Why do women leaders need to be perfect?

The different attitudes in the workplace toward women and men in leadership positions, is something that has personally been on my mind a lot lately. Also, however, I have been seeing parallels in the race for President.

This weekend, The Sacramento Bee published an article that discussed the difficult tightrope that women in power must walk in order to be successful. The article was titled Clinton faces historic hurdles. Here is just an excerpt:

While her gender is a strength in the Democratic primary, political observers say Clinton -- unlike male candidates -- may face a tortuous balancing act between projecting toughness and caring if she is to win in a general election.


Among some voters, she faces the nearly impossible demand of demonstrating "perfection as a woman and a leader at the same time," said Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, a New York group that provides training and support for women seeking political office.


"She is stepping into something much larger than her race: a real transition of what we expect of women and men," Wilson said. "It is being played out in the most powerful place possible. Imperfect men run for president all the time. But into one woman, we project all that we want."



In this frustrating battle, I definitely feel a sense of cameraderie with our Hills. As a strong woman with strong opinions and fewer of the typical female "warm fuzzies", I have definitely been on the receiving end of these often unrealistic expectations.


Be strong and firm but be warm and compassionate, all leaders are told. And while I don't have a problem with this theory in essence and don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive, the challenge comes into play when what compassion means (in other words how one exhibits compassion to the outside world, the behaviors that indicate compassion) is governed by social stereotypes of women in general.

I will clearly state here and now that my external displays of compassion are not what most would consider overtly feminine, in the traditional sense. I will admit that I am not the touchy-feely, sensitive, emotional woman. This does not mean I can not be "touchy-feely", that I'm not often sensitive, nor that I don't have emotions. What it does mean is that I do not display these qualities readily or openly in my daily life and especially in the workplace - it's just not who I am and I don't apologize for it. Sometimes, quite honestly, I don't feel them in order to display them and I'll cop to the fact that I'm not always in tune with others' moods or emotions. You want me to know how you feel? You gotta tell me.

Anyway, this is not about who I am or who I'm not, so back to the point...

While there are countless women's leadership classes devoted to developing a strong, assertive leadership style while maintaining feminine wiles, there are none devoted to helping strong, assertive women develop the behaviors of their compassionate, sensitive female counterparts. I think this is telling.

Here is the list of benefits for a Women's Conference I mistakenly attended a couple of years ago. It's just one conference but search the web and these kinds of seminars and workshops are a dime a dozen:

The Women's Conference will help you:

• Take on more leadership roles with self-assurance and confidence


• Communicate more assertively without losing your sense of self.


• Minimize high stress levels that leave you irritated and exhausted.


• Manage multiple projects and priorities without losing focus or control.


• Get the better of difficult people instead of falling victim to their tactics.


• Stay relaxed and in control through any level of crisis or pressure.


• Stop avoiding conflict and confrontation and learn how to use it to your advantage.


• Find out where your time's wasted and how to regain control of your day.


• Get what you need from anyone with negotiating strategies that assure your success.


• Finally know exactly where you want to go and how to get there.

The bolding is mine: key words that illustrate how we as a society assume women are, naturally. Genetically, it seems, women are supposed to lack self-assurance, confidence, assertiveness, and the ability to handle conflict and confrontation. We respond to stress emotionally and let it get the better of us, letting our environment control us instead of us controling it. Since we lack all these vital leadership skills by nature, we need to learn them.


You see, it is much more socially acceptable to be an emotionally driven woman struggling to acquire control and confidence, than it is to be a strong, confident woman to whom those other skills do not come readily.

For a while yesterday, as I was contemplating the Hillary article, I started to feel a little short-changed by this. Where were the classes that taught me to be a more 'whole' female leader? And yet at the same time, I developed an increasing sense of anger. I slowly realized this anger was driven by the last sentence of the SacBee article: But into one woman, we project all that we want.



Where, I wondered, were the workshops to teach male leadersto be less aggressive and more caring? I did a Google search and I have to say, I couldn't find one. (I'm sure they're there somewhere so please don't email me a list, but the point is they're not jumping out at us.)

Why is it that, as a female leader, I am expected to be all things to all people and yet my male counterparts get by on just half of the equation? Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad that men don't have to learn to be more "touchy-feely", I'm mad that I'm viewed negatively as a woman if I'M NOT!

I can't even tell you the number of times I've been "coached" on this very subject. Be more in tune with the motivations, wants, needs, desires of your staff. Ask them how their weekend was, remember their husband/child/dog/cat names and ask after them once in a while. Don't be so 'aggressive' in your communication style, tone it down. Speak a little more quietly and a little more slowly. Ask, don't tell. Sell, don't tell. Don't assert, don't be so direct, don't dominate the conversation. I've even been told (in both personal and professional situations) that as a strong woman, I actually scare people off and/or come across as controlling and 'bossy'.

Personally, this has shown up in my life with friends who, despite knowing me for exactly who I am, for some reason expect me to respond to them in a certain way that is not in line with my personality.

One time, a friend of mine was going through a particularly emotional situation. As always do when I see someone in distress, I responded to this by trying to cheer her up and provide a balanced perspective of her situation. My response initiated a huge blow-out argument where she told me I was unsympathetic, unempathetic, and that I minimized and/or dismissed the validity of her emotions. When I asked what she expected from me in this situation, she described the behaviors of someone else entirely. Now, I'm not pointing any fingers of blame at her because she was going through a tough time, but the reality was that she expected me to behave in a more 'female' way in response to her distress.

In another instance, I've been told by people that I work with that I'm not a 'people person' (and in this meaning that I put things vs. people first) quite literally because I don't behave in a way that displays these emotions the same way other women do.

In these cases, as in others, I have felt very misrepresented because I do feel that I put people before things and I do think that I'm a good friend, and I show both in many different ways I could name. In fact, I have had this conversation with some of these people, describing things I do do that demonstrate the depth of my emotion and caring. The response was always "Yeah, but you don't do this, this, this and this. And those are the behaviors that I associate with caring."

Again, these friends and colleagues read this blog and so to them I say, I don't blame you. I'm not pointing fingers. I understand where your expectations of me come from and I'm not saying you're wrong from wanting certain things from me as your friend or colleague, but this doesn't make it any less frustrating.

More recently, a man took over my old job. One thing that I didn't expect to see, and something that has take me by surprise, is how differently people respond to him when he displays certain behaviors; behaviors that were not considered appropriate for me. Off-color remarks are considered courageous not inappropriate; skipping steps and bulldozing through the process is seen as over confindence vs. carelessness; overbearing behavior is accepted not termed as controlling; a cavalier attitude is viewed as relaxed and friendly (in that casual, buddy-buddy way) vs. unsympathetic and unprofessional. Had I of done some of the things that this new person has done, I would have been labeled with all number of derogatory female terms. Again, I'm not judging his behavior, I'm judging those who interpret it.

So, why do expect women to be all things to all people? Why are women forced to turn themselves into pretzels to negotiate positions of leadership when, at the same time, we're willing to accept that men will often not come to the same table with all those things?

I was talking to my sister-in-law about this the other day. This, I said, is exactly why we will have a black male President before we have an (any color) female President. The black male stereotype does not threaten our ideas of a leader - black men are already categorized as strong - and all a man needs to do is display the capacity for compassion and caring and that's good enough for us. For women, we need to be everything to everyone all the time. Don't be too tough because you'll be viewed as a bitch, don't be too caring because you'll be viewed as weak. Imagine walking that tightrope in the public eye.

This, in part, is why I want to want to vote for Hillary Clinton. Somehow I think that, if she can do it, if she can walk this tightrope, then she might be able to show the way for the rest of us.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has so far failed to connect with me and I'm sure this is in part due to the unpresidented challenge of positioning a woman as leader of the free world. I really hope she figures it out, however. It would give a lot of hope to strong women.