Based on our class discussions this week and last week regarding employment and salaries, I decided to look up an article that mentioned the differences between having a female boss vs. a male boss. I have been interested in this topic because my mom voices her occasional struggles with having a male boss while she is a female in what is considered a "male occupation" -- chemistry/pharmaceutical. As I read this article that I found on this topic, I was interested in the statistics that were raised: there are only 24 women CEOs in the Fortune 500 companies and 27 in the Fortune 1000. I found this statistic interesting and it had me beg the question, are women less likely to be hired in such positions because there are simply not as many applying because it has been labeled by society as a "male position," or are very few women seen as "eligible" for the position on the employer's end based on the same notion? Also mentioned in the article is the fact that women appear to me more motivational bosses when they do posses a leadership position, whereas men are seen as more authoritative in the same position.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/52422/20150512/male-vs-female-boss-best-workplace-motivators-bosses.htm
Wow,that is super interesting that women tend to be more encouraging bosses while men are more authoritative. That fact really makes me wonder why more people wouldn't prefer women bosses- encouragement sounds way better than authoritative! On a separate note, I believe your two questions over why there are not enough women in male-dominated work forces could be a toss up. I feel like a lot of women are discouraged to join male dominated careers because they feel like they will be overlooked or unaccepted, however, I also believe that there are still a handful of men in high powered positions that do not hire woman purely based on gender. Therefore I think that the solution to this might just be for all people to become more open-minded, as well as self-assured. For example, women must become more confident in their abilities to compete on the same level as men, and men must be more open to accepting women to their level.
ReplyDeleteI really liked reading the article and it brought forward a great topic. I feel like when women are in "male occupations" especially leadership or authoritative positions, anyone below them questions their decision making or leadership for that matter. I used to work at a school for a very well known school district and the principal there was a female. She is very girly, walks in heels and pencil skirts daily, and is the opposite of what any other principal in the district dresses or acts like for that matter. The parents there often raged in there demanding changes in their children's teachers or demanding her to do things their way just because they assumed she was easily manipulated due to being a woman. Also the male parents were even more demanding and degraded her knowledge and spoke about her as not good enough for the position. A year later we had them add an assistant principal who was a male and things changed drastically. Parents were less demanding towards him and more accepting of his ideas and all he did was follow her commands and instructions except the parents didn't see that, all they saw was a male leader. I do have to say that since most teachers were females with the exception of two male teachers, most gravitated toward the female principal and often went straight to her because they felt more connected and understood by her. It was quite interesting and I also saw myself doing that quite often. Also, they were more likely to express congratulations towards each other when they saw improvements or reached a goal that they had set for each other.
ReplyDeleteAfter thinking about the statement women tend to be more encouraging bosses whereas male bosses tend to be more authoritative, I realized how true that was. I feel like male bosses have to give off a vibe of "if you mess up, I am the one who is going to punish you for mistakes," whereas a female boss may motivate other women in that company to strive to be in that position and in order to do so they act in a much more encouraging manner than authoritative. 27 women CEO's in the Fortune 1000 is a crazy statistic. After hearing this, just as you had occur, many questions came to my mind. What is the reason for women CEO's in this Fortune 1000 companies being so low? I think a large proponent is that the men CEO's try to separate themselves from the women CEO's and make it seem like the CEO world is only fit for men. It kind of made me interested to see if when one is applying for a job in a company if there was not a gender box that had to be checked so that they would end of giving interviews to the most deserving prospect, with gender not being a deciding factor. I am not sure if that is implemented in job applications but I think that would be really cool if it was because it would benefit both the company and men and women. The company would receive the candidate who is going to do the best job for them, and the selected prospect is going to be put in a position to succeed. I also think this could help women enter a company and whatever position it may be and then rise up to positions like a CEO. Interesting read and something I hope we definitely talk more about.
ReplyDelete