My Theory on Female Leaders

Dr. Nicholas Kristof is generally one of my favorite columnists (he write for the NY Times). He tends to highlight important issues and to go straight to important details. He's not the type to give unnecessary analysis, and he's not anything close what I'd call a talking head (or writing head in this case).

Today, though, he posted an interesting editorial with which I have to take exception. For the first time since I started reading his column, he's overthought and overcomplicated an issue. And that issue is the success of female leaders. He explains that studies routinely show that women are better at consensus-building, a key skill for successful leaders. He notes that female monarchs had better success running nations (on a per-leader basis) than their male counterparts. He also points out that women haven't done as well in Democratic societies. And here's his "pet theory" as to why:

"In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man."

I think that if we're going to base our answer off his premises, a much simpler theory provides a much better explanation: in monarchies, the leader was in a very masculine power role, and having a consensus-building monarch helped balance the pressures of the system of government. Meanwhile, in a government centered around building consensus, like a democracy where things happen by voting, one needs that masculine type of leadership to navigate and rise above the system.

It's a simple matter of balance. Under my theory, the only thing you need is to acknowledge that leaders with more tools and skills at their disposal will do better than an equally talented leader with fewer options and strengths.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things. But it seems to me that a consensus-builder with top-down power or a powerful figure in a consensus-building system would make for a more effective leader than another face in the crowd of aspiring consensus builders or an iron fist personality with powers to match (and powers to abuse).

Any thoughts?