“Why we don’t like women bosses (and why it matters)” (Shiao, 2016) and “Do men make better bosses than women (no, and here’s why)” (Wolfe, 2017) are two well-written articles that offer differing perspectives on the treatment and implication of female bosses in the workplace. Where the former emphasizes on the negative judgments that follow women leaders and how they affect their leadership and confidence, the latter chooses to answer how women contribute to an organization with their better engagement and leadership skills. Both the articles incorporate compelling arguments and sources to propose their conclusions and inform the readers wisely. However, it’s Wolfe’s article that makes a more persuasive point by using credible evidence and forming analytical arguments from them.
Firstly, assessing the structure and soundness of the arguments made by both the writers, Shiao’s conclusions suffer from weak reliability. She integrates credible evidence in her arguments but fails to analyze her premises objectively. For instance, while stating that the public scrutiny against Hillary Clinton comes from her being a woman, she forgets to account in other important factors like Clinton’s controversial political background that may have had an impact on her public image in her argument. This leads to a weak conclusion that automatically gets skewed in Shiao’s favor. Furthermore, Shiao’s comment that “we – rather unfairly – want women bosses to be nurturing, likable and warm” (Shiao, 2016, para. 6) remains open to criticism as almost, if not all, employees expect their bosses to be likable and nice. On the other hand, in her article, Wolfe makes use of logical arguments supported by strong reasons and evidence and keeps an open, sound perspective while doing so. She begins her article by stating that the reason behind the heavy preference of male bosses “needs to be looked at subjectively, but with an open mind” (Wolfe, 2017, para. 2). Wolfe even analyses her own conclusions logically and tries to fill in any gaps in them with more evidence. For example, after claiming that women managers have better engagement rates than men, she reminds the reader that “correlation is not the same thing as causation” (Wolfe, 2017, para. 9) and questions if the higher engagement happens due to women’s gender or some other reasons. Furthermore, she answers this by providing the reader with another study and uses it to satisfactorily conclude her point. Thus, Wolfe makes well-interpreted, rational conclusions from her sources.
When it comes to the evidence and approach used, both Shiao and Wolfe use a plethora of sources to contribute to their points. However, a stark difference arises in comparing the type of evidence used by them. Unlike Wolfe, Shiao relies heavily on opinions made by her and other female leaders and uses her experience as a woman in the corporate world to her advantage. Some of her claims, like “women are harder on other women” (Shiao, 2016, para. 12) are supported by nothing but her own observations. But these observations, regardless of their truth, can’t be taken as a general representation of everyone’s mindset. Not to mention that Shiao continuously tries to evoke an emotional reaction in her readers with statements like how Clinton was called inappropriate names like the “B-word” during her election campaign. However, some of her statements, such as, “We would solemnly swear that it is because of a particular trait or personality quirk that has absolutely nothing to do with her gender” (Shiao, 2016, para. 3) in relation to people who criticize female bosses, appear to disregard people’s genuine bad experiences with women bosses by positing that anyone who judges a female boss does it because of her gender. This puts Shiao’s piece on the question of emotional bias. In contrast, instead of being dependent on her gender to put forward her argument, Wolfe again exhibits an objective perspective and uses studies from internationally renowned research organizations and magazines like Gallup and Harvard Business Review. These studies show credibility in their calculation, through the twelve engagement criteria used by Gallup and the “7,280 leaders of some of the most successful organizations in the world from private and public sectors” (Wolfe, 2017, para. 10) surveyed by HBR. Wolfe clearly explains the various terms and jargon used in these studies to elucidate the point better to the reader and shows the depth of her research on the topic. Hence, Wolfe’s approach and evidence, with their reliability and depth succeed in achieving a trustworthy foundation in the reader’s mind.
In conclusion, even though Wolfe makes better points concerning the debate of women representation in workplaces, both the writers bring forward important stereotypes that women face in the workplace even in the 21st century. They ask the reader to evaluate his mindset and view leadership only on the basis of skills, and not the gender of the person.
...(download the rest of the essay above)