How can we redefine what a leader looks like?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. In order to see progress towards equal opportunities for men and women in leadership, we need to actually redefine what a leader looks like. For so long, we’ve seen the same type of person in leadership positions in the US. It’s what we’re used to seeing, so naturally, it’s what we strive to be if we want to reach that same position. The problem is that we’ve defined what it means to be a leader based on a very specific portion of the population.

Traditional characteristics of a leader are typically more masculine traits. We have seen men primarily occupy leadership roles (in many capacities) for so long, that characteristics that are generally more masculine are now equated with characteristics of a leader. The advice we give women is typically to adopt these traits in order to be perceived as a leader. While this might be sound advice, are we coaching women with only their perception in mind, and not their performance? What we tend to leave out is whether or not those characteristics are what make up a good leader.

I’m not here to discount male leaders or imply that generally masculine characteristics are negative. I’m asking the question: what if we expanded our perception of what makes a good leader to take into account the best of both worlds?

Rather than seeing a set of traditionally masculine characteristics and expecting women to fit into that mold in order to hold leadership roles, what if we actually rethink what those ideal characteristics are? Rather than striving to adopt those generally masculine traits in order to fit into the historic mold of a leader, how do we change what the “ideal” leader looks like in order to be more inclusive? We know that teams that are diverse are more successful. We also know that both men and women can be very successful leaders in organizations of all types. So, why are we tied to this traditional mold, and why are we adapting to it rather than creating a new mold? What if the new mold was made up of a combination of leadership traits that truly made for a successful leader, some of which would be traditionally masculine and some would be feminine? We would all be working toward being a truly good leader, not just working to look like those who came before us. Why would we settle to do things just because that’s how we’ve always done them rather than striving to do things better than how we’ve done them in the past?

Imagine how powerful that is: redefining what a leader looks like and advancing your organization because of it. Progressing this social ideal of what a leader looks like would not only create more equal opportunity, but would actually be good for business. It would push everyone – regardless of gender – to hold themselves to a higher standard by adopting traits and building skills that aren’t tied to being masculine or feminine, but truly make up an effective leader.