Media Curmudgeon

« Neil Derrough Comments | Main | The Media Curmudgeon Responds »

February 13, 2007

Bill Grimes Comments

This is a thought-provoking "Curmudgeon" (as all usually are) and not just because a good Republican friend of yours was cited for his belief that Hillary might be an attractive presidential candidate because she may well be more compromising than she often appears. The main reason is, of course, that it seems impossible today to argue that women should not be represented in positions of leadership and authority in proportion to their approximate percentage of the population (51% I believe).

What is debatable is your assumption that because a person is a woman that she will be necessarily more compromising and more inclusive in her decision-making and therefore a better leader. From this thinking it easy to heap upon women many other desirable leadership traits. They would delegate authority better, groom more successfully subordinates, be more tolerant of opponents' views and in general be less-mean spirited that the Alpha males who have ruled so long. All desirable traits, but do they accrue to a leader because of gender alone?

Let's look at the recent sorry regime of Carly Fiona, the erstwhile chief executive of Hewlett Packard. There are a slew of examples that industry analysts would cite as failings of the once most powerful female CEO of a public company in the nation, if not the world. The most important of which was her decision to acquire Compaq, the large computer manufacturer, at a premium when it was apparent that computers had become a commodity (note IBM's sale of its ThinkPad division), her continuous abuse of company perks and her regal attitude to subordinates which were chronicled in a lengthy issue of FORTUNE magazine and, most important and very unfemale-like an illegal wire tapping of her Board of Directors' business and personal phones.

Did those misdeeds occur because Ms. Fiona was really a man or because a woman in a position of leadership and authority can be as ineffective, as arrogant and as non-compromising as a man? Assuming that it is the latter, we should--while recognizing that women historically have been viewed as more compromising (maybe,ever been divorced?) more inclusive of subordinates, tolerant of opponents' viewpoints and gentle in interpersonal relationships--withhold these judgments until we have had the opportunity to evaluate the performance of more women in positions of power.

Which is to say that my current inclination to vote for Mrs. Clinton has little to do with the fact that she is a women and a lot to do with my belief that despite her often-exhibited prickliness she would seek the middle road on important issues. The need to please--a trait often associated with her husband--has become in my mind a more desirable one for politicians to acquire and exercise. I think that somewhere in that devious, cunning female Hillary that trait exists and her ambition to become president may be the driver to release it.

Posted by Charles Warner at February 13, 2007 01:01 AM

Comments

Post a comment