Are Women Leaders Winning the Fight Against COVID-19?
Illustration: Krizia Angelina
As the world grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, countries led by women appear to have disproportionately taken a lead in the fight against the crisis. Examples of these can be seen in Asia, Oceania, and Europe. Taiwan, with its first female president, Tsai Ing-Wen, has imposed strict measures to control the spread of the virus whilst other countries were still debating on what actions needed to be implemented. In fact, Taiwan has taken measures as early as 31 December 2019 after it heard about a mysterious illness in Wuhan, China. The country combined early intervention, proactive approach, information sharing, and technology in curbing the COVID-19 spread. Due to its swift measures, as of 3 May, Taiwan has only 432 confirmed cases, and is now exporting millions of masks to 11 European countries and the United States (US).
New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern could be “the most effective leader on the planet” after flattening the curve of COVID-19 cases. New Zealand imposed a national lockdown, banned travellers from China, and closed its borders for nonresidents much earlier than other countries—at times when it only had a few cases. But it did not stop there. Ardern went as far as focusing on empathy and resonating with her citizens on emotional level. She made all Kiwis feel like she’s got their back.
Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Finland have two similarities: relatively lower mortality rates from COVID-19 compared to other European countries and led by women. German chancellor, Angela Merkel, resorted to her scientific background in battling against COVID-19. She used scientific basis to explain the government’s lockdown policy and emphasized on the importance of flattening the infection rate. As reported by The Guardian, figures show that in Germany, on average one person can infect one other person (1.1). Merkel explained that with this level, the German health system would reach its capacity level in October. But if there was no measure to slow down the virus spread, the level could go up to 1.2 or 1.3, and the hospitals would reach a crisis point in July or June respectively.
Similar to Germany, Iceland, under the leadership of Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir, also embraced science by offering everyone to get tested free of charge. Scientists in the country hoped that the mass testing would give key insights of COVID-19 and help not only Iceland, but also the world, to tackle the pandemic effectively. One important finding from Iceland is that about half of people tested positive for the virus were asymptomatic at the time of their testing and might develop the symptoms later on.
Finland, led by the world’s youngest head of state, Sanna Marin, collaborated with social media influencers to disseminate information regarding COVID-19. The Finnish government realized that not everyone gets their news from traditional media such as television or newspaper anymore, and young people in particular tend to rely on social media to get information. This approach, combined with the country’s preparedness for a major catastrophe or war, resulted in less than 100 COVID-19 deaths in a population of 5.5 million.
Much like Ardern, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and her Norwegian counterpart, Erna Solberg, used empathy and care in leading their countries during the pandemic. Besides closing down public places and their countries’ borders, Frederiksen and Solberg took their time to talk to children in their respective countries through press conferences. In her press conference, Solberg told the children that it was “OK to be scared when so many things happen at the same time” and answered questions posted via children’s TV program NRK Super and children’s paper Aftenposten Junior. Moreover, Frederiksen also made an appearance on Danish top Gen-Z influencer Anders Hemmingsen’s Instagram to encourage young people to stay at home whilst empathizing with their desire to go out.
Given the examples, it seems like women leaders outperformed their male counterparts in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. But do women really make better leaders in a time of existential crisis?
It has been suggested that women in leadership positions are as effective as men, if not slightly better. After evaluating the leadership effectiveness of 7,280 leaders in the world’s most successful and progressive organizations, Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman found that that the high level positions were still occupied by men (64% to 36%). However, although the differences were not big, they found that women scored higher not just in traditionally women’s strengths such as developing others and building relationships, but also in traditionally men’s strengths such as taking initiatives and driving for results.
Zenger and Folkman’s study, initially published in 2012, was updated in 2019. The updated research showed similar findings: women were still perceived to be as effective as men, if not slightly more, at every hierarchy level and functional area of the organization. Women outscored men on 17 out of 19 capabilities that differentiate excellent leaders from average to poor ones, and excelled in five competencies, namely taking initiative, acting with resilience, practicing self-development, driving for results, and displaying high integrity and honesty. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries such as New Zealand and Taiwan, and cities such as San Francisco (all led by women), made the bold and unpopular call to impose lockdowns much earlier than other places, highlighting their “taking initiative” capability. Germany’s Merkel displayed honesty by being truthful about the seriousness of the virus.
Furthermore, Zenger and Folkman’s study found women tended to underestimate their ability, whereas men overestimated theirs. Women also felt that their appointments were not as secured as men’s, so they felt the need to “work harder than men to prove ourselves”. Arguably, women’s lower level of confidence drives them to take more initiatives, practice self-development, as well as asking for and listening to people’s feedback, which in the long run helps them to make better leaders. In contrast, overconfident men are less likely to ask for input and more reluctant to be open to new information or points of view that do not support their existing beliefs. An example of this can be seen in Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro who keeps downplaying the severity of COVID-19 and has recently fired his health minister, Luiz Henrique Mandetta, for having a different approach to the pandemic. The removal of Mandetta, who defended the social distancing policy, happened weeks before the COVID-19 cases were expected to reach their peak in Brazil. Researchers from Imperial College London predicted that if there were no strict measures taken, there could be more than 1.1 million COVID-19 deaths in the country.
Other studies highlighted the differences between males and females in perceiving risks and health, which make women are better equipped to handle a health crisis. A 2000’s study by Melissa L. Finucane, Paul Slovic, C. K. Mertz, James Flynn, and Theresa A. Satterfield found that men, particularly whites, rated a “wide range of hazards as lower in risk than do women”. The finding is now referred to as the “white male effect”. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that women were 33% more likely to visit a doctor compared to men, even after pregnancy-related visits were excluded, suggesting that women tend to take their health more seriously. The studies by Finucane et al. and the CDC could help explain why Slovakia, under the leadership of President Zuzana Čaputová, imposed a national lockdown just eight days after the first confirmed COVID-19 case and has one of the lowest mortality rates in Europe, whereas British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and American President Donald Trump downplayed the risks of COVID-19 until the cases and mortality rates in their respective countries soared.
Female world leaders | Source: Wikipedia
Taking the research findings into account, one might wonder, “Why can’t we have more women leaders if they are more able in handling crisis than men?” or, “Doesn’t it prove that we need to put more women in leadership positions?”
The findings indeed showed that there is correlation, but they still have not shown clear causality. And it is still too soon to celebrate women leaders as “winners” in the battle against COVID-19 as the crisis is still ongoing. Moreover, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) reported that as of June 2019, there are only 11 women serving as Head of State and 12 others serving as Head of Government. The Inter-Parliamentary Union also reported that as of 1 February 2019, only 24.3% of all national parliamentarians were women—a slow increase from 11.3% in 1995. Thus, it would be difficult to compare and draw any robust conclusion relating to gender differences in leadership performance during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On top of that, there are other factors such as government policies, leadership styles, population density, wealth, geographical positions, access to medical equipment, and cultures that influence a country’s ability to contain COVID-19. Countries, states, or cities that have succeeded in slowing down the spread of COVID-19 acted early by enforcing social distancing, imposing lockdowns, and banning travels, regardless the sex of the leaders. Bangladesh, which is also led by a woman prime minister, has a high mortality rate from COVID-19—something that, at the very least, indicates the lack of medical preparedness. This is in contrast with Finland that has been stockpiling medical supplies and other materials since the Cold War era. Meanwhile, South Korea (led by a male president) has succeeded in flattening the infection curve due to, amongst others, its mask-wearing culture, which make people easier to comply with authorities’ rule of wearing a mask in crowded places to avoid virus transmission. Another male-led country that has succeeded in flattening the curve, Australia, has “inherent advantages” such as being wealthy and geographically distant, and has relatively small population that lives in low-density cities.
Additionally, to say that women are winning the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic because they have to work harder than men to be successful, or because they posses “nurturing” characteristics as shown by Ardern, Solberg, and Frederiksen, is sexist. It is only validating the stereotype that women are the weaker and gentler sex. Framing women to be more compassionate and have more empathy than men also reinforces toxic masculinity—a set of behaviors that include not allowing men to express their emotions openly and show weaknesses, which, according to the American Psychological Association (APA), causes men to have higher suicide rates, physical health problems, and academic challenges, as well as being lonelier when they get older.
Even if we are to consider gender differences, a meta-analysis study by Janet Shibley Hyde found that males and females were “similar on most, but not all, psychological variables”. The most notable exceptions were in the domain of motor performance (e.g. throwing velocity, throwing distance), sexuality (but only in the incidences of masturbation and attitudes towards casual, uncommitted relationship), and aggression, which showed “a gender difference that is moderate in magnitude”. Hyde concluded that gender differences claims only “cause harm in numerous realms, including women’s opportunities in the workplace, couple conflict and communication, and analyses of self-esteem problems among adolescents”.
Despite the claim that males and females share similarities and effectiveness, it is worth noting that getting more women in leadership positions would not necessarily answer all the world’s problems. Instead of forcing women to fill more leadership positions, it is more reasonable to select capable, talented, better leaders regardless of their sex. At the very least, getting more competent people into leaderships would open more doors for female leaders to be represented, to the point that gender equality is finally fulfilled.
Ultimately, arguing whether or not women leaders are better than their male counterparts in handling the COVID-19 pandemic is shifting our attention from the real issue: unity and solidarity to fight the invisible enemy. As opposed to dividing men and women leaders, it would be more appropriate for everyone to work together and complement each other so that we all can come out better and stronger from this pandemic.