Are Women More Collaborative and Men More Competitive?
David Shindler
Writer. Mainly. Coach. Often. Volunteer. Sometimes. Learning to Leap. Always.
Recent statements by some world leaders prompt this post about the relative merits of collaboration and competition in the world of work today. Are men more competitive than women? Are women more collaborative than men? What roles do gender and personality play? Let's look at the research and leadership implications.
Different world views?
Collaborating once had a negative reputation and used to mean treachery. Post-1945, it took on a more positive hue with the EU arising from the ashes and the express purpose of avoiding another world war. Over time, some people began to fear collaboration was morphing into ever closer union (merger). Meanwhile, others saw an opportunity for annexation (acquisition). Recently, the language has changed from collaboration to competition and foe. A globalised marketplace where only the strongest survive (protectionism), where competitors are gladiators and how you win matters (destroying, dismissing or demeaning your foes). When the playground bullies grow up without embracing adulthood.
Collaboration and competition are not mutually exclusive. Collaborating in business can be a competitive strategy. For example, local craft beer brewers are a thriving community who see the benefits of collaborating with each other, local bars, pubs, and food providers for events like annual beer weeks. This is win/win in action. Another example is internally where team collaboration and individual competition co-exist as I discovered in my recent interview with Clare Martin, Group HR Director of Jardine Motors Group:
We've just had our internal survey results. Our best teams have the highest scores with collaborative working. People say, “I work for East London Porsche” rather than “Sales”. Everyone owns the customer and that transposes into customer satisfaction scores. It's about 'how do we fix it together?' Yes, there is competition within the departments, traditionally with sales, but also with recognition programmes. People want to be the best.
It is also interesting to observe the rise of social enterprises since the financial crash. In part, they are a return to the values of the 'good' society, about giving and contributing for the greater benefit of all. Also, they respond to the call for more meaning at the individual level.
However, more widely, the denigration of collaboration and putting #mefirst erodes the fundamentals of trust. Companies may co-operate on the surface but feel under duress and the degree of trust can be superficial at best or more likely phoney. Genuine collaboration involves reciprocity, shared business ethics and a desire to achieve success together. In their absence, the risk is of weasel words where winning at all costs becomes unfair play and dirty tricks.
Competing world views can also lead to identity politics seeping into the workplace. What happens if the leader’s world view is competition as foe and your world view is collaboration? What if you believe in competition and the leader believes in collaboration? What does it mean for business practices and the impact of enablers like values, mindset, behaviours, skills, learning, and development? These questions present new choices for leaders (in taking people with them or directing them), existing employees (do I stay or go?), and potential employees (do I want to work there?). A danger is polarisation based on perceptions of leadership style. For example, I'm already seeing LinkedIn comments like "well, that's what liberals do".
The obvious paradox is that we live in a connected, networked, technology-enabled world designed to facilitate collaboration and often accelerating the process of disruption. Yet, it’s the human intent and purpose to which that technology is put that determines whether healthy collaboration or unhealthy competition dominates.
We can off-load some of our thinking if we are connected to smart and positive people. We are only as good as our networks, so we had better cultivate diverse and intelligent social networks. The alternative is to disengage from the world and stick with our ‘tribes’. This will only dumb us down over time. Harold A Jarche
The gender debate
More than a decade ago, American neuroscientist, Paul Zak of Claremont University, began measuring the brain activity of people while they worked. Eventually, his experiments proved his hypothesis that there is a neurological signal that indicates when we should trust someone. Why does this matter? Because trust is at the heart of collaboration.
Think of your brain as like a soup of neurotransmitters and hormones. One of these chemicals is Oxytocin. It is variously called the Trust Hormone, the Cuddle Hormone or the Moral Molecule. Why? Because neuroscientists can now show that the release of Oxytocin reduces anxiety and triggers virtuous behaviours for trust, love, bonding, warmth, and collaboration.
The neuroscience shows that Oxytocin is the brain chemical that produces the 'I believe in you/I want to help you' effect of followers towards leaders. It is the biological basis for the Golden Rule. It makes it feel good to co-operate with others by increasing our empathy for others.
Here’s where gender comes in. On average, women release Oxytocin more than men. Men release more Testosterone than women and it competes with Oxytocin, so Oxytocin can be stifled. Oxytocin shuts down under high stress and extreme competition. One stimulates competition while the other stimulates collaboration and co-operation. As Ken Nowack of Envisia Learning observes:
Zak’s findings support the observation that women tend to release more oxytocin than men, thus they directly contribute more empathy, cooperation and trust in interpersonal interactions. These hormonal differences might help explain the observed tendency for women to deploy more participative leadership behaviors relative to their male counterparts and naturally use transformational practices that emphasize teamwork, cooperation, networking and interpersonal support.
The personality debate
Another element in the mix is personality and the role of introversion and extraversion. Susan Cain, author of Quiet and champion of introverts, maintains in her book that there is a “New Groupthink” that elevates teamwork above all else. She sees a bias in the workplace towards being gregarious and a reverence for the crowd that has gone too far. Cain points to research showing working alone is more effective for creativity and personal productivity. She also challenges the benefits of brainstorming and an open-plan office culture. In essence, we have come to overvalue group work over solo thought, although her arguments have their critics.
However, Cain acknowledges that collaborating online is an enabler for introverts because you have more time to think before engaging than in a physical face-to-face meeting. She also accepts that face-to-face interactions create trust in a way they can’t online.
Cain concludes that collaborating face-to-face needs refining. She advocates a proper balance and healthy mix between the strengths and temperaments of introverts and extraverts in teams and leadership structures. She also argues for flexible workspaces to allow for collaborative interactions as well as private focus. This is backed up by recent Harvard Business School research suggesting intermittent collaboration might be better for complex problem-solving.
Leadership implications
What does the gender and personality research suggest? Different types may bring different results depending on your choice of leaders. For example, extravert female leadership characteristics might be more participative than introverted male ones. Some people are ambiverts, so we need to be cautious about assuming quietly powerful leaders are always introverts. Also, there are differing views on whether collaboration or solitude leads to exceptional creativity.
The neuroscience says that, more than men, women tend to use collaborative, participative and transformational leadership styles. If collaboration is how you want to position your business for "customer advantage", appointing and promoting more women as senior leaders may be your best bet.
It appears that neurobiological differences between genders might actually confer a leadership advantage to women that is necessary for just what organizations need today. Ken Nowack
However, it depends on who is doing the hiring. According to other research, employers favour men not because they are prejudiced against women, but because they have the perception that men perform better on average at certain tasks. Unconscious bias is a gender-specific feature in many studies.
We found showing sensitivity and concern for others—stereotypically feminine traits—made someone less likely to be seen as a leader. However, it’s those same characteristics that make leaders effective. Thus, because of this unconscious bias against communal traits, organizations may unintentionally select the wrong people for leadership roles, choosing individuals who are loud and confident but lack the ability to support their followers’ development and success. University at Buffalo School of Management
Finally, I should add the caveats that none of this is saying that all men are competitive and all women are collaborative, or men can't be collaborative and women can't be competitive. As the saying goes, we’re all unique – just like everyone else!
Let's start a conversation. What are your views?
(Photos via pixabay.com and psychologized.org)
If you liked this post, please share it and click the FOLLOW button above to get more!
David provides career and workplace coaching, develops mentors for apprentices, and is a blogger, speaker, and associate with several consultancies. He is the author of Learning to Leap: a guide to being more employable, and co-author with Mark Babbitt of 21st Century Internships (250,000 downloads worldwide). His commitment and energy are in promoting lifelong personal and professional development and in tackling youth unemployment. He works with young people and professionals in education and business. www.learningtoleap.co.uk @David_Shindler
Visit the Learning to Leap blog to read more of his work and check out his other published articles on LinkedIn:
How to Develop a Motivating Company Culture
Managing Up: Is This Fair For Inexperienced Graduates?
Why Genuine Strategic Listening is Essential for Success
Why Everyone Should Have a Mentor
Apprentices: How to Boost Support for Quality Mentoring
How to Face the Robots in the Infinite Career Game
Why Lack of Trust is at the Heart of Graduate Frustration
Are Career Opportunities the New Career Paradigm?
Setting and Reaching Goals: What Works for You?
Character: Be the Hero of Your Story
How to Be a Vulcan in a VUCA World
Early Career Dilemma: How to Manage Expectations
Let's Ditch the 'What do you want to do?' Career Advice
Father's Day: Learning From The Pleasure And The Pain
Employability: Do You Know How To Dance In The Digital Age?
New Career Opportunities In The Sharing And Gig Economies
New Graduate Hires: Why Managing Up Is Important
Work Readiness: Are You Lost in Translation?
Job Seekers: Test And Learn To Be A Game Changer
Career Adventures: Take A Walk On The Wild Side
Accountability, Productivity, And Saving Lives
Being Human In The Artificial Age
The Unwritten Rules Of Graduate Employment
Healthy Job And Career Transitions
Solutions For Closing The Gap From Classroom To Career
The Multiplier Opportunity In The Generation Game
Culture: The Quantified Self And The Qualitative Self
Purposeful Leadership To Create The Life Of Meaning
The Uber Effect: Opportunities For Job Seekers And Employers
Hierarchies are tumbling as Social soars
The Emergence of the Holistic Student
New Graduates: Following Is A Rehearsal For Leading
How Redefining Success Helps You Succeed
Why Developing Yourself Is A Matter Of Life And Death
Generation Now: The Imperative Of Intercultural Skills
#If I Were 22: Choose Insight Before Hindsight
How To Align Talent, Careers, and Performance