Men crying, admitting failures, and sharing insecurities becomes more and more normalised. The idea of the strong, tough man is long over and has been replaced by something much more powerful: vulnerability. But does this notion actually apply to men’s lives or does paper often end up in the trash?
Men crying, admitting failures, and sharing insecurities becomes more and more normalised. The idea of the strong, tough man is long over and has been replaced by something much more powerful: vulnerability. But does this notion actually apply to men’s lives or does paper often end up in the trash?
Photo by Evita Egert
Photo by Evita Egert
When watching an advertisement from the 1950s, we can see how gender norms used to dominate society. The wife asks her husband what to cook for dinner and follows his order without hesitation. Women are depicted as obedient and emotionally vulnerable, whereas men are perceived as tough and in control. Back in the days men were socialised to suppress their vulnerability, and the term was often used interchangeably with fragility among males. But as gender norms break, so do the ideas of set characteristics – today, vulnerability can actually be quite powerful.
“male-to-male relationships often lack emotional closeness”
By definition, emotional vulnerability translates into sensitivity and openness to experiencing one’s feelings. This also entails sharing insecurities and emotions, thereby being one’s authentic self (Sinclair & Wallston, 1999). This is not always easy, especially for men, who not only need to confront themselves with their own feelings, but even more with societal expectations. Despite this, emotional vulnerability has a lot of benefits that oppose its literal definition, for instance in interpersonal relationships. The closer you get to someone, the more open you are with them, the more you disclose to them, and the more you care about them. The expectation of trust rises as the example of dating shows. On the first date you loosely get to know the other person and exchange superficial information about one another. The following dates become more intense as you talk about family history, personal hardships, and maybe even become physically intimate. A natural process that also creates vulnerability, since the more you share with and care about someone, the bigger the resulting distress from threats to this close relationship. Disclosing that you are seeing someone else on the first date will hurt much less than doing so on the fifth date. Although dangerous, vulnerability creates the trust and intimacy that are necessary to form close relationships (Tsai, 2016). To love is to be vulnerable (Lewis, 1960). A qualitative analysis of men’s perception revealed that the necessary establishment of vulnerability in relationships is often left to women, as in the past, they were more responsible for internal aspects of relationships (emotionality, vulnerability), whereas men saw themselves responsible for external relational factors (security, stability; Patrick & Beckenbach, 2009). This is very much in line with gender stereotypes that portray men as tough and rational and women as soft and emotional. Gender socialisation is another explanation as to why male-to-male relationships often lack emotional closeness in comparison to heterosexual or female-to-female relationships (Sprecher & Sedikides, 1993). This is a direct result of the absence of vulnerability due to stereotypical socialisation of men. Consequently, male-to-male relationships are negatively impacted, as they are lacking trust and intimacy: key concepts of successful relationships (Sternberg, 1986). Research demonstrates that men who do show emotional vulnerability are becoming more socially accepted or even welcomed in relationships (Timmers et al., 2003), implying that gender stereotypes do not necessarily dominate our personal relationships as much anymore. So, when it comes to relationships, men should let go of control and accept their vulnerability to create more intimate and thus satisfactory relationships. In this case, paper actually beats rock.
“there is a clear discrepancy between the expectations and appreciation of male vulnerability”
When looking at our personal life, we see that male emotional vulnerability is not only accepted but necessary for successful relationship formation and maintenance. But life does not only consist of our private life. There are social obligations we need to fulfil, among them work. How does the expectation of male vulnerability translate into our professional lives and more specifically leadership, a place that is very much male dominated? Similarly to our personal life, vulnerability in leadership is perceived as more advantageous, as it has been said to be a more authentic form of leadership (Bunker, 1997). Authentic leadership is associated with job performance, organisational trust, and teamwork, especially in times of organisational uncertainty (Arda et al., 2016; Mohammadpour et al., 2017). As in relationships, females tend to exhibit more vulnerability in leadership (Eagly & Johannesen‐Schmidt, 2001). Based on the role of vulnerability in personal relationships and the aforementioned research it would make sense that vulnerability would also be advantageous for male leaders, right? Sadly this is not necessarily the case, since there is a clear discrepancy between the expectations and appreciation of male vulnerability, especially in leadership. This is based on the Role Congruity Theory, which states that leaders are evaluated more positively when matching their societal gender expectation (Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014). The traditional leadership style for men is to be agentic, coercive, and in control. When men exhibit behaviour that rejects those expectations such as seeking guidance, admitting mistakes or opening up about challenges, they are perceived as less effective and competent. This might have negative consequences for the organisation. Interestingly, this is a problem that only applies to men, as women who show either more vulnerable forms or more coercive forms of leadership are seen as equally effective (Eagly & Johannesen‐Schmidt, 2001; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2013). These findings should not discredit the hardships women face in leadership compared to men; instead, they should underscore from an alternative angle that gender norms continue to significantly impact our daily lives, particularly in professional settings like leadership roles. <<
References
– Arda, Ö. A., Aslan, T., & Alpkan, L. (2016). Review of practical implications in authentic leadership studies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 246-252.
– Bunker, K. A. (1997). The power of vulnerability in contemporary leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 49(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.49.2.122
– Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen‐Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of social issues, 57(4), 781-797.
– Lewis, C. S. (1960). The Four Loves New York.
– Mohammadpour, S., Yaghoubi, N. M., Kamalian, A. R., & Salarzehi, H. (2017). Authentic leadership: A new approach to leadership (describing the mediatory role of psychological capital in the relationship between authentic leadership and intentional organizational forgetting). Available at SSRN 3335745.
– Patrick, S., & Beckenbach, J. (2009). Male perceptions of intimacy: A qualitative study. The journal of men’s studies, 17(1), 47-56.
– Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: a meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of applied psychology, 99(6), 1129.
– Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (1999). The development and validation of the Psychological Vulnerability Scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23(2), 119-129.
– Sprecher, S., & Sedikides, C. (1993). Gender differences in perceptions of emotionality: The case of close heterosexual relationships. Sex roles, 28(9), 511-530.
– Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological review, 93(2), 119.
– Timmers, M., Fischer, A., & Manstead, A. (2003). Ability versus vulnerability: Beliefs about men’s and women’s emotional behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 17(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302277
– Tsai, G. (2016). Vulnerability in intimate relationships. The Southern journal of philosophy, 54, 166-182.
– Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. (2013). Gender makes the difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101-113.
When watching an advertisement from the 1950s, we can see how gender norms used to dominate society. The wife asks her husband what to cook for dinner and follows his order without hesitation. Women are depicted as obedient and emotionally vulnerable, whereas men are perceived as tough and in control. Back in the days men were socialised to suppress their vulnerability, and the term was often used interchangeably with fragility among males. But as gender norms break, so do the ideas of set characteristics – today, vulnerability can actually be quite powerful.
“male-to-male relationships often lack emotional closeness”
By definition, emotional vulnerability translates into sensitivity and openness to experiencing one’s feelings. This also entails sharing insecurities and emotions, thereby being one’s authentic self (Sinclair & Wallston, 1999). This is not always easy, especially for men, who not only need to confront themselves with their own feelings, but even more with societal expectations. Despite this, emotional vulnerability has a lot of benefits that oppose its literal definition, for instance in interpersonal relationships. The closer you get to someone, the more open you are with them, the more you disclose to them, and the more you care about them. The expectation of trust rises as the example of dating shows. On the first date you loosely get to know the other person and exchange superficial information about one another. The following dates become more intense as you talk about family history, personal hardships, and maybe even become physically intimate. A natural process that also creates vulnerability, since the more you share with and care about someone, the bigger the resulting distress from threats to this close relationship. Disclosing that you are seeing someone else on the first date will hurt much less than doing so on the fifth date. Although dangerous, vulnerability creates the trust and intimacy that are necessary to form close relationships (Tsai, 2016). To love is to be vulnerable (Lewis, 1960). A qualitative analysis of men’s perception revealed that the necessary establishment of vulnerability in relationships is often left to women, as in the past, they were more responsible for internal aspects of relationships (emotionality, vulnerability), whereas men saw themselves responsible for external relational factors (security, stability; Patrick & Beckenbach, 2009). This is very much in line with gender stereotypes that portray men as tough and rational and women as soft and emotional. Gender socialisation is another explanation as to why male-to-male relationships often lack emotional closeness in comparison to heterosexual or female-to-female relationships (Sprecher & Sedikides, 1993). This is a direct result of the absence of vulnerability due to stereotypical socialisation of men. Consequently, male-to-male relationships are negatively impacted, as they are lacking trust and intimacy: key concepts of successful relationships (Sternberg, 1986). Research demonstrates that men who do show emotional vulnerability are becoming more socially accepted or even welcomed in relationships (Timmers et al., 2003), implying that gender stereotypes do not necessarily dominate our personal relationships as much anymore. So, when it comes to relationships, men should let go of control and accept their vulnerability to create more intimate and thus satisfactory relationships. In this case, paper actually beats rock.
“there is a clear discrepancy between the expectations and appreciation of male vulnerability”
When looking at our personal life, we see that male emotional vulnerability is not only accepted but necessary for successful relationship formation and maintenance. But life does not only consist of our private life. There are social obligations we need to fulfil, among them work. How does the expectation of male vulnerability translate into our professional lives and more specifically leadership, a place that is very much male dominated? Similarly to our personal life, vulnerability in leadership is perceived as more advantageous, as it has been said to be a more authentic form of leadership (Bunker, 1997). Authentic leadership is associated with job performance, organisational trust, and teamwork, especially in times of organisational uncertainty (Arda et al., 2016; Mohammadpour et al., 2017). As in relationships, females tend to exhibit more vulnerability in leadership (Eagly & Johannesen‐Schmidt, 2001). Based on the role of vulnerability in personal relationships and the aforementioned research it would make sense that vulnerability would also be advantageous for male leaders, right? Sadly this is not necessarily the case, since there is a clear discrepancy between the expectations and appreciation of male vulnerability, especially in leadership. This is based on the Role Congruity Theory, which states that leaders are evaluated more positively when matching their societal gender expectation (Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014). The traditional leadership style for men is to be agentic, coercive, and in control. When men exhibit behaviour that rejects those expectations such as seeking guidance, admitting mistakes or opening up about challenges, they are perceived as less effective and competent. This might have negative consequences for the organisation. Interestingly, this is a problem that only applies to men, as women who show either more vulnerable forms or more coercive forms of leadership are seen as equally effective (Eagly & Johannesen‐Schmidt, 2001; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2013). These findings should not discredit the hardships women face in leadership compared to men; instead, they should underscore from an alternative angle that gender norms continue to significantly impact our daily lives, particularly in professional settings like leadership roles. <<
