Hormones on Wall Street

Would the financial crisis have happened or been as sever if more women were leading on Wall Street?

Probably not, and here’s why. (Be sure to read through to the last paragraph or you will miss a most important point.)

For decades, leadership has been seen and practiced as a male endeavor. There are many reasons for this, but expanding on them is not the point of this article. Leadership is the catalyst for all human potential. So how can leadership itself employ qualities that reflect less than 50% of the population? Successful leaders use the full spectrum of masculine and feminine attributes as needed.

Social science research indicates that men are seen as more inclined to be individualistic, domineering, control oriented and aggressive. Women are viewed as tending to build relationships and community; emotionally oriented, and supportive of others. Neither is better. Both are necessary.

Two years ago, I interviewed 25 men and 25 women who had at least 15 years experience in senior leadership roles. They all agreed that the presence of more women managers and leaders is changing how we think about leadership and the qualities that we value. They stated that leaders today need to think more intuitively, to collaborate, to use emotional intelligence, to be inclusive and to demonstrate support for others. The men and women in this study consider these qualities to be more typical of women. Decision making – a trait they saw as more masculine – remains very important, but aggressive behavior – also viewed as stereotypically masculine – is both less important and less acceptable.

This study sheds light on how events on Wall Street might have played out differently if more women occupied leadership roles. First, because women focus more on relationships and social values, they might have asked how building enormous wealth for a handful of individuals would benefit society. Women’s more inclusive and collaborative tendencies would also have invited diverse views to the table. One prevailing perspective would not have carried the day. Questions would have been raised. Alternatives would have been explored. We would not have seen entire leadership teams march like lemmings over the cliff.

For more substantive change to take place, at least three women are needed on each top leadership teams. With fewer than three members of any minority group, questions about the prevailing culture are often not raised, and if raised they are either ignored or discounted.

One of the underlying problems that led to the financial crisis is a leadership culture that does not question its own perspective and assumptions. Why? Because one group prevails and is over-represented, and when this is the case, the dominant view does not see its own assumptions. It simply swims in the water it creates, without really knowing that its environment is of its own creation. When the voice of those who see the water is under-represented that voice needs extraordinary courage to speak, and when it does so it is often ignored, not heard or discounted. Bear in mind, however, that if women had been over-represented and men under-represented, we would simply be having a different set of problems today. What we really need is a leadership culture that integrates masculine and feminine perspectives.

By Anne Perschel