of the population (it’s actually51%) they won’t be happy until 50% of politicians are women. They make the same demands with respect business boards, executive positions, senior bureaucratic positions, the professions etc.
As things move slowly (which they nearly always do in matters of career advancement) some go on to advocate affirmative action or the setting of quotas to achieve those goals. Why (they argue) should women be subjugated any longer? Men have had it all their way for far too long. So what if there’s some collateral damage for men in the short run, because of quotas/affirmative action ,that’s a price that has to be paid for justice?
Others apply the same logic to ethnic proportionality (ie. so many guaranteed positions for First Nations People, the Chinese, Muslim and those of other diasporas etc.). Still others want to see affirmative action or quotas based on other criteria (such as disability).They, again, argue that justice demands such representation.
Justice is not the only reason given to support such demands.
It is also quite plausibly claimed such representativeness brings wider and different life experiences and perspectives into the parliaments and businesses of the land, thereby making them more responsive to community needs and wants-a result that benefits all. As a nation we’re testing those hypotheses at the moment. Never has diversity in government been higher than it is now.
Others advance even stronger versions of this ‘added value ‘ story. Again gender is the frame of reference used here.
DIVERSITY AND PERFORMANCE
Forbes magazine (the US business class’s bible )recently (March 7, 2024) carried an article by Dr. Samantha Madhosingh titled “Women Bring Distinct Qualities that Significantly Enhance Organisational Success”. Here is an extract from that piece,
-“They (women) approach leadership with a heightened capacity for leadership, with a heightened capacity for empathy, connection building and inclusiveness according to years of research on female executives”-
Others are less modest in their claims.
Naturalhr (an international human resources company) proffers “Ten Reasons why The World Needs More Women in Leadership Roles”. The bullet points on their website include,
•unique transformational ideas will be brought to the front …•enhancement of teamwork …•women demonstrate superior leadership values …•business wide communication can be enhanced …•achieve a better financial outcome…•women leaders can provide better mentorship … •the ability to wear many hats.
One is tempted to at least agree with this last claim without demur.
As exciting and attractive as such claims may be, they nonetheless deserve scrutiny.
To add weight to such claims of ‘value added diversity’ it’s become almost de rigueur to start (or finish) discussions on the subject with the phrase ‘research shows.
Protagonists like to claim ‘science’ supports their assertions. Playing the ‘science’ card adds credibility to one’s beliefs and deeply held convictions. So let’s start with research
Well, what does research actually say?
It might come as a surprise that the results of serious research are equivocal. Some studies show greater female representation has positive results, some say it makes no discernible difference and some that results are negative.
Research in this area is complex. There are so many interacting factors that isolating the impact of gender balance (which is but as one of many variables involved) is a high degree of difficulty task. The fields of leadership studied differ (politics, business) the level of leadership differs (board, executive, operational), the type of activity differs (manufacturing, care, financial) – and on it goes. There’s almost unlimited ways of cutting the cake.
Another problem is how to measure success? In business, financial results (return on assets or return on investment) are often used because they are objective, relevant, ‘measurable’ and desirable outputs for any business. Even here the results of research are (as well see below) by no means clear. But what do you, what can you, measure in more wooly areas such as politics, the public service and the caring professions to test hypotheses like those above? Few have satisfactorily addressed these questions.
Others advance even stronger versions of this ‘added value ‘ story. Again gender is the frame of reference used here.
THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE
Here is a brief review of the studies referenced by Chinese researchers (K Wang, J Ma, C Xue and J Zang-2024). Their own study of Gender Diversity on Japanese Boards puts them in the negative camp.
Positive Differences Found by,
•Mahadeo et al 2012 (Mauritius)
•Liu et Al.2014 (China)
•Sabatier et al.2015 (France)
•Brahma et al .2021 (UK )
•Garanina & Murravyev 2021 (Russia)
•Sanan & Selarka2021 (India)
No differences found by,
•Kagzl & Guha 2018 (India)
•Marinova et al 2016 (Netherlands)
•Yasser 2012 (Pakistan)
•Ararat & Yurtoglu 2021 (Turkey)
•Carter 2010 (US)
NegativePerfromance/Output Differences Reported by,
•Shehata et al2017 (UK )
•Mirza et al 2012 (Pakistan)
• Akram 2020 (Pakistan)
•Ahmad et al 2020 (Malaysia)
•Lim 2019
•Abdullah 2014
These studies used different samples, different data and different evaluative criteria (usually financial, ROA or ROI) so it is difficult to guarantee their quality – or comparability. All that can be said with certainty is that , internationally, there is little hard evidence one way or the other. This is not an unusual in matters sociological. In the late 19th century many eugenicists, for example, claimed ‘science’ proved such things as the superior IQs of whites. What was ‘proved’ then strikes us as nonsense now. There are many other examples of once similar certainties have found their way into history’s wastepaper basket.
So if research at least (so far ) hasn’t been able answer the question of whether gender diversity helps boost something as concrete as a company’s $ returns, what chance does it have of proving the validity or otherwise of the far fuzzier claims about the added value of ‘ empathy , insight etc.? Not much.
We can, however, avail ourselves of common sense, history and lived experience.
COMMON SENSE AND A LITTLE HISTORY
Let’s apply a little common sense to evaluating those value-added hypotheses.
Before doing so it’s important to clarify what that does and doesn’t entail.
There can be no doubt that, in politics, at least the greater representation of some women in our parliaments has led to significant changes in gender equality across a broad range of endeavours including the workplace, same sex marriage, sexual freedom and a focus on domestic violence. Other women in our Parliament have resisted or sought alternative policies on such matters. But it’s incontestable that without increased female representation change in these areas would have been far slower.
None of those achievements is being challenged or undervalued here.
What we’re looking at are claims that all women, as a gender, bring special (if not unique) skills to the process of government and leadership, skills that men as a gender, lack.
History has taught us different religious, ethnic, ideological and class groupings have forever claimed special skills, insights and capabilities in different times and different circumstances. Fashions change. There’s nothing as permanent as change- (hard and soft).
History also teaches us you’ll always find variation within any human cohort on any human characteristic (be it physical, mental or ideological) you care to name. Humans are not clones.
THE BELL CURVE
A short discussion of IQ scores illustrates the point I’m attempting (with some difficulty) to make.
As there’s near scientific consensus that there are no significant gender difference between men and women in terms of general intelligence, we can talk about people in general.
Most people group around the 100 level (80-120),a few score higher and even fewer (a small tail) reach the near genius level of 140 plus. It’s the same on the equally sized downside, a few score lower than a 100 and some (a small tail) test at 70 or less.
Most human characteristics exhibit a similar distribution pattern -that of a ‘bell’ – with most people falling underneath the crown and upper waist of the bell and fewer and fewer as you move to the lips on either side. That’s why it’s called a bell curve. It’s the uniform, equal-sided distribution pattern found in many attribute and performance fields.
So what? We’re not talking about general intelligence here nor suggesting one gender has higher IQs than the other. That’s true, but what that bell curve distribution suggests is that we’d expect to find most women will perform pretty much the same in any given field of endeavour. Yes, there will be a few obvious super performers and a few obvious flops. So we have to be very careful in talking about women as if they were a homogeneous group in the same way we should avoid talking about men as if they were all the same.
Bearing that qualification in mind let’s look at how women in power actually perform. How well do they live up to the claims of the ‘added value’ theorists
This is not an easy task given that the women we most hear about are politicians, businesswomen and influencers varying from members of the fourth estate to entertainers. We know far less to nothing about everyday working women – and that’s a limitation. Unfortunately, it is one we’ll have to live with in this exercise.
It’s also not an easy thing to do particularly in the case of women given that so many are relatively new to office, that some have power within parliament and or their parties and others not, the wide variety of positions they hold, the type of issues that cross their desks, the priorities of their electorates – and that so much depends on their visibility and how they perform in the media. In the end all assessments of individual female politicians are inherently subjective, imperfect. Mine included.
Notwithstanding such limitations here I go.
RECENT FEMALE AUSTRALIAN POLITICIANS.
Those who’ve added positive value – those who’ve performed.
•Julia Gillard: There’s no question she fought to counter sexism in both politics and the community. There were lapses (such as her failure to support same sex marriage) but when it came to confronting misogyny, she definitely made a difference. As Australia’s first female PM she broke many of the sexist stereotypes that held women back in politics. Gender justice was her forte … her post political career has continued down that path. Her record in other areas is more mixed. Overall, however, she performed at least as well as most of her male PM counterparts, both before and since her tenure.
•Penny Wong: Arguably the most able Foreign Affairs Minister the Country’s had in many a year. Being of Chinese-Malaysian heritage, and living in a same sex relationship, she had to overcome biases that mitigated against her rise. That she did so must encourage other women to follow. Her principled, balanced and sane public performances have led to her being polled as Australia’s most trusted politician.
•Gladys Berejiklian: During the Bushfires and Covid crises this previously reserved Premier of NSW stood centre stage day after day exhibiting true empathy and support for the anxious and those under threat. Few male politicians have equalled her performance in giving heartfelt succour in times of need. That misjudgements born of an affair de coeur brought her down was a tragedy for her, and a loss to the State.
•Jacqui Lambie: Yes, Jacqui Lambie because this Indigenous woman has the courage, the bravery to unambiguously tell it as she sees it without fear or favour. Her bravery in this regard stands in stark contrast to the timidity and obfuscation exhibited by many in our political class, be they male or female.
There are quite a few others that could easily be added to this short list. I’m tempted to add a few more but won’t. You probably have your own ideas as to who should be on this list or query whether some of my nominations deserve to be in this category at all. Feel free to replace them with your own nominations. But when doing so remember that we are looking for women who, by dint of their gender, have added value to the practice of politics by demonstrating the attributes referred to in the Forbes and Naturalhr pieces earlier outlined in this discussion.
Next, let’s look at the characteristics of female politicians who have, arguably, underperformed in ways that have set back the causes or caused unproductive divisions they support. The other side of the coin.
I, like most people, don’t feel comfortable naming anyone and then making negative comments about their performance, especially so when all one has to go off is the public side of their life. But as we’re talking about performance claims, assessments must be made.
Here are mine.
•Pauline Hanson: An authentic right-wing populist who advocates a traditional Australian suburban lifestyle circa 1960 – someone who wants to see the Country return to such romantically nostalgic days. Those not sharing her vision are blamed for all and everything that goes wrong in society, especially so if they were born overseas in Asia, the Middle East or India; indeed anything from overseas (including investment) is viewed suspiciously. Her ‘set in aspic’ model of Australia is intolerant of diversity and those seeking a vibrant multi-cultural future. She is not a bad person. She bleives what she says but, that doesn’t make her less destructive.
•Lydia Thorpe: A self-appointed warrior for First Nations People who has no interest in reconciliation or working in unison with those who can’t trace their lineage back to pre-white settlement. Her ambition is to wreak revenge on the intruders by way of compensation …and securing permanent, special privileges for those identifying as Indigenous. Her weapons are rage, denigration, inflexibility and hate.
•Mahreen Faruqi: A highly educated (Phd) immigrant who arrived in Australia from Pakistan with her family in 1992. A self-proclaimed feminist and anti-racist, the deputy leader of the Greens often seems disinclined to pay others the respect and courtesy she demands be shown to her and (inter alia) Muslim Australians. Her comment on the death of Queen Elizabeth (which attracted widespread criticism) exampled a tendency to demonise the Anglo/European population of this Country as the flawed spawn of colonialists who continue to oppress and marginalise others. Her public utterances demonstrate an angry impatience to change Australia to suit her view of what the Country needs to become. Her style is didactic. She often seems uninterested in what others of a different point of view have to say.
Again you may disagree with my choices or find my comments distorted or wrong. Again you are free to nominate who if anyone, you think belongs in this category.
The above discusses but a handful of the many women who sit in our parliaments (the outliers on the bell curve). Women hold just under 40% of ‘seats’ in Federal Parliament -a proportion higher than the average of (34%) in OECD countries. Sothere are plenty more women politicians to place on the spectrum.
Where ( in this hypothetical exercise )would you approximately position such high profile women such as Jacinta Allan …Kristina Keneally … ,Marise Payne …Julie Bishop …Linda Reynolds … Michealia Cash …Linda Burney… Claire O’Neil … each and every one of the TEALS …Anna Palaszczuk …Kristy Mc Bain …Jane Hume …Jacinta Nampijinpa Price …Eve Lawler …Sara Hanson Young , …Tanya Plibersek?
When you’ve finished that list you’d still have another long ,long list of lesser knowns to go if you’re interested in trying to ‘prove’ the value added theories from a statistical viewpoint .
No matter what reasonable, performance criteria you choose to position any individual (and by reasonable I mean criteria other than ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ based on personal biases, prejudices or simplistic stereotypes) and you’ll probably (and properly) end up with some rough approximation of bell curve.
Yes, there will be a clustering around the centre (the average) but also reasonably sized shoulders on either side petering out to opposite extremes.
All this is a rather fancy (and probably unnecessary and irksome) way of getting to the point of saying all women aren’t the same in their leadership (performance, empathy or understanding or mentoring etc) skills. Neither are men. Men aren’t a homogenous group either.
Nor do all women possess demonstrably superior (yet alone unique ) skills to all men, (or vice versa). Individual differences are to be found both within and between genders…there’s plenty of skill and attitudinal overlaps between genders to give our politicians plenty of scope to work together in cooperation .
Believing the genders are destined to remain forever in combat with each other because women come from a different planet (Venus) to men (Mars) promotes conflict, not progress. It’s more than plausible to posit the opposite by pointing out there are just as many internal battles between the women of Venus as there are between the men of Mars.
What separates us is how we come to believe what we believe – and that’s in part a matter of where we’re born, brought up and educated. It’s also a function of where we stand in the class system, our religion, culture and life experiences. Gender is but part of that mix.
A LITTLE CONTEMPORARY HISTORY
Enough theory.
In good times, the fair-weather times of economic comfort and confidence, our political class tends to focus on issues such as individual rights, equality and justice. When storm clouds threaten things can quickly change. And that’s just what’s happening across Europe at the moment. Right across Europe (in France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Poland and Spain) this year’s EU elections have seen voters move, in significant numbers,to the right and far right .
Voters in these democratic countries are retreating to self-protective (sometimes xenophobic) policies, a closing off of their borders to immigration, a turn inwards to protect their economic well-being and ‘cultural integrity’ and exhibiting a growing scepticism of the benefits of being in an European Union. In short things are getting heated – and regressive. Intolerance of others is again on the rise.
The surprise is that women politicians are often in the vanguard of these rightward moving populist parties.
Le Pen is within striking distance of winning the next election in France. Meloni is already PM in Italy (the first woman in Italy’s history to achieve that post and the leader of the first far right government since WW2)….and Alice Weidel is co-leader of the the ultra-conservative, populist AfD party in Germany (now the second largest party in the country). Weidel seems to have all the credentials for leading a progressive party. She holds a Phd in economics, is an investment bank economist, looks and dresses like a patrician and has been in a long-term same sex relationship with a Sinhalese film maker. Yet she co-leads a now large, xenophobic party!
Worryingly, a growing number of younger women are standing as candidates for AfD and other right leaning parties. The young of both sexes are increasingly voting for them. There’s a trend underway here. And while the leaders of these parties express empathy for their members they certainly don’t willingly extend that empathy to outsiders.
Those that can remember Margaret Thatcher’s lurch to right in the 1980s know that two other Conservative Party PMs (May and Truss) sort of followed in her footsteps, although they were far less successful in achieving their ambitions. There is yet to be a woman leader of The Labour Party, yet alone a woman Labour PM, in the UK in spite of the fact women hold 47% of Labour seats.(the comparable figure in Australia is 53%).
Gender equality in Parliamentary numbers, by itself, doesn’t necessarily improve things very much. The real power women ( and by that I mean all women not just those in leadership positions) have to change things lies in their vote – and how they use it. Choosing to vote for a candidate on the basis of their gender is not a clever way to use that power. It’s far more important women (and men )spend time thinking about who the best candidate is – and then voting for them, irrespective of whether they’re male or female, straight or gay, coloured or white, attractive or plain.
America provides an example of the potential power ordinary women voters already have to change the direction of US politics.
This year’s Presidential election in the US will probably see a majority of male voters back the Republican Party (sorry….I got that wrong,I meant the Trump party….sorry, again, I really meant Trump the man, the egoist). There’s not much that can be done to change that. The numbers are too big and too locked in to expect a last-minute miracle. The pathology behind men’s choice is too big a topic to address here. So it truly is up to women voters to stop the return of the Donald. Women definitely have the power to do just that.
The prospect of women humanising politics in the US is, however, slim as long as around 40% of American women continue to poll as being ready to vote for Trump this November. That figure is down from where it was in 2020, but still high enough to probably get Trump across the line.
Here is a chance for women to prevent that disaster from happening. Let’s hope they exercise their better judgement and refrain from following through on those reported voting intentions. If they don’t, hard times are ahead not only for the world’s most powerful democracy but for democracies all ‘round the world.
This time the future of America is very much in women’s hands, the hands of ordinary women of every age, income, racial background, education level and sexual orientation because each of them is equally represented in a one person – one vote electoral system. They suffer no discrimination in this regard. That’s representational justice. Justice amid diversity,
IN CONCLUSION
Some will always believe greater female representation in positions of power and influence will, of and by itself, lead to all sorts of improvements in virtually every area of societal endeavour.
Such thinkers support that claim by arguing the mix of distinct leadership styles, different skill sets and (some ) superior(if not unique) attributes women can bring to the tables of decision makers makes for better decisions and better results all round. A corollary of this way of thinking is males are weaker in, or simply deficient of, some elements in this leadership mix and are therefore destined to continue making inferior decisions and turning in sub-standard performances forever – unless they have women leaders sitting alongside. It’s hardly the sort of message most men could be expected to embrace with enthusiasm. Nonetheless it’s a bitter medicine that must, we’re told, be swallowed in the interests doing things better for all.
This is a ying-yang way of looking at the world with a strange, added statistical twist that somehow demands that the full benefits of such a union can’t be achieved unless there’s a 50-50 gender balance in the room. Many stereotypes about differences in the leadership capacities of men and women have been born and propagated from these roots. They have a wide and popular following, a following reassured and inspired by claims that ‘research’ proves these promised performance improvements do happen, that diversity works.
Research proves no such thing. As we saw research results are equivocal. Enthusiasts may cherry pick studies whose findings support their beliefs to give faux credibility to their claims. That’s marketing, not science.
Men are not a homogeneous group-they range from men like Mandela to those more like Putin. Women aren’t a homogeneous group either -they range from Joan of Arcs to Madame de Fages. There’s wide diversity within genders, and there’s strong overlaps, commonalities, between genders. We are more alike than different. We are not forever destined to be in competition with each other. There are plenty of bridges between us. Let’s build on them rather than burn them .
In the final analysis we should treat people on their merits, elect them because of their suitability (motivations and talents) and employ them in business based on their expertise and experience. Gender shouldn’t play a key role in making those decisions.
Julia Gillard said,
– “All my life I’ve believed men and women have equal capabilities and talents, consequently there should be equality in life’ chances” –
Gloria Steinem said,
– “A feminist is anyone who recognises the equality and full humanity of women and men” –
John Legend (the Afro-American multiple award-winning entertainer) said,
– “All men should be feminists. If men care about women’s rights the word will be a better place. We are better off when women are empowered, it leads to a better society” –
I agree with all three of them.
___________________________________
Postscript: Originally my intention was to explore ‘the value added through gender diversity’ argument by use of a limited number of case histories in business. I ran out of space to do so in this article. Apologies. l can do that in the future if you wish. I assure you the stories here graphically illustrate that greed, money, power , prestige and self-interest are to be found at the big end of town – and that members of both genders willingly and enthusiastically play such games. Drop me an email if you’re interested.