Mediaboss Marketing

Tech journalist Kara Swisher asked a telling question during her sit-downon Tuesday with the now all-but-certain2016 contender,Hillary Clinton."Why do you think we need awoman president?"

Clinton didn't take the bait. "Speaking hypothetically?" she said, to laughs from the audience. Then she went on to say, "I think whoever it is or should be, we need to make sure that all the talent in our country is represented."

Swisher tried again, posingthe question another way: "But will there be a different president, being a woman?"This time, Clinton talked about what female senators had achieved, saying these examples showed howwomen bring different experiences to bear on policy. She also describeddinners that she and other women in the Senatehad together, which she said involved plentyofoffers to help each other. "It was what you would hope your elected officials would do together."

Her answer may not have included any big announcements, but it was revealing all the same. Clinton didn'texplicitly saythat a femalepresident would bring the kind of qualitiesconsensus-driven, compassionate, helpful, nurturing that we typicallyassociate with female leaders. But she overtly hinted at them, talking about how womenon both sides of the aisle worked together, how she's built relationships and how she hoped, if she ran, that she could bringred and blue Washington into a "nice warm purple space."

Much has been made already of howClinton's remarksoutlinedwhat her campaign may havein store. In this,the first of several speechescentered on women's issues, shefocusedon shifting an economy that "still seems to be operating like it's 1955" to one that works "for everyone." Sheembraced familyissues such as equal pay, child care and paid leave. She's positioning herself asfar more comfortable now than in 2008 with her gendered roles, such as nurturing grandmotherandhistoric feminist first.

YetClinton'sshift isn't just a sign of the country's increasingly welcome approach to feminism or thecurrentzeitgeist aroundwomen's issues.It's also a sign she'slikely realizedthat not displayingstereotypical female leadership qualities is just as risky as embracingthem.

It's an unfortunate truth, but a real one. While the definition of good leadership has begun to change to one that's more participatory and cooperative, yearsof research have shown that people tend to associate leadership with qualities that are stereotypicallymasculine, likebeing aggressive, dominant and competitive. The challenge for womenis that people have traditionally expectedleaders to behave this way; yet at the same time, they also expect women to exhibit supposedly feminine characteristics.

This means thatwhen women show "feminine" traits, they're not seen as much as leaders. But when women display "masculine" traits, they're not playing to type something academics call "role incongruity." The rest of us know thisas thedouble bind.

Clinton's expected candidacy will be the ultimate test of how strong that double bind remains. However adept Clinton ends up beingat courting middle-class voters on issueslike child care and equal pay (those arefamily issues, after all,not just women's ones), and however powerful her message of cracking "every last glass ceiling" may be to professional women, voters will also be evaluating howthey think she will lead, not just what they think she will do.

If Clinton truly embraces a leadership style during the campaign ofcollaboration, consensus and warmthyet stilllosesthe election, it couldshow that risks remainfor women to do so. But if she wears it proudly and wins, that could demonstrate how much thetraditional definition of leadership has finally changed.

Go here to see the original:
On Leadership: How a Hillary Clinton campaign could reshape what leadership looks like