Way back in the early 80s, I was starting a new job which came with decent pay and benefits, as well as the usual amount of anxiety that comes with being the new kid on the block. Nevertheless, before long, I became friends with a long-time employee at my new workplace. One day at lunch, he cautioned me to watch out for the boss. Why? According to my friend, “He surrounds himself with females.”
I had noticed that the boss looked the part of an executive. He was always impeccably groomed, a GQ kind of guy. I kept my friend’s admonishment in mind as time passed and concluded that his observation was correct. The office staff was composed of both men and women but the boss’s inner circle included only women. No question about it. The relevant question is why? What does it mean?
Now if you’ve ever worked in an office, you know that there is an official flow chart of personnel and an unofficial power structure. A lowly clerk or secretary might have the boss’s ear whereas a VP might not. Some guys supposedly high up in the food chain might have been given an impressive-sounding job title and a corner office but don’t have any pull with the boss. More than likely, they are there for their technical expertise or because they are difficult to replace, or simply because they are really, really good at what they do. That does not necessarily qualify them to enter the charmed circle of power, however.
In the ensuing years I’ve pondered why a guy whose inner circle is female is suspect. It seems like a situation just begging for a Psychology Today article, but I don’t recall ever seeing a study addressing the topic. There are plenty of articles about male versus female bosses and how the sexes feel about same but nothing about a male boss with an opposite sex entourage. On the other hand, it is not unheard of for a female in power to have an inner circle of male advisers (e.g., Queen Elizabeth I, or Margaret Thatcher) – at least in the days before diversity became mandatory.
Then after Election Day 2025 I saw a video of New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani introducing his transition team of five females. Again the question started percolating in my head: What does it mean? A man surrounding himself with a harem of cuties a la Hugh Hefner is understandable. That was definitely not the case with Mamdani’s “brain trust.”
I don’t want to go into Mamdani’s political philosophy or the future of New York City. I don’t live there and I’m not planning on visiting, so it’s none of my concern. Also, pundits have pretty well exhausted the topic. At the risk of being called misogynists, some of them commented on the lack of diversity of his transition team, but no one offered any idea as to what it meant. Ten years ago Justin Trudeau was happy with a 50% female team “Because it’s 2015!” Mandami didn’t say, “Because it’s 2025!” but he might as well have worn one of those “The Future is Female” T-shirts. There’s a new sheriff – I mean, mayor – in town, New York, and he’s got a pussy posse!
At first blush, it could be that Mamdani is merely repaying the debt he owes to female voters, but I think there’s more to it than that. By definition, any leader needs followers. But what sort of followers does he have? Clearly, a leader wants to be respected. He wants to give an order and know that it will be carried out. The military has operated that way for thousands of years. So did monarchy until recent years. Unfortunately, there have been instances when the system breaks down and generals or kings are overthrown. Almost always those who do the overthrowing are other men. Often younger men. Yes, uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.
Immediately after the election Mamdani was immediately transformed from a young Turk to an establishment figure. He will be in charge of the nation’s biggest city, a world capital. That means he is no longer an outsider seeking to wrest power from the old Turks. The scepter has been passed to him so he will be the target of the next young Turk, someone on the outside looking in and just wanting for the main chance, which could come as soon as the next Democratic primary.
It has long been a sociological axiom that young single men are potentially dangerous. Some are problematic loners, others get organized. Some are just common criminals, others become terrorists. They are a potential threat to the vested interests, the elites, the establishment, the status quo, or whatever you want to call it. Consequently, the man in charge has to be careful of the people he takes into his confidence. They might turn on him. Even a longtime loyal lieutenant might go rogue.
Of course, a loyal subaltern might be less than enthusiastic about the boss’s policy and let him know why. A wise boss might ponder criticism and might course correct. A vain man, however, doesn’t want any pushback or amendments to his agenda. Hence the corporate stereotype of the yes man, who has largely been replaced by the yes woman. The difference is that the yes man has always been the object of scorn or ridicule. Not so the yes woman. She is not subject to criticism because no one expects her to stand up for herself. That would be manly (i.e. toxic) behavior. The wife as helpmate might be a vanishing breed, but the subaltern as workplace helpmate is bigger than ever.
I’m sure there are any number of young men who would like to be part of Mamdani’s mayoral administration. But there is always the risk that one of those young men might turn on hizonner. Worse yet, said young man might enlist other young men in the cause. In the corporate setting, anyone in a position of authority knows the risk of hiring an applicant who has the potential to one day displace/replace him. It’s much safer to create a buffer zone of female devotees, modern-day vestal virgins who are grateful to the boss for empowering them with bureaucratic sinecures to fight the patriarchy or racism or injustice or whatever.
While the chances of a female underling overthrowing the alpha male is slim, there is always the possibility of some mild form of dissidence. If so, news of same will likely find its way back to the boss very quickly, thanks to a loyal female ratting out potential malcontents. This is hardly surprising. If you think back to grade school, who was more likely to say, “I’m telling teacher” after witnessing a misdeed? Boys and men are more likely to keep quiet. Females constitute an informal spy network and report back to the boss if something is amiss in the hive.
Despite all the nostrums about equality in the work force and glass ceilings, the alpha male remains a real phenomenon. And for every alpha male there is at least one and maybe more alpha males in training. Sometimes there is a bloodless coup. The alpha male retires or dies, clearing the way for a younger replacement. Other times the geezer doesn’t know when to leave the stage and has to be forcibly removed.
In all situations, the man at the top is safer if he surrounds himself with women. His position as alpha male is more secure because no potential alpha males are part of his inner circle to subvert him. Female employees might rise through the ranks but even the most talented cannot be an alpha male.
A man who surrounds himself with women was likely closer to his mother than his father. He might have been a mama’s boy, but I wouldn’t call him a sissy. In reading biographies of famous men, one often finds out that such men were the apple of their mothers’ eyes. They were golden boys! They could do no wrong! Of course, unconditional love is associated with motherhood; a father’s approval is harder to secure but necessary. Unconditional female approval should taper off as a boy grows up lest he turn into a smug, self-satisfied – but charming – prick.
Women have always relied more on charm than men to get ahead. I suspect that a young boy with a particularly charming mother picks up on her vibe and learns that charm can often get you where you want to go in life. With charm, you can manipulate people. You don’t have to boss them around. You control them without having to raise your voice. Such a man might deduce that it makes more sense than the male model of overt dominance.
Needless to say, charisma also helps. Charisma is not the same as charm. You can go to charm school to learn some techniques. As for charisma, you either have it or you don’t. It is like charm on an industrial scale. A man running for office can charm the office help and the volunteers and his aides, but he can’t charm each and every potential voter. He will never see them. In the early days of democracy, few people ever saw the candidates they voted for. Unless you were present for a stump speech, you had no idea if a candidate was charismatic or not. In fact, you wouldn’t even know what he looked like until daguerreotypes were invented.
Then along came newspapers. Voters could actually see what the candidates looked like but they couldn’t pick up much of a vibe from that. Next came newsreels and eventually television. You got to hear the voice and sense the personality or lack of same. Famously, in the 1960 Presidential election, a survey of voters split between radio listeners and television viewers after a Presidential debate. The radio faction thought that Nixon won the debate. The television viewers thought Kennedy won. In truth, Kennedy had charisma, as the posthumous tales of his numerous sexual escapades indicate.
If you think back to grammar school, you probably remember a young boy who became teacher’s pet. Somehow he inspired grown women to fawn over him. My theory is that this personal magnetism developed very young in the family circle, perhaps as a result of the young boy’s relationship with the females in his family, particularly if he has older sisters or multiple aunts. To survive in the family he must get along with females, but he is badly outnumbered and they are all bigger than he is. He can’t order them around but he can manipulate them through charm.
Smiling is a big part of charm. Behavioral psychologists have long known that females smile more than men. It’s a universal signal that one means no harm – it is safe to approach me. It’s a means of ingratiating oneself. It works for females and it works for men who choose to adopt this female strategy. A smiling politician with a female inner circle is likely broadcasting that he is not a dangerous male. This might be appealing to female voters and soyboys but not to rank and file men. Unfortunately, the female/soyboy vote is usually enough to get elected.
The uptake is that one should be wary of a man who has no other men in his inner circle, not because he is a gender traitor but because he is probably not worth following. The ability to herd females does not mean he can be a leader of men. Charm may be essential for a con man or a game show host, but it isn’t much help in persuading other men to hold the pass at Thermopylae or defend the Alamo.
It’s certainly true that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time if you’re a charming SOB. Though the charming man may be electable, however, he’d better get results once he’s in office. Incompetence will out and charm has a limited shelf life.
