How we judge the mistakes of male vs. female leaders

[4th law of robotics]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/how-we-judge-the-mistakes-of-male-vs-female-leaders/2012/09/24/71e3ada0-066d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html

We’ve all heard the gender stereotypes: Women leaders in the workforce are judged unfairly when they do something emotional like lose their temper, while men are more often given a free pass for yelling at the people who work for them.

But one recent study suggests maybe we’re not so judgmental about the gender of our leaders after all. That is, if you can trust the responses of the nearly 300 undergraduate students who participated in a study led by researchers at Pennsylvania State University and Villanova University.
. . . .
They found, broadly, that male leaders who commit “task” errors were seen as no less competent than women who committed the same errors, while female leaders who violated “relationship” issues were not seen as worse leaders than male leaders who did the same. The one gender difference that did show up was in the construction context: The supposed “foremen” who made both types of mistakes were rated worse than their female counterparts.

What’s interesting is that their results — in which men and women fared roughly the same — might actually reconfirm the presence of biases about how gender plays into leaders’ performance, not negate it.

-------------------------------

Yeah . . . wait what? Treating women and men as equals (actually judging men a bit more harshly) is proof women are being discriminated against?

We can't win for losing.

I think these researchers had the conclusion laid out long before the study was ever formed, and had to scramble to make the data fit that conclusion when reality didn't cooperate with their theories.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. There are many layers of fail in this article

1) The study was designed to examine attitudes toward leaders who screw up, by creating fictional stories and providing them to 284 undergraduates (selection bias much?)
2) when the study found that attitudes were generally either gender neutral, or more harsh on male leaders, the study authors attribute the result to a failure in their own study methodology. (expectation bias, anyone?)
3) Jena McGregor, the author of the WP article, concludes this way:

And while on some level, it’s encouraging to see that women aren’t getting more harshly judged for being emotional or not relating well with people, the underlying story here is that gender bias is still very much alive.

This paragraph should be exhibit #1 in the Wikipedia entry for "Oxymoron".

[4th law of robotics]

2. You're only saying that because she's a woman!

If a man wrote a nonsensical article that came to the exact opposite conclusion the facts supported you'd cheer him on.

This is proof that gender bias is still very much alive.



/while we accidentally disproved our theory our departments funding is based on getting the opposite answer so by goddess we must spin this a full 180 or else risk being driven out of academia with torches and pitchforks.

[ElboRuum]

4. Yes.

Proof of non-existence is proof of existence anyway. Sounds like a drunken conversation about religion.

[ElboRuum]

3. Did they actually study anything?

Seems to me that the conclusion would have been the same or even moreso in affirming gender bias had a bias been exposed.

If this is the case, this suggests the following.

A study was created to study thing X. Aside from the flawed methodologies already mentioned in this thread, the "study" itself could have revealed either one of two outcomes. The first outcome would be A, and the second outcome would be B. Presumably, in such a study, outcome A would indicate something different in the conclusion than if the outcome was B. However, that is not what happened here. In this study, outcome A means the same thing as outcome B.

So in the end result, was anything really studied?

While I can accept that the study was poorly conceived, the fact that completely opposed findings could result in the same or similar conclusions very suspicious.

It usually indicates that the conclusion was forgone and was going to be supported either way.

[4th law of robotics]

5. It was an interesting meta-study

Ie: an insight in to how the inherent biases of the researchers can be easily determined by their refusal to acknowledge data that runs contrary to their beliefs.

Perhaps the study wasn't really the study. How people responded to it was.

[ElboRuum]

6. Interesting...

That means that here, we are engaging in meta-meta-study.

I have a fine appreciation for recursion.

[4th law of robotics]

7. And I'm studying the response people have to the meta-meta-study

and the response to that and the response to that.

Argh . . . caught in an infinite recursion again!

[MadrasT]

8. This "study" makes no sense.

Seems like a big load of bull to me.

I am suspicious of most "studies" because they seem to just be a way for "researchers" to jump through hoops to find a way to prove whatever it is they think needs proving.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

9. I'm suspicious of many studies as well

Including some that are posted elsewhere as "indisputable" evidence of conspiracy theories.

[4th law of robotics]

10. It makes it easy to tell true scientific disciplines from the pseudo-scientific frauds

Real science uses data to test hypotheses.

Fake science changes data to suit their conclusions.

[MadrasT]

11. Pseudo-science makes me cranky.

I think some sociological "soft science" (so-called) studies sometimes present interesting topics for discussion, but as I said, I am very suspicious of them and it sure as hell is not science and ultimately they don't prove shit.

Just academic wank material, more often than not. I don't have much patience for that crap. That goes for "feminist" studies, too.

Interesting for discussion. Do not prove a fucking thing.

[opiate69]

12. Critical thinking skills - you haz it