Media Curmudgeon

« Bill Grimes Comments | Main | Bruce Braun On Google Selling Radio Spots »

February 13, 2007

The Media Curmudgeon Responds

Neil Derrough and Bill Grimes have caught me in a squishy bit of reasoning. Good for them, because their comments force me to be more precise in my reasoning and language.

Neil suggested that Hilary Clinton’s recent turn to the center be checked against previous comments that are inconsistent with what she is saying now. He makes a good point that, “In that honesty has been an issue in the past few years, the character of the person may well be as important as it is that they happen to be a woman.” He is politely indicating and reasoning that Hilary is a liar and that being a liar means a person has poor character. He is also saying that character is a trait that is gender agnostic, a concept with which I agree.

Neil seems to be using inductive reasoning. From Wikipedia: “Induction is sometimes framed as reasoning about the future from the past, but in its broadest sense it involves reaching conclusions about unobserved things on the basis of what has been observed.” Inductive reasoning, or everyday reasoning, depends on patterns of repeated experience that predicts the future, which may or may not be true, rather than from deductively valid arguments. The common notion is that inductive reason proceeds from the particular to the general.

Bill Grimes also seems to be using inductive reasoning when he writes that “What is debatable is your assumption that because a person is a woman that she will be necessarily more compromising and inclusive in her decision-making and, therefore, a better leader.” He lists other traits that make a good leader, such as delegating authority better, groom more successful subordinates, being more tolerant of opponent’s views, and in general be less mean spirited than the Alpha males who have ruled so long. “But,” he writes, “do they accrue to a leader because of gender alone?” So far, so good. He is making the same point that Neil makes—that leadership is gender agnostic and that his inclination to vote for Hilary Clinton is not based on the fact that she is a woman but has “a lot to do with my belief that despite her often-exhibited prickliness she would seek the middle road on important issues.”

Bill then uses inductive reasoning to point out that Carly Fiorina, the ex-CEO of HP, was a woman and not good leader; therefore, not every woman is a good leader. He’s right. There are plenty of examples of autocratic, power-hungry, and mean-spirited female leaders. All we have to do is to look at Srimavo Bandaranaike of Shi Lanka or at Indira Ghandi or at Linda Wachner ex-CEO of Warnco in addition to Carly Fiorina.

Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, proceeds from the general to the particular. I was using a fuzzy form of deductive reasoning to come to my conclusion that it’s time for America to have a female president to support a bias I have in favor of women as leaders. I think Neil Derrough used a form of inductive reasoning to support his bias against Hilary. In other words, both us reasoned backwards from our biases.

I have read several articles and books that indicate that, in general, women tend to be cooperative, are interested in establishing and maintaining relationships (often through compromise), are consensus building, are excellent listeners, and have a high degree of emotional intelligence. The research on the subject indicates that men tend to be competitive, aggressive, and more interested in winning than in relationships. Of course these are broad generalizations. One study I read indicated that these gender traits apply to about 60 percent of the female and male populations. Thus, I was hoping that the next president might be someone who is cooperative, consensus building, and relationship oriented, and the odds are six to four that those traits belong to a woman. I should have been more precise in my reasoning and language.

By the way, Ms. Fiorina probably came from the other 40 percent. Perhaps Hillary Clinton does, too; we’ll have to wait and see. We should observe her very carefully and decide if she has the traits to make her an effective leader in the current situation, or, rather, in the situation in 2008, when we vote.

Research and expert opinion on leadership indicate that effective leaders must adapt their leadership style to fit the situation. Sometimes, authoritative leadership is effective, at other times either an affiliative or a coaching leadership style might be more effective.

After learning more about Barack Obama, I’m beginning to think he might have more of the “female” stereotypical traits of cooperation, compromise, listening, and consensus building that I believe the country needs than any of the current candidates seeking their party’s nomination. Like Carly Fiorina, he might be in the 40 percent of atypical types.

Of course, if I flip flop from wanting a woman to supporting Obama, I will be accused of being a waffler or even a liar. Oh well, that’s blogging.

Posted by Charles Warner at February 13, 2007 01:11 AM

Comments

Bruce Braun at February 13, 2007 11:58 AM writes:

Post a comment