Read on Twitter
I’ve been asked lots about women’s leadership during #Covid19
My answer has always been:
- n=15
leaders. too small for conclusions
- can’t just look at executive need to look at broader structures
- are women are doing well or alpha males doing badly (Trump Bolsonaro, Johnson)
My answer has always been:
- n=15
leaders. too small for conclusions - can’t just look at executive need to look at broader structures
- are women are doing well or alpha males doing badly (Trump Bolsonaro, Johnson)
There’s been a lot of poor analysis put out over last year, using selective case study selection to justify the point or stereotyping gender (double bind) which can jeopardise broader normative drives for representation in governance
But this paper is fresh and evidences much of my thinking: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244531
“The perspective that women have been better leaders during the pandemic is rooted in selection bias, based on the selective reporting of cases where women-led countries have succeeded in pandemic management, and are focused on OECD countries”
“women are able to attain national leadership positions in countries where core cultural values reward traits often found in women leaders, such a long-term orientation, a collectivist (rather than individualist) focus, and fewer power disparities in society”
Women successfully manage crises like the pandemic not because they are women, but because they are leading countries more likely to elect women in the first place, and because those countries have policy landscapes and priorities that pre-dispose them to manage risk better.
