I am aware of the fact that today there are many different worldviews on gender issues. On the one hand, more and more people see ‘womanhood’ and ‘manhood’ as pure social constructs (Becker & Kortendiek 2010); on the other hand, published research results demonstrate the biological differences between men and women (Gerl-Falkovitz 2009). For example, cardiologists recently discovered that women show different symptoms of heart attacks than men (Netdoktor.de 2011). This was not known in the 1980s when I did my nursing degree. Since the research in medical books only focussed on the male body and its symptoms, heart attacks in women were often not even detected. The new research led to the insight that medical descriptions of heart attacks should differentiate between men and women.

In this article I will focus on the literature which highlights the differences between men and women. It is my belief that men and women are different in some aspects, but this should not lead to different positions in hierarchy. I think that both men and women have their strengths and their weaknesses, but together they can change the world.

I define female leadership as the way in which women live out their femininity whilst leading. Feminist leadership is a political approach which demands that more women occupy leadership positions. This aspect is not dealt with in this article. ² The fear that women will be discriminated against once they are described with female attributes hampers the development of a theory for female leadership. Two forces are at work here. On the one hand, differences between men and women cannot be the basis of any form of discrimination; but, on the other hand, justice is not done to women (and men) if their biology, and the consequences it bears, is simply ignored. Rather, it is desirable that men see themselves as men and women see themselves as women in their respective leadership roles.

Authors have different views on what constitutes typical womanhood – including the female style of leadership. Some authors (e.g. Tannen 1990, 1991, 1999, 2005) root it solely in sociology, whereas others assume evolutionary or biological reasons for the differences (e.g. Beach 2008; Bischof-Köhler 2002). Today we can say that these authors belong to difference-based feminism and constructivism. Authors such as Haucke & Krenovsky (2003) do not make any suggestions. They would invite women to use their natural female impulses instead of copying male behaviour.

According to Glaesner (2007), there are no differences at all between male and female leadership. She researches, for example, the literature of Max Weber (1972), Fred Fiedler (1967) and Fiedler & Mai-Dalton (1995) on leadership. However, the lack of literature on female leadership is a weak argument. For one, any argument based on silence is a weak argument, but, more importantly, these male authors were not clued up on female leadership, mostly because female leaders were rare and they often adopted a male leadership style. As an example of this typical one-sided male perspective, we may quote the famous German theologian, Jürgen Moltmann ([1971] 2005:9), who admitted his former fallacy later on in a new foreword to his book, Mensch: Christliche Anthropologie in den Konflikten der Gegenwart. In 1971 he presumed to write about human beings as such and he as a man would have been able to say what had to be said. This fallacy was cured by his wife, Elisabeth Moltmann, who introduced him to Feminist Theology. In 2005 Jürgen Moltmann pointed out that anthropology had to take the duality of man and woman into account. This fallacy is also typical of leadership literature. Authors write about leadership per se, but they present only the male perspective.

There are many different leadership styles such as authoritarian leadership, democratic leadership, visionary leadership and so forth (Mahlmann 2011). I do not claim that female leadership is yet another one. Just like any other leader, a woman in a leadership position will – consciously or unconsciously – exercise one of these leadership styles, but she will do it in a specific, female way. And a man in a leadership position will exercise the same leadership style in a different way. All leaders have to use a power base to be able to lead (Kessler 2010:539–544). Women can live in and execute any power base, but they will do it in a female way – different from their male colleagues.

You may remember Golda Meir (1898–1978), former Israeli Prime Minister³, and Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013), former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. ⁴ Both were women, but they came across as quite masculine. Thatcher was also called the Iron Lady. We are now living in a new era. The Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, leads in a masculine world, but she comes across as quite feminine. The press has documented how she changed her haircut to look more feminine as she entered her chancellorship. In the 1990s the public perceived her as an androgynous scientist; today they see her as a female politician.

It is often postulated that women are better leaders (Assig 2001). This theory, which is based on difference-based feminism, has not yielded much influence in Germany. The debate on how high the percentage of female leaders should be still remains a political issue (Seitz et al. 2013:36–47). As explained above, the focus of this paper is on a female leadership style and not on feminist leadership. The intention is not to replace male with female leaders, but to make female leadership skills accessible to all.

masculine when emotional gender roles are clearly distinguished from one another: Men ought to be dominant, hard and materialistic in orientation, women, however, must be modest, sensitive and value quality of life. (p. 115, my translation⁵)

‘Masculine’ values such as achievement, material success and economic growth control life in general and thus also professional life.

The GLOBE-study of 62 societies (House et al. 2004) is based on Hofstede’s (2001) definition although it comes to a more differentiated result. Interestingly, there is a similarity between South Africa and Germany: there are distinct people groups in both countries. In Germany there are differences between East Germany, a formerly communist area, and West Germany; and in South Africa there are differences between the various ethnic groups. ⁶

According to the GLOBE-study of 62 societies, the social practice of gender equality in black South Africa (score 3.66) is more masculine than in white South Africa (3.27) and more masculine in western Germany (3.10) than in eastern Germany (3.06). In this category Hungary (4.08), Russia (4.07) and Poland (4.02) are the most masculine and South Korea (2.50), Kuwait (2.58) and Egypt (2.81) the least masculine (House et al. 2004:365).

The desire for gender equality amongst the people groups is as follows: eastern Germany (4.90) lies ahead of western Germany (4.89) and white South Africa (4.60) is clearly ahead of black South Africa (4.26). The desire for more masculinity is the highest in England (5.17), Sweden (5.15) and Ireland (5.14) and least pronounced in Egypt (3.18), Qatar (3.38) and Kuwait (3.45) (2004:366). ⁷

The question that naturally arises is: Can we even make general statements about female-specific strengths or are strength and weakness profiles only a question of personality? Of course personality plays a large role and shapes leadership potential; of course a task-oriented woman will behave differently from a relation-oriented woman and an extroverted woman will be perceived differently from an introverted woman. But the fact remains that every woman worldwide shares a similar biological starting position. The various personality traits develop from this universal foundation. The focus of this article is to describe what is typical of female leadership and not to dwell on differences in individual personality traits. To what extent leadership personality-specific and gender-specific characteristics are interrelated and intertwined cannot be sufficiently covered in this article. One thing is clear: there is the steady, introverted, more relationship-oriented male boss who leads his company with sensitivity, and the dominant, extroverted, more distant female boss who challenges her employees and prepares the organisation for future innovations; and yet a dominant woman will be more feminine than a dominant man (Seiwert & Gay 1999:93–99). Therefore, the question of personality can be left aside this time.

Some specific aspects of female leaders are shown in Table 1.

It becomes especially obvious in meetings that women usually complement their goal-oriented strategies with their panoramic view. Moreover, 80% of women think predicatively where most men (65%) think functionally. For example, in response to the statement “dogs bark”, the predicative thinker suggests a connection: ‘cats meow’, ‘birds sing’. The functional thinker looks at the purpose: ‘dogs guard the house’ (Bischof-Köhler 2002:257). The predicative panoramic view gives leadership a comprehensive perspective and potentially protects it from pitfalls. The organisation will consequently be more secure and more beneficial to all.

Newcomers are welcomed, informed and properly introduced. Women ‘clearly reveal in their behaviour their need to do something good for others’ (Bischof-Köhler 2002:346, my translation⁹). They are focused on social interactions which make it easy for others to engage with them (ibid: 355–356). Women often struggle to find the right balance between the desire to take care of the other and the awareness of one’s own competence. When this balance is successfully achieved, their pro-social engagement becomes a source of healthy self-confidence.

In all-women groups, privileges are not usually fought for but rather granted and can, therefore, be withdrawn. These concessions are not generally given once and for all, but newly clarified according to each new situation. Women prefer egalitarian structures and think more in networks than in hierarchies (Bischof-Köhler 2002:316–319).

To have power and admit weakness is not a contradiction for women. Women can, for example, without difficulty, admit when they do not know something (Tannen 1995:20). They also admit their ignorance, and seek out help, competence and expertise; they can also withhold their knowledge when needed. A question typical of the female style is: ‘I do not understand; why is that?’ (Diez 2006:no. 5, my translation¹¹). And they can ask it without feeling they are losing face. This also serves the overall process and gives stability.

In conflict situations with men, women almost always give in (Hold, cited in Bischof-Köhler 2002:311), or they withdraw before the point of confrontation, usually sulking. Sulking is a worldwide behavioural expression that can be interpreted as ‘being offended and threatening to break contact’ (ibid:311, my translation¹³).

In workplaces there is usually a hierarchy even if women would prefer an egalitarian structure. The tension between preference and reality can create conflict. Since the hierarchy in all-women groups is constantly in flux, group members feel insecure, which makes continuous work difficult. Women in this context are described as competitive, critical, ambitious and difficult. It is specifically women in leadership positions who suffer from the non-acceptance of their female co-workers.

The indirect form of communication typical of women (Tannen 1999:101; 1991:41, 248) can impede their implementation of power, especially when dealing with male co-workers.

It is very common for women to justify their own power. I also notice this in my position at the Akademie für christliche Führungskräfte (AcF). When male leaders enquire about studying at AcF, they often signal to us: I already know everything, I just need your degree. The unstated question is actually: Are you (AcF) worth my time? However, when female leaders enquire about studying at AcF, they often worry if they are good enough even though they often come highly qualified with plenty of experience. Understatement costs energy and undermines their position amongst co-workers. Whoever justifies her own power sabotages herself by lowering herself to the same level as her co-workers. At the same time, female leaders do not put themselves at the same level as other leaders and will, therefore, be less respected by the other leaders (Haucke & Krenovsky 2003:13–25).

Whether a group is all-male or mix-gendered, the status of the female leader is usually established after a short time. She will be measured according to her competence. Female leaders should refrain from trying to please everyone. Firstly, it is not possible and it wastes a lot of energy. Secondly, it makes a leader vulnerable and open to manipulation. Thirdly, a leader who is loved by everyone has questionable leadership.

As explained above, female leaders will certainly not find ‘heaven on earth’ in all-female groups. If a female leader comes to the position with such an expectation, the resulting disappointment will be even greater.

When it comes to the question of power, there are four mandates to be aware of, because they build the basis for a leadership position (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1: The four mandates.

They need a certain closeness to experience and maintain confirmation and support. Their perceived role is marked by the struggle to keep intimacy and to avoid isolation … Women also want to win status and avoid failure … they pursue this goal under the guise of bonding. Intimacy is the key to their world of relationships. (Tannen 1991:20–21, my translation¹⁴)

Their own success takes on more meaning if they include others in it. They constantly invite participation from others. The addition of these feminine strengths is of fundamental importance to a working environment and at every level of hierarchy.

The skills that tend to make women successful include in particular: endurance, perseverance, diligence, responsibility and strict adherence to proven strategies (Bischof-Köhler 2002:300). In order to arrive at a good decision they are prepared to deviate from their original conviction, to leave the beaten path and be innovative.

Women contribute calmness and insight to a good overview perspective. This makes them wise in assessing opportunities and risks (Höhler 2006:16), a valuable quality for a company especially in times of bankruptcy or when there is a decline in financial donations. The involvement of as many partners as possible together with a clear structure and decisions regarding personnel are of enormous benefit to the whole project.

To sum up:

• In the 21st century women aspire to lead in a way that fits their womanhood.
• Typical female strengths are their panoramic view, their pro-social engagement, the willingness to share power, and networking.
• Female leaders should be aware of the drawbacks of these strengths (see Table 1). They should develop strategies to cope with these drawbacks. It would be useful for the superiors of women in leadership also to know about these strengths and drawbacks.
• Female leaders can act with self-assurance if they feel that they are in the right place. They should examine the four different mandates. It is not recommended to take a leadership position if they do not find a clear ‘yes’ to it. But they should become courageous leaders after having received a full ‘yes’ in each mandate.

Too often men and women work against each other and in that way exclude each other. Let us continue to work together to understand male and female leadership strengths as complementary; they might strive to work together and accept that the challenges posed by the other gender are actually constructive for the success of the overall organisation.

Assig, D., 2001, Frauen in Führungspositionen: Die besten Erfolgsrezepte aus der Praxis, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, München.

Beach, N., 2008, Gifted to lead: The art of leading as a woman in the church, Zondervan, Michigan.

Becker, R. & Kortendiek, B., 2010, Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung: Theorien, Methoden, Empirie, 3rd edn., Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92041-2

Bischof-Köhler, D., 2002, Von Natur aus anders: Die Psychologie der Geschlechtsunterschiede, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart.

Bock, P., 2006, ‘Erfolgsfaktor Netzwerk’, Emotion, August 2006, G+J Emotion, München, 118.

Diez, G., 2006, ‘Meinen die das ernst? Wie Anne Will und Marietta Slomka die Ironie in den Deutschen Fernsehjournalismus eingeführt haben‘, Die Zeit, no. 5, 26 January, p. 15.

Ecker, D., 2002, Aphrodites Töchter: Wie Frauen zu erfüllter Sexualität finden, 3rd edn., Kösel, München.

Fiedler, F., 1967, A theory of leadership effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Fiedler, F. & Mai-Dalton, R., 1995, ‘Führungstheorien – Kontingenztheorien’, in A. Kieser (ed.), Handwörterbuch der Führung, Enzyklopädie der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, vol. X, pp. 940–953.

Gerl-Falkovitz, H-B., 2009, Frau – Männin – Menschin: Zwischen Feminismus und Gender, Butzon & Bercker, Kevelaer.

Glaesner, K., 2007, Geheimrezept weiblicher Führung? Hintergründe, Mythen und Konzepte zum weiblichen Führungsstil: Eine empirische Untersuchung beim deutschen Gewerkschaftsbund, Kassel University Press, Kassel.

Haucke, P. & Krenovsky, A., 2003, Gelassen und souverän führen: Die Stärken des weiblichen Führungsstils, Kösel, Kempten.

Hofstede, G., 2001, Lokales Denken, globales Handeln: Interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit und globales Management, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, München.

Höhler, G., 2006, ‘Der Weg zu Erfolg: Leistung statt Plauderzirkel‘, Emotion, August 2006, G+J Emotion, München.

House, R., Hauges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfmann, P. W., Gupta, V. (eds.), 2004, Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE-study for 62 societies, Thousand Oaks/SAGE Publications, London/New Delhi.

Kessler, M., 2008, ‘Macht Macht erotisch? Authentisch leben – eine Herausforderung in der Christlichen Mission: Am Beispiel sexueller Versuchlichkeit weiblicher, lediger, heterosexuelle Führungskräfte in Deutschland‘, Master of Theology in Missiology dissertation, University of South Africa.

Kessler, V., 2010, ‘Leadership and power’, Koers – Bulletin for Christian Scholarship 75(3), 527–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/koers.v75i3.95

Kessler, M. & Marsch, A., 2007, ‘Frauen führen anders‘, in J. Knoblauch & H. Marquardt (eds.), Mit werten zukunft gestalten, pp. 151–164, Hänssler, Holzgerlingen.

Mahlmann, R., 2011, Führungsstile gezielt einsetzen. Mitarbeiterorientiert, situativ und authentisch führen, Beltz, Weinheim, Basel.

Moltmann, J., [1971] 2005, Mensch: Christliche Anthropologie in den Konflikten der Gegenwart, Kreuz-Verlag, Stuttgart .

Netdoktor.de, 2011, Herzinfarkt – Symptome, viewed 29 November 2011, from http://www.netdoktor.de/Krankheiten/Herzinfarkt/Symptome/Herzinfarkt-Symptome-7115.html

Schirrmacher, T., 2002, Führen in ethischer Verantwortung: Die drei Seiten jeder Entscheidung, Brunnen, Gießen.

Seitz, J., Göckner, T., Jung, B., Kowalski, M., Plewnia, U., Röll, T. et al., 2013, ‘Wir wollen keine Quote‘, Focus (03)13, 36–47.

Seiwert, L.J. & Gay, F., 1999, Das 1 x 1 der Persönlichkeit, 5th edn., GABAL, Offenbach.

Storch, M., 2002, Die Sehnsucht der starken Frau nach dem starken Mann, 6th edn., Goldman, München.

Tannen, D., 1990, Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best friend’s talk, Discours Processes.

Tannen, D., 1991, Du kannst mich einfach nicht verstehen: Warum Männer und Frauen aneinander vorbeireden, Kabel, Hamburg.

Tannen, D., 1999, Das hab’ ich nicht gesagt: Kommunikationsprobleme im Alltag, Goldmann, München.

Tannen, D., 2005, Job-Talk: Wie Frauen und Männer am Arbeitsplatz miteinander reden, Kabel, Hamburg.

Weber, M., 1972, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.

2.It is interesting to note that in the German literature on leadership no distinction is made between female and feminist leadership styles (e.g. Asgodom 1999; Assig 2001; Storch 2002).

3.Israeli politician from 1956–1965. Minister for Foreign Affairs from March 1969 to June 1974. She is so far the only female minister to serve in Israel.

4.Her full name was Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, British politician. She led the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990 and from May 1979 to November 1990 she was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. She was the first woman to hold this office and stayed in it longer than all her male predecessors since the beginning of the 19th century.

5.‘Maskulinität kennzeichnet eine Gesellschaft, in der die Rollen der Geschlechter klar gegeneinander abgegrenzt sind: Männer haben bestimmt, hart und materiell orientiert zu sein, Frauen müssen bescheidener, sensibler sein und Wert auf Lebensqualität legen’ (Hofstede 2001:115).

6.In Canada and Switzerland distinctions are made according to language groups.

7.As a side note, Namibia, a country in southern Africa but with many ethnic German immigrants, ranks in the first category (‘as is’) with a score of 3.88, higher than black South Africa, and in the second category (‘should be’) with a score of 4.25, directly below black South Africa.

8.‘Fürsorglichkeit, Pflege persönlicher Beziehungen, Verantwortung für das Wohlergehen und die seelische Verfassung anderer’ (Bischoff-Köhler 2002:342).

9.‘bringen in ihren Verhaltensweisen also deutlich das Bedürfnis zum Ausdruck, dem anderen etwas Gutes zu tun’ (Bischoff-Köhler 2002:346).

10.‘Frauen nehmen erst die anderen wichtig. Dann kommt lange nichts, und dann, an letzter Stelle, wenn keine Zeit, Kraft und Energie mehr bleiben, räumen sie für sich einen Platz ein’ (Ecker 2002:47).

11.‘Verstehe ich nicht, warum ist das so?’ (Diez 2006:15).

12.‘Ältere Mädchen äußerten Ängste vor sozialem Ausgeschlossenwerden und vor Zurückweisung wegen unattraktiver Erscheinung. Insgesamt ging es den Mädchen in erster Linie um das Geliebt- und Bewundertwerden’ (Bischof-Köhler 2002:313).

13.‘beleidigt sein mit Drohung des Kontaktabbruchs interpretiert werden kann’ (Bischof-Köhler 2002:311).

14.‘Sie verhandeln über Nähe, bei der Bestätigung und Unterstützung gegeben und erhalten werden soll. Ihr Rollenverständnis ist geprägt vom Kampf um Bewahrung der Intimität und die Vermeidung von Isolation … Frauen wollen auch Status gewinnen und Niederlagen vermeiden, ... das Ziel verfolgen sie unter dem Deckmantel der Bindung. Intimität ist der Schlüssel in ihrer Beziehungswelt’ (Tannen 1991:20–21).

15.‘Suchen Sie sich Ihr Netzwerk gut aus und verzetteln Sie sich nicht mit zu viele Verpflichtungen’ (Bock 2006:118).