Having Woman Leaders Makes Business Sense

THERE’S A RUNNING JOKE IN OUR INVESTMENT BANKING CIRCLES – ‘WHY DID LEHMAN BROTHERS FAIL? – ‘BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT LEHMAN SISTERS!’ . JOKE APART, THIS IS PERHAPS AN IMPORTANT POINT TO PONDER OVER

- Rajesh Nair

Diversity is one of the most often misused yet one of the ‘cannot be ignored’ management concepts of today. When you hear senior businessmen vehemently aver that they “need more women in leadership positions…” it sounds more like hyperbole rather than a sincere attempt at bringing in diversity. The relegation of women from the higher echelons of organisations has a long historical context. Before we understand how to get the best out of them, we also need to decode the wide array of capabilities they bring on board. Traditionally from the beginning of time, the family concept has been that the man – ‘the hunter’ and the woman the ‘care-giver’. The physical attribute of man, meant he was the one doing the ‘hard work’ and the women doing the ‘soft work’. But giving birth, nurturing young ones and elder care is a million times more difficult than the hunting, agriculture and the like. To that extent, the word ‘managing’ and the noun ‘manager’ suits the women more than the men. Their ability to juggle work and balance priorities was degraded by branding it as ‘household’ work. The core issue is still, the pervasive mix of unconscious mind-sets, behaviour, and “blind spots” that normally colour our perceptions of gender.

Literature has also traditionally classified words like empathy, care and nurture as feminine words. These impressions over the years have excluded them from the active workforce. The industrial revolution further discriminated them from physically arduous work in mills and factories and provided employment to a handful in offices and the ‘paper environment’. The first real breakthrough was the healthcare and education sectors which seemed to favour their physical disposition and did adequate justice to their mental faculties.