Send to Kindle
For the fourth time, I anxiously awaited an article in the New York Times series by Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant. Again, I hoped they would say something new that would shake up the issue of women succeeding at the top of U.S. business. I do appreciate that this series, like Sandberg’s book Lean In, has brought a big spotlight to this issue. They have used their huge platform, hopefully, to create wider interest in the fact that women are still not proportionally represented at the top. But my hope for something profound or new has been disappointed.
The fourth article by Sandberg and Grant is titled “How Men Can Succeed in the Boardroom and the Bedroom.” About a third of the article is about how gender diversity at work is good for men (as well as women). They call it a “surprising truth” that “equality is good for men, too.” It is not surprising to me or to anyone close to this issue. The first of several studies by Catalyst showing the correlation between gender diversity and financial performance was published in 2004. Since 2007, McKinsey and Company has annually published research under the heading “Women Matter,” showing the benefits that gender diversity brings to businesses.
Sandberg and Grant cite some of many other studies that make the point. They then conclude that this is “not a zero-sum game” (the exact language used by my male colleague in our workshops). “More profits mean more rewards and promotions to go around.” Sadly, without probing the reason the business case hasn’t moved the needle on women in business leadership, they spend the rest of the article on how men benefit from being better husbands and fathers. That is, to me, a totally separate issue. Seeing that they will get more sex and have more successful children may drive some men to be more supportive of their wives’ careers. But it won’t drive them to solve what stands in the way of women reaching the top in business generally.
A recent Associated Press article, “For Business, More Women in Charge Means Bigger Profits,” reviews the evidence that gender diversity is good business. In addressing why organizations keep losing women, the author focuses on work-life pressures. She only mentions the deeper cause, “male-dominated culture at executive levels.”
Yes, business needs to address the needs of post-Boomer parents (moms and dads) to be able to work and care for families. But the harder issue is that “male-dominated culture” – business cultures that reflect decades of exclusively male leadership and lots of gender bias. This bias is not intentional or malicious; it is not even conscious. McKinsey calls these barriers “unconscious mind-sets.”
A compelling business case for gender diversity can’t penetrate unconscious ways of thinking. I want more spotlight on why women are not better represented at the top. I want the spotlight to be wider than on alleviating work-life pressures. We need to shine the light on, and uproot, those unconscious mind-sets.
Do you think it’s “surprising” that gender diversity is good for all? Why do you think knowledge of the business case hasn’t moved the needle very much on achieving gender diversity at leadership levels?
You know, there are so many men that don’t think there is a problem. That’s the worst part. My husband was just telling me yesterday about a young woman who is in the broadcast and film industry, who wrote a letter to the folks who produce one of the largest trade shows in the world covering this industry (news, broadcast, television, cable and film), asking that they change their advertising/marketing tactics, recognizing not all customers or attendees are male. The vendors quite often use sexy imaging – live women scantily dressed or videos, etc. – to attract people to the booths. She was soundly criticized by a number of male respondents for being too sensitive, and that she needed to “just work hard and don’t take no for an answer,” (assuming she was complaining about not getting ahead, which she wasn’t) among the less obnoxious comments. One man, however, spoke up on her behalf. He blasted the men who didn’t believe discrimination/sexism, etc. existed just because “they hadn’t seen it.” He recalled the story of a highly regarded woman who had been heavily involved and a leader in the industry, for whom he worked, that experienced all kinds of negative behavior that he had personally seen. One manifestation was the fact that this woman, who had 30 years heading her business, was often ignored or condescended to in meetings where her male subordinates were addressed instead of her. In my mind, it’s often less the overt discrimination than the unawareness of how (and often deliberate unwillingness to see) seemingly innocent or unknowing behavior constitutes one of a thousand pin pricks that women (or minorities) have to put up with.
Incredible story that exemplifies the mind set I mention. Thanks for sharing!