The Sunday Mail
Women in Leadership Maggie Mzumara
Although over the years there has been some room and space created for women’s input and leadership, our society and its institutions are still by and large not ready for women-only or women-alone decisions.
Many women do not believe they can lead without any male influence or support. They may vehemently deny this and yet be unconsciously instrumental in undermining their own leadership, power and influence.
How so, you may ask? How in the world can a woman be party to undermining herself? How in the world can a woman leader be daily demonstrating her lack of confidence in this enigma called female leadership? How can she be repeatedly and continuously placing her vote of confidence in male leadership even though she herself ‘leads’ and is expected to be the one steering the ship? It is far more commonplace than we care to admit.
In many leadership scenarios or hierarchies where women are topmost leaders, be it as chief executives, directors, managers, chairpersons, headmistresses, you name it, the deputy is often male. Deputy as in deputy chairperson, deputy head and so on.
In the absence of a male deputy, it has been a male finance director, a chief operations officer, a bursar, a general manager, et cetera, who will act or be made to act as some “deputy” (or 2IC).
Though on the face of it this person may act as a second-in-charge, the truth of the matter is that this male figure often wields the power. Whether this is directly or consciously acknowledged or not, it will very well be so. This male individual is the one to whom most in the organisation defer to, including even the female lead herself.
The supposedly topmost boss will run all her decisions past this male individual, who will then give the go-ahead.
She will seek advice from this male at any and every turn. It is almost like she cannot move on anything unless he gives the green light. She will hang on to his every word and direction.
He will tell her what to do and direct her every move and indeed the organisation or the department’s every move.
Though on the face of it she will, as the “official” chief executive or headmistress or whatever, sit at the head of the table, stand up and read the announcements, bark out the rebukes and chastisements; be the mouthpiece of the decisions, but be rest assured the chief driver or chief cook of those decisions would be this male individual — the all-too-powerful “deputy”.
Even though it may never be expressly announced, other staff will confer with this individual as consciously and unconsciously it will be known he is the true decision-maker, the actual veto power and the one who is the seat of power in real terms.
These dynamics are real: Behind most leading women there is a very strong and powerful male in an office down the corridor, through whom all decisions go past or come from. Never mind how much lower in rank according to the organogram he is.
If you are not careful, you may be the one sitting at the head of the table but yours will most certainly not be the seat of power.
In such scenarios what that says is that even though officially a woman is named the chief, the unnamed male calls the shots.
The boss lady risks being reduced or reducing themselves to a mouthpiece of this male individual. The boss lady would actually be lucky if their package is bigger than the powerful deputy. In some very sorry situations, this male individual, though lower on the organogram, may be taking home more than the supposed boss.
Maybe not through the official perks but through other undeclared benefits.
But even in instances where he takes home less, he still might be deriving much satisfaction from running the show.
And guess what: When he messes up, whose name is signed on that mess? Of course. The female boss may be deriving some comfort and ease in that she is not alone in this maze that is leadership; that this male individual has got their back (and they may truly and genuinely do); and that he does most of the heavy thinking and “assists”.
But in the grand scheme of things what does that mean?
Chances are superiors may be all too aware of it, which is why they will want him in the meeting together with the boss lady. This might be the reason why they may address certain critical matters with him. They might often talk over the female leader’s head. The powerful deputy might even be undermining the leader to subordinates and superiors, and may actually be doing a hatchet job. Which is why even though he is the finance guy in the organisation, you have him participating in and making the calls on work programmes that are not under their purview.
Collaborating is one thing, but being led by the nose is quite another.
In real terms, one might just be the lame duck chief. They may just be nothing more than a figurehead swinging on stilettos.
Female leaders might need to look around and see if there is some ”deputy” male figure standing taller than them?
They need to ask themselves why they themselves might harbour some unconscious bias against women’s ability to lead?
They need to ask themselves why, even in situations where the actual deputy head or deputy director is female, they might still need to seek out that powerful male, three places down the hierarchy, whom they confer with and declare the unofficial deputy. Can organisations or departments not be trusted in women-only decisions?
Can organisations and departments be trusted in the sole hands of women? Can sisters trust their own female leadership? Or must male leadership be always on hand to buttress, buoy, propel, reinforce female leadership?
What to do? Sisters be woke!
Maggie Mzumara is a leadership, communication and media strategist as well as corporate trainer. She advocates women leadership and is founder of Success in Stilettos (SiS) Seminar Series, a leadership development platform for women. Contact her on [email protected] or follow on Twitter @magsmzumara
