Women leaders: Nature and nurture
By Richard Arvey, For The Straits Times
THIS year in some ways marks a milestone for women in the world in general, and in Singapore in particular.
The full range of factors determining the identity of leaders is still not fully understood. Genes account for about 30 per cent and identifiable work and life experiences account for another 10 to 15 per cent. The source of the remaining 50 per cent is yet to be discovered.
Women leaders have increasingly made their mark in the world. The United States almost had a woman president but settled for a female Secretary of State in Mrs Hillary Clinton. Britain, India, Pakistan, Finland, and Germany have already had women heads of government. The commercial sector now has more women in top management positions. The number of female CEOs among Fortune 500 companies increased from 12 to 15 this year. Included in the list is PepsiCo’s India-born Indra Nooyi. 2009 also marks the first time in DuPont’s more than 200-year history when a woman led it.
Singapore, after 44 years of independence, finally had its first full-fledged woman minister in Mrs Lim Hwee Hua. This was significant as it shattered the so-called glass ceiling for women in local politics. Aptly, the ruling People’s Action Party also celebrated the 20th anniversary of its women’s wing this year.
Significantly, women make up 20 per cent of Singapore’s Parliament, yet asked more than 40 per cent of the questions in the legislature.
As Singapore prepares itself to welcome more women in leadership positions, it might be instructive to re-examine what factors encourage or discourage women to become leaders.
The reasons women cite for not taking up leadership roles include work-family conflicts. Some also cite a politically sensitive reason: namely, that there may be genetic factors that predispose some to move into leadership roles and others not. The notion that genetic differences may play a role in determining which women assume leadership roles is controversial.
Our research on this issue used a twin methodology where sets of identical and fraternal female twins were examined. The greater genetic similarity of identical twins compared to fraternal twins signalled the prominence of genetic factors in their behaviour. Our data indicated that both genes (one third) and the environment (two thirds) played roles in determining the leadership potential of women.
Besides investigating the genetic determinants of leadership, we also studied two sets of environmental influences: family experiences and work experiences. Family experience included the influence of religion, parents and siblings; while work experience included among other things unexpected opportunities, the presence of mentors, and training and development experience.
We found that a woman’s attainment of leadership positions is associated with several of these environmental influences, the most important being training and development experiences. Women who did have training opportunities were more likely to occupy leadership positions.
Hence, a variety of environmental factors do play a role in enabling women to become leaders. Nurture does make a difference.
We also observed that some of these environmental factors are inheritable – that is, nature can influence nurture. Here are examples:
Leadership-talented children are likely to have leadership-gifted parents, who provide them with both the genes and an environment conducive to the development of leadership capacities. Individuals who possess leadership potential may have parents in leadership roles – and thus a family environment conducive to developing their leadership acumen.
The leadership abilities of individuals can evoke responses from others that further nurture those abilities. For example, leadership-talented individuals may be identified in school or at work and given opportunities to assume leadership roles in lower-risk environments, which prepare them for leadership roles later in life.
Individuals can create for themselves environments conducive to developing their leadership potential. This includes attending courses to train for leadership positions or putting oneself in situations that afford opportunities for leadership.
Though studies on leadership do provide some insight, the full range of factors determining the identity of leaders is still not fully understood. Genes account for about 30 per cent and identifiable work and life experiences account for another 10 to 15 per cent. The source of the remaining 50 per cent is yet to be discovered.
There are many kinds of experiences that can propel individuals into leadership positions. Obviously, there must be an environment where opportunities for leadership exist and there is a vacuum for individuals to move into leadership roles. There can be some kind of leadership ‘crisis’, enabling someone to step into the role. There can be all kinds of push and pull in the environment and even luck can make a difference.
What makes for a leader cannot as yet be reduced to identifiable genetic or environmental factors.
The writer is head of the Department of Management & Organisation, NUS Business School
Related posts:
[...] This post was Twitted by DrAlisonEyring [...]