" Women's leadership", did you say " women's leadership" ? A notion that sometimes makes you cringe but raises a host of good questions : do women exercise power " differently " than men ? Is gender diversity in itself a source of performance ? Are " soft skills " permeated by gender stereotypes?

Let's go back a dozen years. The Copé-Zimmermann law does not exist and the boards of directors of large companies do not have more than 12.5% women. In the National Assembly, it is difficult to reach 26%, despite the law on parity. It does not occur to anyone (or not many people) that men are mobilizing so that, in round tables or on media platforms, there is at least one woman on the panel of experts called upon to speak. Leadership then has only one gender : the masculine.

Today, all is not yet won, far from it. But progress has been made, gender diversity has gained ground, the leader's clothes have fallen off (even for men, in many environments... Even the ranks of the Assembly).

In the meantime, an idea has gained ground : female leadership. A whole concept nourished by figures and theories, also criticized... The editorial staff of the EVE webmagazine takes stock !

From leadership (in short) to female leadership: a false neutral unmasked

By default, " leadership " has long been perceived as a male affair. Not that women have never endorsed it. But these were rather seen as the exception to the rule... And sometimes tempted to " apologize " for introducing herself into the world of men (as Simone Veil did in the prologue to her speech at the opening of the parliamentary debates on the law on the decriminalization and reimbursement of abortion).

Whether or not it is aware of it by the speakers of the expression, " female leadership" has the primary function of highlighting the rarity (or novelty) of women occupying the position.

" Different " leadership ?

When " female leadership" appears, it is mocked by some (we're going to talk about mascara and rags in CoDir, hin hin hin) and valued by others (finally femininity in this world of brutes !).

What if they were two sides of the same coin ? One wonders from the outset about the possible essentialist  nature of so-called " feminine " leadership: would women exercise responsibilities differently , because of their gender ? We think they are both more concrete and long-term oriented (less tactical), more human (less authoritarian), more " right brain" (less rational), more in the know-how (than in the know-how), more altruistic (less interested), more serious (less funny), more talkative (less discreet), more cautious (less daring) etc.

It doesn't take much more to reopen the great nature/culture debate that stirs up common minds as soon as it comes to stereotypes about one gender or another. We argue about what should be related to genes, hormones, physiology, the morphology of women or what should be credited to social constructions.

What is the perception of leadership by women themselves ?

So, isn't the easiest way to survey the first concerned ? Numerous studies were published in the 2010s that questioned women and men about what women's " leadership " entailed. Where it appears that women do indeed have a different approach to leadership.

The choice of words alone seems to bear witness to this. When we talk about leadership to women, we prefer to say " responsibilities " (in the plural) rather than " power " ; " aspirations   " rather than " ambition " ; " assertiveness " rather than " authority " ; " sense of situations " rather than " political sense", etc. A catalogue of euphemisms or a lexicon that would express women's preference for a " soft power", more imbued with influence than power, implemented by " soft skills " and seeking sustainability ?

Nevertheless, the credibility of perception studies on women's relationship to leadership will be tarnished by the highlighting of biases. For example, it is doubtful that certain questions in the polls are only asked of women (such as those relating to self-confidence, self-censorship, the articulation of life times, etc.). In which we denounce anecdata, these opinions that pass for scientific facts such as the famous " women wait until they have 120% of the skills to apply for a position while men are satisfied with 60% " which will be regularly taken up even in very serious work to the equivalent of a study result when it is a comment made by a leader on the conclusions of a Women Matter report .

The correlation between female leadership and performance on the test bench

Despite the criticisms that are beginning to emerge on the very notion of " women ", one idea is taking hold in people's minds : " feminizing " governance bodies would make it possible to gain in performance.  Many figures support the point. This is convincing the leaders of the economic world, who appreciate that a subject that has long been supported by the militant posture is now positioned in the field of economic efficiency. A good point for the correlation between " female leadership" and performance !

But does this correlation have its hidden pitfalls ? Researcher Réjane Sénac notes a reversal of values where the devalued feminine becomes an overvalued feminine. She sees the risk that we " condition " diversity on the fact that it brings in money ! And so, what would happen if we discovered that it is a zero-sum or even negative equation? Should we give up on fighting against the glass ceiling, or even accept backsliding ?

For balanced leadership, in every sense of the word 

The notion of " women's leadership" was soon followed by that of " balanced leadership". It is a question of balancing digital forces in the areas of responsibility (as many women as men on boards of directors, executive committees, top management, etc.) and of harmoniously coexisting the different skills expected of contemporary leadership.

Whether we perceive these skills as feminine or masculine is less the subject today than to see soft skills and hard skills taken so seriously, developed and put into motion on a daily basis.

For some, the gender relationship that runs through the perception of these fields of skills hinders their equivalent consideration : soft-skills, which are attributed more to women than to men, are less likely to prevail, due to a differential valence that places less value on what comes from the feminine than to what belongs to the masculine.

For others, degendering the debate would on the contrary encourage everyone to adhere to the need to strengthen their interpersonal skills, by understanding emotional intelligence, empathy, non-violent communication, resilience, relational ecology, agility, dispositions for serendipity, consideration of identities and singularities, spirit of inclusion, etc. with the same professionalism as for technical subjects...