Send to Kindle
Sheryl Sandberg’s new book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead, has revived the conversation last kicked up by Anne Marie Slaughter’s article, “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All.” The book JUST came out and I have not yet finished it. But from the press coverage, it is clear that Sandberg goes beyond the conversation about “work/life balance.” I’ve seen several interviews where she talks about women and ambition. She observes that women’s self-doubt holds them back and that women need to power through those doubts. She notes that men “raise their hands” more readily than women – apparently less deterred by self-doubt. I agree. But I fear that Sandberg’s solution is one-sided.
First, we need to avoid stereotyping. Women do not all think, work or lead alike, any more than all men are the same. The question is: Do women in general have less ambition than men in general? I use prototypes for masculine and feminine, Max (representing the masculine view in both men and women) and Fran (representing the feminine perspective, whether in a man or woman). Does Fran have less ambition or interest in power than Max? Or does Fran define and demonstrate ambition differently than Max, whose perspective predominates in the workplace?
There is a difference, and this difference causes some women to be seen as less ambitious and less comfortable with power. That is what Sandberg is observing.
The average man values status more than relationships, takes center stage, and is perfectly fine tooting his own horn. He sounds confident even when he is not sure about the answer. For the average woman, it is harder to toot her own horn, claim credit and display confidence when she isn’t at least 92% sure.
Ambition from Max’s perspective is about competition and winning. It is about getting to the top, to the “alpha” position in a hierarchy. Fran’s version of ambition has more to do with collaboration than competition; she cares more about purpose than status. Ambition, as defined in Max’s world, is obscured by Fran’s tendency not to ask directly for what she wants and to speak with disclaimers and questions, wait to apply for a position until she feels fully qualified and avoid taking credit for her own successes.
Are women less ambitious, less interested in power? No. Some express ambition in the masculine form. (These women have to watch out for the double bind; ambitious women are not always beloved.) Others just define and demonstrate ambition differently.
We can, as Sandberg does, urge women to appear more ambitious in the masculine way. But this can result in inauthenticity, homogeneity – and exhaustion. I would like to see equal focus on urging leaders to understand and appreciate these and other differences. The workplace was built by and for men. It naturally reflects a higher value for the masculine. Women will be more successful when leaders (men and women) appreciate both masculine and feminine ways of thinking, acting and leading. Leaders will create more inclusive workplaces when they broaden their definitions of ambition and power and honor the feminine as well as masculine forms of both.
Do you think women lack ambition or just show it differently?
I think that Sheryl Sandberg has begun a dialogue that is very important for us to have. I do not feel that women are less ambitious, but it is also not just that they have a different way of showing ambition. Sandberg is spot on that women self-sabotage more often. Those self doubts get in the way of many of us raising our hands for some of the assignments that will put us on the path to key jobs. As you noted, if we are not 92% sure we can do it, many of us don’t jump in. Many of my male colleagues will jump and figure out the details later. I have seen this over and over in my role as a CHRO and now as a consultant.
This is not an either or discussion, but rather Sandberg has raised publicly a discussion that many of us in executive jobs have discussed privately. And the self-doubt and holding back needs to change if we are to get more women into top jobs, or into Congress, etc, etc. And I, for one, think more women in key roles will ultimately change the dialogue for the better.
I totally agree that Sandberg has opened an important dialogue — and that it isn’t “either/or.” This distinction, which I believe is a difference in masculine and feminine ways of working, shows up just as you indicate. Women do need to go for a job when they have much less than all they think they need to do it. But I think we need to know we are asking women to shift to a more masculine approach — so they can make the shift consciously. Stay tuned. I will say more about how the internal barriers that Sandberg talks about become external barriers.