If it’s true that women and men are ‘hardwired’ differently, what does that mean for how and who we coach? We asked two coaches who work together as business partners for their thoughts.
SHE SAYS…
JACKIE KEDDY
Clive is the opposite to me in so many ways. His Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) fits most closely with an ISTJ (Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging), whereas I’m an ENFP (Extraversion, iNtuition, Feeling, Perception); he likes action plans and written lists while I like to “JFDI” (“Just do it”), and he rarely varies his steady pace whereas I’m usually buzzing with ideas. Yet, we’re the best of friends and work extremely well together.
I may notice feelings that a client is expressing, pick up on subtle messages in language and gauge atmosphere; whereas Clive is a past master at linking ideas, thinking things through and calmly asking the killer questions which get people to dig deep. He can pick up on odd details that pass others by. He’s also pretty good at parallel parking and navigating.
If Clive and I are typical of males and females operating in the coaching world then we do bring different perspectives to the relationship. We both like honest, plain speaking, and both easily trust new people, but there is something radically different in the way we interact with the world which goes beyond style, personality type and temperament – important though all these may be in influencing how we process information and respond to others.
I think it’s highly likely gender differences do play a part, and perhaps nature and nurture too. Maybe males are less comfortable showing emotions, not wanting to be seen as a ‘softy’ for so doing.
Women may generally be more inquisitive about peoples’ lives as topics for small talk, while men are more likely to be seen talking ‘facts’.
Venus vs Mars
Then there’s the question of a woman’s ‘intuition’, perhaps to do with tuning into ‘eye language’ and subtle body cues. It may or may not suggest a generally high level of emotional intelligence but what is clear is that there are gender differences in brain structure.
For example, most women have a larger corpus callosum, the structure that links the two hemispheres of the brain, which may mean a better link between left and right (emotional) sides1.
For coaches, the implications of gender differences may be that most women are generally better at intuitive listening than most men. But that men may be better at tying things together. Of course, there are great coaches of both genders.
Research has been conducted into male/female preferences in coaches. However, we should be wary of such studies, especially where the bigger picture has been ignored. For example, some executives prefer to be coached by someone who has played their role until now or just someone they feel an affinity with.
These factors may weigh into claims that gender doesn’t matter, but extensive research, including Harvard University’s ‘Implicit Association Test’2, reveals the continuing influence of gender bias and stereotyping. If nothing else, a debate on gender is good for challenging our own perceptions.
In describing the way she tried to comprehend others, US scientist Temple Grandin told neurologist Oliver Sacks that she often felt like being “an anthropologist on Mars”. Many of us may feel like more like “anthropologists on Venus”!
Jackie Keddy specialises in coaching implementation, www.keddyconsultants.com
HE SAYS…
CLIVE JOHNSON
Of course we’re talking generalities here, but yes, Jackie and I are hard-wired differently in a number of ways that may be gender-related.
Many studies have revealed gender differences and there seems to be good reason why some of our brain physiology has developed differently. In The Essential Difference3, a serious scientific take on the great Venus and Mars debate, Cambridge professor of psychology Simon Baron-Cohen claims that women tend to be better empathisers than men, far more adept at tuning into what others are feeling. Men, by contrast, are often more inclined to fall into what he calls the “systemiser” category, loving order, hard logic and facts.
It’s also still the case that the humanities attract more women into universities, whereas maths and IT courses are more heavily populated by men. Children, too, choose to play with gender-stereotypical toys without prompting (male and female chimps do the same).
It’s women who score highly in the ‘Language of the Eyes’ test developed by Baron-Cohen’s team, detecting up to 400 different intentions and emotions by gazing into the eyes of others. At the same time, there are around four times as many males falling on the autistic spectrum than females, with non-sociotypical behaviour and a limited ability to read others’ intentions and emotions.
Sexist nonsense?
Some may want to dismiss such claims as sexist nonsense, but cross-culture studies of thousands of individuals strongly suggest that this would be a mistake. For example, plotting male and female preferences for systemising or empathising on a graph reveals ‘bell-shaped’ patterns, but with a significant gap between the bulk of male and female tendencies.
One theory is that historically, women spent more time than men home-making and nurturing children, for which close eye contact is very important. Men, meantime, were off hunting and gathering or fending off intruders – requiring them to figure out how to design and make tools, to navigate their surrounds and strategise.
I recognise in Jackie a lot of the nurture and deeply expressive connecting which this theory mostly attributes as a female gender preference. I admire her ability to connect with people on a deep emotional level and to tune into another person’s point of view.
This may be down to her energy and years spent as a police detective, but I think it is also backed by a deep understanding of people and emotional intelligence.
Roles are changing but I suspect that it will take more than a few decades to bring about major neuro-developmental change for Mr and Mrs Average.
So should I as a male coach be concerned that I may be less adept at reading people or lack some of Jackie’s warm and genuine interest in others’ wellbeing and happiness?
Of course not. Being aware of possible weaknesses means that I may be better able to compensate for or develop these. An extreme systemiser can bring powerful skills into a coaching relationship too.
Ways of seeing
Just appreciating that we all have different ways of seeing the world makes me less likely to assume that any preconceptions I may have about others hold water. What’s more, many who are attracted to coaching (irrespective of gender) are likely to have an interest in people and a desire to help change lives. When a co-active coaching relationship exists, gender, age and background have little bearing.
There shouldn’t be a battle of the sexes but a recognition that we each have strengths and unique qualities. Vive la différence!
Clive Johnson specialises in coaching evaluation. www.proactivestyle.com
Does gender make a difference in coaching? Cast your vote and tell us what you think at : www.coaching-at-work.com/discussions-and-poll
References
- For a fascinating overview of brain structure and functions, see R Carter, The Brain Book, Dorling Kindersley, 2009
- The Implicit Association Test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit
- S Baron-Cohen, The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain, Penguin, 2004
- Take the Empathising/Systemising (EQSQ) tests at: http://eqsq.com
Volume 5, Issue 2