I have worked for many male and many female led organizations. Since life is too short, I only work for high achievers who do amazing things. Nevertheless, I have observed that the rules of workplace status differ between the two organizations. Actually, the rules of workplace status differ in every organization as the leader sets the tone. However, since we are generalizing, I wanted to express my thoughts to see what people thought.
Steve Blank describes this as a competition vs collaboration model. I think it's better to take it to the school yard and it's about play fighting vs. social belongingness which are each expensive strategies that require total investment and exclude each other.
Men (let's say) usually play fight to determine the pecking order. Aggression for men is like a status bubble sort: continuously comparing and swapping status with your peers. This strategy consumes energy continuously, but transactionally.
Women (let's say) often mistake play aggression for real aggression and respond inappropriately, thereby losing the game.
Women (let's say) have a different status game. While it's usually described as building relationships, I think that's not quite it play fighters build relationships too. The other game is about constantly demonstrating support of other people around you. This is more like neural networks: reinforce connections or prune them. This strategy also consumes energy continuously, but over time.
Men (let's say) often make a mistake of not responding correctly and come off as insensitive.
If we are truthfully generalizing, none of this really matters since every leader is different so you'll have to adapt skillfully to your situation. Trust me: gender is not a true signal of which strategy is in play.
Lessons:
1. Learn how to be acutely aware to your organization's status game and play accordingly.
2. When you're in power, make sure you create a productive status game and enforce accordingly.
Steve Blank describes this as a competition vs collaboration model. I think it's better to take it to the school yard and it's about play fighting vs. social belongingness which are each expensive strategies that require total investment and exclude each other.
Men (let's say) usually play fight to determine the pecking order. Aggression for men is like a status bubble sort: continuously comparing and swapping status with your peers. This strategy consumes energy continuously, but transactionally.
Women (let's say) often mistake play aggression for real aggression and respond inappropriately, thereby losing the game.
Women (let's say) have a different status game. While it's usually described as building relationships, I think that's not quite it play fighters build relationships too. The other game is about constantly demonstrating support of other people around you. This is more like neural networks: reinforce connections or prune them. This strategy also consumes energy continuously, but over time.
Men (let's say) often make a mistake of not responding correctly and come off as insensitive.
If we are truthfully generalizing, none of this really matters since every leader is different so you'll have to adapt skillfully to your situation. Trust me: gender is not a true signal of which strategy is in play.
Lessons:
1. Learn how to be acutely aware to your organization's status game and play accordingly.
2. When you're in power, make sure you create a productive status game and enforce accordingly.