Gender Differences that Govern Leadership

As we read in class, perhaps the most relevant and striking example of the relationship between gender and leadership is the recent presidential race where the role of Clinton’s gender was accentuated as a factor that determined not only the media’s bias, but also the voters’ decision. Although I agree that there are subtle differences that govern the uniqueness of each gender, I also believe that many of these differences are social constructions and not a true reflection of the capabilities of each gender. Accordingly, the extent to which gender affects one’s leadership style is largely a matter of how much the individual internalizes the ascribed social roles given to their gender. For example, an RA who is also a football player will most likely hesitate to make decisions where his image as a tough, strong individual is diminished. Similarly, although this is not as pressure-intensive as in the case of the hypothetical RA discussed above, a female RA who is studying education may be expected to exude the image of sisterly or even motherly and thus may force herself to act in this manner. In short, internalization of social roles is possibly the most influential factor that determines leadership styles. On the other hand, this may also be a function of who are the ones in the group that is being led. As a counselor for a camp for kids, I found it much easier to have boys as my campers rather than girls. There are differences in the behavior between the genders, even at a young age, that determine the most efficient way to lead a group. For instance, my male campers preferred to be left to their devices, only interfering to remind them of rules or provide help and participate in their activities. In contrast, the female campers expected me to actively seek out their engagement (or vice versa) and really merge with their group. To some extent, this is applicable even to older men and women as in college students. Thus, an individual’s leadership styles are a function of the extent of social internalization and the needs of the group, as determined by the genders of the members.

First residence hall experience

The first thing that grabbed my attention in the residence halls were the personalities on the door. Be it in the thematic name cards placed by RAs, the notes scribbled on the dry erase boards, or any additional images placed by the students, the doors were an immediate first impression that I remember long after I became acquainted with the residents. This was on upper campus when I was still a commuter and was visiting my friend. However, when I began moving my things into the apartments, I was surprised at the stark contrast between the constant activity and enclosed feeling that I got in the residence halls compared to the quiet and openness of the apartments. Both locations have their merits, certainly, but the differences were more pronounced as the year progressed. While I could hear people singing in the shower in the dorms, my music in the apartments (from other residents) was limited to the sound of my next door neighbor's alarm. Similarly, unlike the dorms, the frequency of other students knocking on your door just to drop by was not as often. For this reason, I do not know much about the other students on my floor except their names and I doubt they know much else about me. I do not mean to suggest that apartments are some dull, boring place to live. Indeed, I really, really like them because they are almost like the next step for upperclassmen in terms of residence—the transition from the comforts of a college campus to the “real world.”