People who get to the top possess certain attributes (not all of them commendable). Many men do not have those attributes (or abhor them). They don't make it to the top. So, inasmuch as there is a correspondence between these men and women contenders in that light, gender may actually take second place. Nevertheless, it is two strikes against them.
28
Mentoring is oft the key ingredient in advancing to the top. Most execs. reamine uncomfortable mentoring women Second, men oft become fully developed to their firm 24/7. Many woman refuse that commitment. Third, men are naturally more aggressive than woman. Aggression is oft a useful capability climbing the ladder. Fourth, and perhaps the most important , most men are just more comfortable with fellow men than women. Especially when they're not married.
Hope springs eternal. Once upon a time Jews were excluded from CEO jobs. Blacks too. Over time conditions will not hange. If not helpful forthe current generation then the next.
Hope springs eternal. Once upon a time Jews were excluded from CEO jobs. Blacks too. Over time conditions will not hange. If not helpful forthe current generation then the next.
15
The description in this article of the "criteria" in many cases for making it to the CEO level is one of the core reasons why there are activist investors. This is not so much a gender issue but a Corporate America Dysfunction issue.
When the best of the best do not make it to the top, performance is going to suffer and shareholders will pay the price. There is nothing worse than someone gaining a position based on politics rather than performance. But, at the CEO and other very high senior management levels, the board is as much to blame as the people who were playing the stupid political games.
When the best of the best do not make it to the top, performance is going to suffer and shareholders will pay the price. There is nothing worse than someone gaining a position based on politics rather than performance. But, at the CEO and other very high senior management levels, the board is as much to blame as the people who were playing the stupid political games.
22
The one item not addressed here is the fact that 53% of white women voted for Trump. despite his proven record of abusive behavior and inability to tell the
truth.— yet they expressed doubt about Mrs. Clintons honesty and integrity.
What's that about?
It would appear that women, as well as men, don't see women in positions of power as a good thing. I
truth.— yet they expressed doubt about Mrs. Clintons honesty and integrity.
What's that about?
It would appear that women, as well as men, don't see women in positions of power as a good thing. I
47
While the author makes some legitimate points about women's difficulties in reaching the top, the piece would be stronger if she also had highlighted how those women who are CEOs were able to become leaders. Were there particular attributes that helped them -- professional bonding with men, personal styles, background etc.? Also not mentioned is that successful women sometimes do not help other women -- I have often seen that in the senior positions I have held in Washington, DC both in the private and public sectors. For whatever reasons - jealousy, not wanting to go easy on other women, concern they would not be perceived as one of the guys - these are factors, too. Finally, the view that Hillary Clinton mainly lost the 2016 presidential because she is a woman is false. She was a weak candidate and never could answer congently or passionately one basic question: why do you want to be President? Her general lack of trustworthiness and tangible results (who cares if you traveled nearly one million miles as Secretary of State?), and an inability to connect with the working class were the main barriers she faced and these were her own doing.
41
Women will never be able to enter the "intangible by crucial circle of male camaraderie" for one simple reason. They're not men. That's just life. Accept it!
15
One point you have missed..women hate other women. I never saw this until I watched my daughter in cheerleading and dance. The mother's find ways to be more critical of each other and their daughters than men with their sons in all kinds of sports. I have noticed the same in professional woman. Top performing and powerful women are disliked by average women.
Women have to find a way to be aggressive and self promoting in an appropriate way--very hard I know. Golf, drinking and cigars are ways to make allies--you need to participate. Also women need to learn to ask for more money and promotions-- men always do this, you need to learn the skill.
Women have to find a way to be aggressive and self promoting in an appropriate way--very hard I know. Golf, drinking and cigars are ways to make allies--you need to participate. Also women need to learn to ask for more money and promotions-- men always do this, you need to learn the skill.
33
While few women reach the top, it's surprising how often a woman is in charge when bad corporate news breaks into public view. Do the male leaders see it coming and decide that it's a fine time to "promote" a woman to a position of high responsibility? If so, it seems especially cruel that a woman's success is just a setup for being a scapegoat, not to mention a cautionary tale to other women who seek to enter the upper reaches of the male corporate kingdom.
30
As a general rule, talent is rewarded when championed by someone with the power to champion. Also as a general rule, people with the power to champion tend only to champion people they know and like - i.e., people they feel comfortable with socially. In the arts, for example - and to use an example that's at least ostensibly far from the "business world" - writing a great book or play, creating incredible artwork or music, etc. - is rarely enough on its own; you need to know and to hang out with people with the power to promote your work. Knowing key holders in and of itself won't get your work published, produced or presented. But not knowing key holders will practically guarantee that your work won't even be considered.
I think the same goes for any field, which means that in order to get tapped for that number one spot - in order, actually, even to get beyond the equivalent of low level middle management - a person needs to be known and accepted by as a social peer by the people in power. And the people in power are generally men. Which means that in order to get a serious promotion or the equivalent, a person needs to be able to hang with the boys, as one of the boys. And which also means that women will always be at a disadvantage as long as a majority of the power holders in this world are men.
I think the same goes for any field, which means that in order to get tapped for that number one spot - in order, actually, even to get beyond the equivalent of low level middle management - a person needs to be known and accepted by as a social peer by the people in power. And the people in power are generally men. Which means that in order to get a serious promotion or the equivalent, a person needs to be able to hang with the boys, as one of the boys. And which also means that women will always be at a disadvantage as long as a majority of the power holders in this world are men.
19
More than once I've been the victim of not getting advancement. A corporate reshuffle, a new boss means I've had to prove myself over yet again. Once when two groups were merged, the job went to the younger, male manager. It happens at all levels. Contrary, my husband was in education and there it's almost like profiling to make sure that the woman, especially a minority woman, is given the position. He was told as much after the fact when one job he was more than qualified for was given to a less qualified minority woman. He's now retired and I'm almost there, so we're no longer trying to claw our way up that mountain. But the memories still rankle.
29
Until we a substantial number, of women, a critical mass, at the top to help change the male dominant culture and to provide collegial support, we will not break through these barriers. I was the only women at professional level in a state agency for years. These barriers are overwhelming, meant to intimidate and humiliate a woman who tends to think out of their box. " The fury and revulsion aimed at Mrs. Clinton — as well as the more open misogyny in some quarters in the wake of the election — has led many women to question whether they’ve underestimated a visceral recoil against women taking power in any arena." So true!
23
Thinking about some of the top leaders we've seen over the past 10 years, we have to admit, men are both visionaries and have the necessary drive, and ability to take risk. Whether that is biological or societal, we can't know for sure. But in the case of Hillary Clinton, I am confident she lost the election because of her gender. With everything going on with Trump's presidency, she is being super criticized for losing to someone so unfit for the job. This makes me more even more confident that being a woman made it impossible for her to win. She was more than qualified, she was a visionary and she had drive. What did she not have? I don't need to spell it out.
39
Why is the article by Sheila Marikar about Bozoma Saint John, the chief brand officer of Uber, in the Styles section, and not in Business?
67
Excellent article. Truly understand the point about men and their wives' discomfort with female CEO bosses or colleagues because women with financial, sexual and corporate power are triple threats to the men who work for or compete with them. Women are still viewed as mothers or whores and most working women are put into the latter category, even when we're mothers too. And who ever liked the smartest girl in the class?
24
Male dominance over women isn't just centuries long--it's been SOP since humans evolved. Men have a primal need to dominate women, and until recently (the last century or so) had no obstructions to fulfilling that need. Today it's hard to imagine women not being able to vote, to own property, drive cars--in other words to have equal rights.
The behaviors are buried deep in the amygdalas of both genders, and we should celebrate both the men and women who brought about change in the 20th Century to ameliorating the injustices against the fairer sex. We have made some progress in guaranteeing the rights of women, but there is no doubt in my mind that misogyny defeated Hillary Clinton, the candidate who was infinitely more qualified to be POTUS than the blundering loud mouth who currently occupies the White House.
The behaviors are buried deep in the amygdalas of both genders, and we should celebrate both the men and women who brought about change in the 20th Century to ameliorating the injustices against the fairer sex. We have made some progress in guaranteeing the rights of women, but there is no doubt in my mind that misogyny defeated Hillary Clinton, the candidate who was infinitely more qualified to be POTUS than the blundering loud mouth who currently occupies the White House.
33
Basically, the atitude of men hasn't changed since caveman days. Superior physical strength, and freedom from he constraints of child-bearing. were the name of the game then. and they still are.
Seems contradictory in a highly-developed culture that values money, and money alone, above all. Why are women CEOs who HAVE made money for the company still fired or eased out despite their track records?
Men's basic insecurity around their sexual prowess can often trump the company's bottom line. But they are not held accountable for misjudgement.
Seems contradictory in a highly-developed culture that values money, and money alone, above all. Why are women CEOs who HAVE made money for the company still fired or eased out despite their track records?
Men's basic insecurity around their sexual prowess can often trump the company's bottom line. But they are not held accountable for misjudgement.
21
As a young female attorney specializing in a niche practice area (cannabusiness law), I decided early on in my career that "social convention" would not inhibit my personal success. This means I promote myself and my work, when appropriate, and I do so without guilt or shame, just as men have done for centuries without rebuke. I am a huge advocate for self-promotion in the workplace, especially for women, who for so long have been shamed into
silence.
I recently had an older, white male attorney accost me after I corrected his interpretation of the law during a legislative hearing. He did not think I could be an attorney, given my young age and appearance, so he bragged that he "actually graduated law school and passed the Bar Exam." When I retorted that I, too, had graduated from law school (a T-14 too!), and passed the Bar Exam, he went on to critique my appearance. He claimed my outfit was "inappropriate" for sitting in a hearing (my shirt revealed my collarbone..scandal!), and I needed to brush my (wavy, voluminous, and fabulous!) hair.
Would that male attorney ever insult the appearance of another male attorney? No. Did he assume I wouldn't dare stick up for myself, for fear of being scorned? Of course.
Never forget this my fellow nasty women: Superficial critiques are meant to distract strong, successful women from the bigger picture, as we won't have time to change the world if we're too busy changing our hair, makeup, clothes etc. to appease our male colleagues!
silence.
I recently had an older, white male attorney accost me after I corrected his interpretation of the law during a legislative hearing. He did not think I could be an attorney, given my young age and appearance, so he bragged that he "actually graduated law school and passed the Bar Exam." When I retorted that I, too, had graduated from law school (a T-14 too!), and passed the Bar Exam, he went on to critique my appearance. He claimed my outfit was "inappropriate" for sitting in a hearing (my shirt revealed my collarbone..scandal!), and I needed to brush my (wavy, voluminous, and fabulous!) hair.
Would that male attorney ever insult the appearance of another male attorney? No. Did he assume I wouldn't dare stick up for myself, for fear of being scorned? Of course.
Never forget this my fellow nasty women: Superficial critiques are meant to distract strong, successful women from the bigger picture, as we won't have time to change the world if we're too busy changing our hair, makeup, clothes etc. to appease our male colleagues!
80
Women aren't promoted because "they might get pregnant," but once they're past their child-bearing years, brutal ageism sets in (see multiple articles in the NYT on being female, unemployed, and over 50) for either promotion or getting hired by another company. I guess that only leaves the option of barefoot and in the kitchen.
29
Completely agree with the entire premise of this article, but I do not know why we keep holding up Clinton's loss as the primary example of women being held back. She won the popular vote and only lost because of the peculiarities of the electoral college. Women unquestionably face challenges men do not, but Hillary won the popular vote, so not sure why that is continually the favorite example of women facing hurdles men don't. After all, she shares the ignominy of being popular vote winner, but election loser with a man - Al Gore (only Hillary won by a greater margin than Gore).
19
Incidentally, the best way for anyone, men or women to get to the top and control their destiny is to start their own business.
17
Steve Jobs
Bill Gates
Mark Zukerberg
I am waiting to fill in a female name here. Men don't have vision? Knock it off.
These articles only serve to create new ways to divide America. I have mostly worked for woman in my life. One went out of her way to embarrass and diminish me in meetings and another made a play for me at a company event. That second person went on to become VP of her division and then quit due to good ole boy issues. We are still friends and nothing happened. Stop trying to hide sexuality, it is there.
As corporations grow they become more and more wasteful. One reason is that departments that are no longer relevant struggle to continue to exist. I left the corporate environment 20 years ago and make more money on my own. I work nearly entirely for woman and some continuously impress me with their range of abilities. Is that sexist for me to say that?
Someone mentioned Meg Whitman and may I say, what a terrible example. She rose to the top of a company that, earlier, purchased Compaq Computers, a start up from Texas. Compaq saved HP and was started by a couple of white guys. Meg Whitman simply spews coporate speak, she is not a visionary.
The worst part of these articles is that they create this mantra that all men behave this way, that woman are inhenrently smarter and more creative etc.
I agree with the comments that woman should start their own companies and bring their gift for group think to the business world.
Bill Gates
Mark Zukerberg
I am waiting to fill in a female name here. Men don't have vision? Knock it off.
These articles only serve to create new ways to divide America. I have mostly worked for woman in my life. One went out of her way to embarrass and diminish me in meetings and another made a play for me at a company event. That second person went on to become VP of her division and then quit due to good ole boy issues. We are still friends and nothing happened. Stop trying to hide sexuality, it is there.
As corporations grow they become more and more wasteful. One reason is that departments that are no longer relevant struggle to continue to exist. I left the corporate environment 20 years ago and make more money on my own. I work nearly entirely for woman and some continuously impress me with their range of abilities. Is that sexist for me to say that?
Someone mentioned Meg Whitman and may I say, what a terrible example. She rose to the top of a company that, earlier, purchased Compaq Computers, a start up from Texas. Compaq saved HP and was started by a couple of white guys. Meg Whitman simply spews coporate speak, she is not a visionary.
The worst part of these articles is that they create this mantra that all men behave this way, that woman are inhenrently smarter and more creative etc.
I agree with the comments that woman should start their own companies and bring their gift for group think to the business world.
19
It's not limited to the executive suite. In fact, my experience has been that women who rise to the top floor are actually treated more professionally. Women in middle management get pummeled constantly and brutally. Anyone who speaks up is immediately savaged by male peers and the corporate culture.
12
I found even trying to beat the men at their own game repulsive. I openly value good relationships, self awareness, and trust more than winning a stupid money game. For myself, i dreamed of an all female corporation with a corporate culture in which girl values of cooperation and trust would win the prize. I am not saying all women are not potential rats, but i do think a cooperative workplace could beat the pants off a competitive one. Not going to happen soon, but will happen probably in service fields and in small businesses, such as a home health aide agency or a small tutoring company--where, interestingly, most of the customers are going to be women as well.
8
As a recruiter-trainer of management personnel for a number of years, I learned that women tend to be excluded from consideration because they are more difficult to control. A male who achieves executive status can be threatened with obliteration should he fail to measure up. Meaning demonstrating sufficient loyalty, offering absolute obedience, no matter his sense of disapproval or even disgust at what is required. Loosing his position his social status falls from high to extremely low. His entire social network rejects him and he is blackballed within his field. A woman can also be ejected and blackballed, but her social status cannot be so destroyed. Whether she wants it or not, she will always be valued as a potential mother in our still highly traditional society. No matter how she rejects this status attribution, or even deplores it, bosses, including female bosses, know that it deprives them of an important source of leverage. In the real corporate world, management personnel are valued more as eunuchs than as hunters.
16
interesting perspective!
6
I think it's pretty simple actually. Once anyone is near the top - talent is almost secondary. Most people want to be surrounded by people they get along with and don't ruffle too many feathers. I've worked at companies headed by women and companies headed by men - and I've seen extremely talented women and men fired because they don't jive with the people at the top. There's nothing particularly wrong with a group of men running a company that like to play golf together - just like there'd be nothing wrong with a company run by women who like playing tennis together. I think it's a bit of a fools errand to pretend companies are fully free of social conventions. If you want to become a CEO it's best to either work for a company where you fit into the culture at the top, or start your own company that suits your own needs. One can only paddle against the currents for so long.
11
Well, that was a depressing way to start my Sunday. The corporate culture (and academic culture, and medical culture, and so on...) are a 24/7 game of dodge ball, where anyone with instincts to actually improve things, gets their legs knocked out from under them by someone with an instinct for self-promotion. I've noticed, however, that visionary leadership by male leaders is often by a male with somewhat feminine instincts, like Jobs and Gates in the world of personal computing, and Musk. Not always -- it's mostly just 'guys' --
but we need and we see an opening for feminine power at the top of corporate America. But the path for an actual woman to rise to that role is narrower than the eye of a needle. I think the problem's not at the top, though, but at the bottom. Almost every single one of the clerical staff at universities, medical offices, and corporations is a woman. That's been my experience in academics -- look in the cubicles of administrative support, and they are all women. When the bottom rung of an endeavor is all women, that imprints upon us a perception for where women belong, every bit as strong as when the top rung is all men.
but we need and we see an opening for feminine power at the top of corporate America. But the path for an actual woman to rise to that role is narrower than the eye of a needle. I think the problem's not at the top, though, but at the bottom. Almost every single one of the clerical staff at universities, medical offices, and corporations is a woman. That's been my experience in academics -- look in the cubicles of administrative support, and they are all women. When the bottom rung of an endeavor is all women, that imprints upon us a perception for where women belong, every bit as strong as when the top rung is all men.
13
At seventy, what I've noticed: men hate older women-- with the occasional exception of their own mothers, wives, and sisters. And at seventy, I no longer care why men hate so deeply. I've listened to their unkindnesses over these past decades-- listened as a friend, coworker, girlfriend, spouse. I've argued to these men with whom I've been bonded. My words have had no effect.
20
It seems that most men do not like assertive women. I'm not sure our culture will change that. I admire all women who are assertive and can stand living in the world of power-hungry men. It was heartbreaking to watch Hillary being attacked by FAKE news. It felt like the men of America were attacking all successful women.
18
Would have been interesting to include how many women end up starting their own small businesses from scratch - ditching the whole "I'm the guy in charge, so get used to it" corporate mentality - I'll bet on A LOT.
2
I don't know what kind of mentality is needed to be a CEO of a corporation. In general, business seems to be fraught with liars, polluters and cheaters, trying to squeeze every penny out of consumers and offering very little of value. The trumpian way. Stick it to them and run away. Men seem to be good at that. :-)
10
The underlying message of these kinds of articles seems to be that the world has not perfected itself for the benefit of women and, somehow, this is just wrong! Get out of the way, men. The women are here and they want that top job.
There isn't enough space to deal with the whole tamale bit by bit, but it should be noted, first and foremost, that business is a form of warfare. Those who win get millions of dollars, buildings named after them, their choice of second or third wives in the event of a divorce and their children get tremendous opportunities for good, elite education and wealth for themselves.
Second, consider that men are biologically and socially trained to try to win. Those who do win usually get the attention and affections of highly desirable mates. Until this rule is changed (please, go try), men have a much great incentive to play rough and to win competitions by whatever means.
Finally, I totally reject the idea that Hillary Clinton's defeat is YET ANOTHER depressing sign of how tough it is for women. Hillary lost because she had a relentless propaganda campaign against her and because she was running for the technocratic role of president, not the role of national leadership. The fact so many believed that she had to run, and she had to win, to prove something for women is one reason we have Trump in the White House now. However great her strengths, she lacked a rooted feel for the nation, the gut political instinct, that could have spelled victory.
There isn't enough space to deal with the whole tamale bit by bit, but it should be noted, first and foremost, that business is a form of warfare. Those who win get millions of dollars, buildings named after them, their choice of second or third wives in the event of a divorce and their children get tremendous opportunities for good, elite education and wealth for themselves.
Second, consider that men are biologically and socially trained to try to win. Those who do win usually get the attention and affections of highly desirable mates. Until this rule is changed (please, go try), men have a much great incentive to play rough and to win competitions by whatever means.
Finally, I totally reject the idea that Hillary Clinton's defeat is YET ANOTHER depressing sign of how tough it is for women. Hillary lost because she had a relentless propaganda campaign against her and because she was running for the technocratic role of president, not the role of national leadership. The fact so many believed that she had to run, and she had to win, to prove something for women is one reason we have Trump in the White House now. However great her strengths, she lacked a rooted feel for the nation, the gut political instinct, that could have spelled victory.
10
You're saying the relentless propaganda campaign against her (and that people fell for it) had nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman? By "the technocratic role of president," do you mean that she knew how to do the job? Are you saying that 45 has more leadership ability than Clinton?
10
So the take-away...from this and many other similar pieces is this; "Women are not taught to fight for themselves."
So whats the solution to that? More importantly where is the true blame to be placed? Moms? Dads? School? Is it the culture alone? (hard to accept that) As its likely a combo of things...how do we first unravel them, then address them each and as a whole?
We keep hearing about this problem, but where are the applicable solutions?
So whats the solution to that? More importantly where is the true blame to be placed? Moms? Dads? School? Is it the culture alone? (hard to accept that) As its likely a combo of things...how do we first unravel them, then address them each and as a whole?
We keep hearing about this problem, but where are the applicable solutions?
5
Sigh. I sued the company I worked for in 1974 for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights act. They followed the letter of the law by posting job openings then hired from the pool of male managers' friends. In the case of the job I would have liked to apply for that meant moving a manager's buddy from out of state. In a meeting with the company president I pointed out that if you have level A,B and C employees how does it make send to hire/promote level C men and pass over A and B women. His response was to compliment me on being a good spokesperson for "my cause".
Sounds like things are pretty much the same. Discouraging.
Sounds like things are pretty much the same. Discouraging.
5
Nearly all of the Fortune 500 companies were built by men. It's seems convenient to ignore that fact. Women are not taking the risks required to build large companies.
It is also convenient to ignore the stories of so many men who didn't make it to the top because they didn't "fit in" with the rest of the guys. At that level, the environment is often cruel and unjust for everyone. Imagine a man who is small in stature or not athletic or who doesn't drink or is physically disabled or is openly gay or who is simply a decent human being who calls out others for bad behavior or just doesn't kiss enough behind. I could go on and on. Not going to happen for those guys, either, but that won't be discussed in the New York Times or anywhere else.
Rather than focusing so much on the CEO position, it seems more productive to focus on why women aren't founding their own companies and growing them to size. If they did, they could have whoever they want in the CEO's office. But that doesn't fit the narrative of bad men holding deserving women back. Bad men hold everyone back.
And, no, Hillary Clinton did not lose because of misogyny. Just as much "fury and revulsion" was aimed at Donald Trump. She lost because even the women she was pandering to didn't like her.
It is also convenient to ignore the stories of so many men who didn't make it to the top because they didn't "fit in" with the rest of the guys. At that level, the environment is often cruel and unjust for everyone. Imagine a man who is small in stature or not athletic or who doesn't drink or is physically disabled or is openly gay or who is simply a decent human being who calls out others for bad behavior or just doesn't kiss enough behind. I could go on and on. Not going to happen for those guys, either, but that won't be discussed in the New York Times or anywhere else.
Rather than focusing so much on the CEO position, it seems more productive to focus on why women aren't founding their own companies and growing them to size. If they did, they could have whoever they want in the CEO's office. But that doesn't fit the narrative of bad men holding deserving women back. Bad men hold everyone back.
And, no, Hillary Clinton did not lose because of misogyny. Just as much "fury and revulsion" was aimed at Donald Trump. She lost because even the women she was pandering to didn't like her.
16
Last year Fortune reported that the average age of Fortune 500 companies was 80 years. I wonder how many women were in a position to start a company in 1936 (on average). I don't imagine conditions were favorable for women back then, 16 years after getting the vote. They weren't favorable almost 40 years later when I graduated from college. I got a job at a "progressive" mid-sized company. I was the second college-educated woman they had ever hired. They didn't know what to do with me. Their first college-educated female hire ended up suing them for sex discrimination. The highest-ranking woman before us was an executive secretary who flattered and kowtowed to men. There was no sisterhood coming from her; I imagine she had had to work very hard to get to where she was. I suspect that Secretary Clinton lost the race decades ago when she told an interviewer she wasn't going to stay home and bake cookies. I can imagine lots of resentful rural women (I grew up on a farm) with very limited opportunities wondering who she thought she was, to stand up to her full height and own herself. Some women who suffer the legacy of generations of sexism, finding no other refuge, have landed in that mindset and play a part in perpetuating sexism.
28
The real problem for feminism now is not that equality remains out of reach. The problem is that feminism has been coopted and now simply defines success in the same way men do. Capitalism and its CEO high priests and priestesses are much more pernicious problems than authors of articles like these seem couageous or capable of tackling.
6
Gee, maybe men don't want women in the workplace! How do I know that? Men pay women less and present obstacles to success whenever possible. Funny how women are incapable of seeing that. I guess you can tell a woman anything and she will believe it. American business is for, by and about men. If women want equality, they will have to start their own companies and provide pro-women environments. But, like math and science, I guess women just aren't talented enough.
2
"Women tend to be less comfortable with self-promotion"??
Apparently the author never knew Carly Fiorina (former HP CEO). Carly excelled at "self-promotion" while running HP into the ground. Carly appeared more interested in patting herself on the back on her many speeches as HP CEO, than crediting the HP people under her.
Apparently the author never knew Carly Fiorina (former HP CEO). Carly excelled at "self-promotion" while running HP into the ground. Carly appeared more interested in patting herself on the back on her many speeches as HP CEO, than crediting the HP people under her.
4
1965: It was legal then for him to ask me: "What birth control are you using? We don't want to hire a woman who will get pregnant." 1979: The white male school principal called me into his office: "Stop shooting from the hip." My response: "When you ask Mr. Jones to stop shooting from the hip, I will, too." Promotion denied. 1995: After several successful years as founding host of a weekly public affairs, public radio program, I was fired by the white, male general mgr: "You have too much power." Yes, he actually said that. With a momentary stint of the show being hosted by a revolving door of young women, the program has been hosted by a white male ever since. 2011: With stellar performance reviews, I was denied a promotion and raise for 3 years for paradoxically offering ideas generated from a major value espoused by the organization led by men: "You are a Truth-teller" became the road block. Now, at age 72, I help my brilliant daughter navigate the hallways of fearful white, male men -- and the women who walk in their shadows. #NeverthelessShePersisted.
27
There comes a time to fight back by starting your own. There are only so many fortune 500, 1000 companies. Start a company that competes and wins. I am not a woman. I am a black man-the odd are even more daunting. Nothing is fair, nothing will ever be.
9
Ladies, the entire world is a social Darwinistic Game of Thrones and you think you can write articles, hold protest rallies, or pass some "equal opportunity" laws and the rules will change. LOL It will not.
Competition for the best jobs with the most power and social status will always be won by the most aggressive and tribal members of the species, men.
Competition for the best jobs with the most power and social status will always be won by the most aggressive and tribal members of the species, men.
5
In my experience in academia, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't if you are not a White male. As a Black woman, I tire of my White male colleagues who don't know what to do with me because I don't fit the negative racial and gender stereotypes they have internalized. Rather than humbly admit that their stereotypes might be wrong, they dig their arrogant heels in and conflict ultimately ensues.
True change will occur when White men discard the narrative they have crafted about women and/or minorities. Until then, things will never change.
True change will occur when White men discard the narrative they have crafted about women and/or minorities. Until then, things will never change.
13
Thanks for the comments. The article is about some women feeling frustrated and defeated because they aren't invited into the male world of CEOs. My opinion is that 1. men and women live in different psychic worlds which are historically not coed, and 2. Women's work is the foundation of all civilizations for which we have earned, and surely deserve, financial support and honor.
4
It's not just men who can be a problem — intentional or unintentional — for women advancing into upper management, the C-suite and all the way to the top. There are too many women who seem put off by intelligent, successful, independent females. They don't relate to them, perhaps because they don't see themselves that way. My very successful COO wife, who seeks strong women for her company, says she encounters women who simply undermine the credibility of women in business by fulfilling every negative female stereotype.
The reason we have the president we do is because too many women didn't relate to Hillary and voted for her incompetent opponent. They are failures both as feminists and as twenty-first century females. One can only hope their daughters are smarter and have more self-esteem.
The data say that companies with female senior executives and directors on boards are more innovative and more profitable. That's because unlike silo-men, women can be more collaborative and more open to new ideas. Shareholders should demand that more qualified females be hired and promoted...all the way to CEO.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
The reason we have the president we do is because too many women didn't relate to Hillary and voted for her incompetent opponent. They are failures both as feminists and as twenty-first century females. One can only hope their daughters are smarter and have more self-esteem.
The data say that companies with female senior executives and directors on boards are more innovative and more profitable. That's because unlike silo-men, women can be more collaborative and more open to new ideas. Shareholders should demand that more qualified females be hired and promoted...all the way to CEO.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
8
This whole discussion is based on the androcentric assumption that the CEO job is the most valuable/desirable/important in the organization. Maybe the position of CEO is so highly valued because it is typically filled by men. It may be that the "dependable backup" job is actually much more critical to a company's stability and success, but it's not recognized/compensated as such because it's typically filled by women, and devalued for that reason only.
Consider childcare, one of the most poorly paid positions in our country. After genetics, a child's main caregiver is the single most important determinant whether they grow up to have a constructive or destructive impact on society during their lifetime. The job of a caregiver is pretty important, impactful, and powerful - which is not reflected in their compensation. Not because the job isn't crucial - it is - but because it's typically done by women.
By buying into the idea that the CEO is the most important person in the room, and trying to get women, who may not even be interested, into that role, we may be continuing to put (many) women at a disadvantage. What if instead, we paid people according to the value of their contribution, rather than according to whether that contribution is typically made by men or women? To me, this would be true equality.
Giving qualified women equal opportunity to take on a role that has traditionally been filled by men is definitely necessary. But it is nowhere near sufficient.
Consider childcare, one of the most poorly paid positions in our country. After genetics, a child's main caregiver is the single most important determinant whether they grow up to have a constructive or destructive impact on society during their lifetime. The job of a caregiver is pretty important, impactful, and powerful - which is not reflected in their compensation. Not because the job isn't crucial - it is - but because it's typically done by women.
By buying into the idea that the CEO is the most important person in the room, and trying to get women, who may not even be interested, into that role, we may be continuing to put (many) women at a disadvantage. What if instead, we paid people according to the value of their contribution, rather than according to whether that contribution is typically made by men or women? To me, this would be true equality.
Giving qualified women equal opportunity to take on a role that has traditionally been filled by men is definitely necessary. But it is nowhere near sufficient.
6
Since you've brought up Hillary Clinton, it's worth mentioning that while the electoral college still hasn't put a woman in the White House (despite Clinton winning the popular vote), over the past half-century, 59 other countries have already had female leaders.
10
One issue that was not mentioned in the article is the difficulty many women face when re-entering the work force after taking time off to have children. The perception is that you have lost your skills during your time out of the market. The birth of my first child coincided with a move to a new city, and I stayed home with him for a few years. When I returned to work in my field (in-house corporate lawyer), I accepted a position with below market pay-mainly because I felt I had no choice but also because I believed the narrative that I'd lost my skills during my time off. After a few months back at work, I realized the skills catch up period was actually quite short. However, with regard to pay, it's taken me 4 years of hard work and excellent reviews just to catch back up to market.
5
Your focus here is on big business, publicly traded companies, "standard" employment situations for MBAs and big city types. These do have a pipeline so I understand that but .... consider a different scenario.
I am a female entrepreneur. I founded my company 40 years ago. We will hit $100M in revenue this year. I would LOVE to find someone to step in, learn the business, and allow me to start working my way out the door. There are a number of key employees, my own son included, but companies like mine are essentially small businesses, closely held, thinly managed, and thus not structured to "create" executive managers.
How do I find the person you are writing about? Is she even considering what my company has to offer? We will never have the cushy conditions the big guys offer, but we DO have opportunities they simply cannot provide.
The reality isn't "just' that women face obstacles men don't. As women, we also have to look for real opportunities beyond the obvious. What do you really want? If it's stability and security, that definitely limits the options and cuts off a whole world of exciting, crazy, innovative times! Would love to have a strong woman in the wings.
I am a female entrepreneur. I founded my company 40 years ago. We will hit $100M in revenue this year. I would LOVE to find someone to step in, learn the business, and allow me to start working my way out the door. There are a number of key employees, my own son included, but companies like mine are essentially small businesses, closely held, thinly managed, and thus not structured to "create" executive managers.
How do I find the person you are writing about? Is she even considering what my company has to offer? We will never have the cushy conditions the big guys offer, but we DO have opportunities they simply cannot provide.
The reality isn't "just' that women face obstacles men don't. As women, we also have to look for real opportunities beyond the obvious. What do you really want? If it's stability and security, that definitely limits the options and cuts off a whole world of exciting, crazy, innovative times! Would love to have a strong woman in the wings.
12
My 2 cents: look within your own company for someone passionate, dedicated, intelligent, innovative and groom them to lead your company. Instead of taking someone from the outside who does not intimately know how you work or may not get along with your current employees. Since your son is a key employee, you might want to talk to him about the dynamics of the relationship -- find out how he feels working with women (or the woman employee you might have in mind) and broader than that, how he feels as a family member who may have to contend with the ideas or orders of a non-family member.
I've only worked in big companies and I was groomed for leadership by my bosses. I paid a lot of attention to what was happening on the front lines of my field, medicine, (I focused a lot on patient experience) and they liked that I did. Early on, I was sent to represent our subgroup at regional meetings, put on special projects by the hospital chief, etc. For small companies, that's based on the experiences of my relatives, who worked with both good and bad companies.
I've only worked in big companies and I was groomed for leadership by my bosses. I paid a lot of attention to what was happening on the front lines of my field, medicine, (I focused a lot on patient experience) and they liked that I did. Early on, I was sent to represent our subgroup at regional meetings, put on special projects by the hospital chief, etc. For small companies, that's based on the experiences of my relatives, who worked with both good and bad companies.
3
Our small, deeply southern community (pop. 15,000) has discovered a secret source of competent leaders--women. We currently have a women as the President of our college, President of our technical school, CEO of our Medical Center, CEO at our Walmart distribution center, CEO of our Boys/Girls Club, Executive of our Chamber of Commerce.
What I found, as a board member of our Medical Center, that when doing our search for the CEO replacement 3 years ago, the best applicants were female. They were stars that had been passed over in other jobs. Our job, as Board members, became to treat them as well financially as we did the former male counterparts.
None of these women were from our community and each had their own reasons for relocating, but for all, it was as a promotion career wise.
Because of our, maybe, not idea location, we get premier women applicants but only middle of the road male applicants. Our community and industries have benefited from the female influx of talent, skill sets and drive--maybe a need to prove something. They serve as wonderful role models for the young women in our community as they add a top slot to their resumes.
We recognize what woman have brought to our area and hope they continue to find us.
What I found, as a board member of our Medical Center, that when doing our search for the CEO replacement 3 years ago, the best applicants were female. They were stars that had been passed over in other jobs. Our job, as Board members, became to treat them as well financially as we did the former male counterparts.
None of these women were from our community and each had their own reasons for relocating, but for all, it was as a promotion career wise.
Because of our, maybe, not idea location, we get premier women applicants but only middle of the road male applicants. Our community and industries have benefited from the female influx of talent, skill sets and drive--maybe a need to prove something. They serve as wonderful role models for the young women in our community as they add a top slot to their resumes.
We recognize what woman have brought to our area and hope they continue to find us.
28
But are they being paid? Or is this work provided by women for free?
2
I am a devoted Hillary Clinton supporter and General Counsel of a media company. I disagree that the 2016 election has caused women to question whether they've underestimated misogyny in the workplace. The shining moment when Hillary accepted the nomination touched women very deeply, and I believe that moment, and what is stood for, became the core value behind the Women's March. What has emerged with women leaders post November 2016 is a decisiveness of purpose; a movement to lift each other up, to remain active in politics and to win in 2018 and 2020. For me, that means promoting Elizabeth Warren as a presidential candidate.
As for the workplace, leadership in a large company is always determined by many factors: personality, expertise, luck. Working in media , I have worked with female Board Members, Presidents, and EVPs. It's up to female leaders to make sure that this trend continues and I plan to be one of the women that makes that happen.
As for the workplace, leadership in a large company is always determined by many factors: personality, expertise, luck. Working in media , I have worked with female Board Members, Presidents, and EVPs. It's up to female leaders to make sure that this trend continues and I plan to be one of the women that makes that happen.
7
I'm surprised how little attention the article gives to family dynamics. In my experience, men are promoted at higher rates because most of them have spouses at home who raise their children and manage their households, freeing up valuable after-hours time for the husband's business development. It is the very rare woman, indeed, who enjoys the luxury of a stay-at-home spouse who enables her to compete on the same playing field as her male colleagues. In my opinion, CEOs are made at home.
37
The main non Clinton voters were other women. I have been repeatedly approached for money for the Democratic party and many of the ladies asking have admitted to being non Clinton voters. They admit that they were angry and resentful about Mrs Clinton's "horrible hanging out" with men from Wall Street.
Many of the same women also stated that had the media not been so absolutely positive in assuring them of a Clinton victory-that if they had thought Trump had a good chance of winning, that then they would have voted for Mrs Clinton! As long as she was a "winner", they refused to vote for her.
THis shows that Americans who might have voted for Clinton wanted to punish her and send her a message that, when she was in the White House, she would know they were unhappy with her non party behavior and they now demanded a stricter hewing of the original liberal line.
When they discovered US politics doesn't work this way, they wanted a do-over.
The most intensely demanding of virtuous behavior from female candidates are female voters, many who insist that a woman must meet higher and far more moralistic standards of behavior than any man. It's the Caesar's wife problem-she must always be seen as above even a shadow of suspicion, otherwise she gets thrown to the wolves.
Many of the same women also stated that had the media not been so absolutely positive in assuring them of a Clinton victory-that if they had thought Trump had a good chance of winning, that then they would have voted for Mrs Clinton! As long as she was a "winner", they refused to vote for her.
THis shows that Americans who might have voted for Clinton wanted to punish her and send her a message that, when she was in the White House, she would know they were unhappy with her non party behavior and they now demanded a stricter hewing of the original liberal line.
When they discovered US politics doesn't work this way, they wanted a do-over.
The most intensely demanding of virtuous behavior from female candidates are female voters, many who insist that a woman must meet higher and far more moralistic standards of behavior than any man. It's the Caesar's wife problem-she must always be seen as above even a shadow of suspicion, otherwise she gets thrown to the wolves.
29
Very insightful. Thank you.
5
I agree that at the top especially, large barriers remain for women. However, in most other metrics women are surpassing men. Overall women have already surpassed men nationally in college degrees, law degrees, and are increasingly obtaining more science degrees (especially in the areas of research and medicine). While this certainly hasn't translated into much success at the very top (CEO level, partner, etc), it has meant that women as a whole as outperforming and even out-earning men in far greater numbers at the so called middle levels of the workforce. There have been several articles that have documented the decline of traditional mostly male blue collar jobs, and how women have much more successfully adapted to the reality of the modern workforce. Besides general sexism, one of the main reasons for the lack of women at the top has been the lack of more flexible, and family friendly work policies. In the "dog eat dog" world of business, especially the high end CEO professions mentioned in the article, people who advance the ranks (men and women) are expected to work monstrous hours, always be available and hardly ever take time out for family. Women for better or worse are typically less willing to "sell one's soul" for the job. And this ultra competitive (lack of flexibility) culture at the top punishes women more traditionally, since men frequently have a "wife" to take care of the family and other household worries.
14
For me the whole business comes down to this: who's good at being aggressive? That's not to say I think it's a desirable trait, myself, but it seems that in corporate life that's the way the game is played. However, with aggressiveness you often get by-products that ultimately harm the environment and the enterprise. If there are more men than women who are so full of bluster, are so delusional, that they can say, as the McDonald's executive here said, "I ran great restaurants", I for one am not surprised!
2
It starts long before women enter the workforce. As little children girls are not encouraged to win, to be assertive, to get dirty, to pursue difficult subjects. As they approach their teens the emphasis shifts to looks and boys. If parents don't do this society does in the schools, on the media, with clothes, in books, and definitely in school. I've been working over 30 years and the stories I hear now are the same ones I either lived through or was hearing back in the late 70s and early 80s.
One supervisor at a medical college I worked at made passes at every female he could. Despite repeated complaints he was never told to stop. At another job, years later, I watched as the company fired women over or near the age of 55. Not a lot of us and not at once but over a period of time. This same company promoted and kept incompetent men in supervisory and director level positions. At almost every workplace I've seen my ideas and the ideas and suggestions of other women dismissed until a male takes them up.
The bottom line in America is that men, especially WASPs, are viewed as the proper people to promote to CEO positions. What amazes me is that some women still try to get to that position even after years of working with men has proven that most men will go out of their way to lie, cheat, and steal from their female colleagues at all levels. And then, after they've messed everything up, we're supposed to accept the consequences: losing our jobs.
One supervisor at a medical college I worked at made passes at every female he could. Despite repeated complaints he was never told to stop. At another job, years later, I watched as the company fired women over or near the age of 55. Not a lot of us and not at once but over a period of time. This same company promoted and kept incompetent men in supervisory and director level positions. At almost every workplace I've seen my ideas and the ideas and suggestions of other women dismissed until a male takes them up.
The bottom line in America is that men, especially WASPs, are viewed as the proper people to promote to CEO positions. What amazes me is that some women still try to get to that position even after years of working with men has proven that most men will go out of their way to lie, cheat, and steal from their female colleagues at all levels. And then, after they've messed everything up, we're supposed to accept the consequences: losing our jobs.
23
Women are not very nice to each other and this is always overlooked in these kinds of "pieces", whether it's in the corporate atmosphere or "socially".
Remember?
"The Women" a 1936 American play, by Clare Boothe Luce, an acerbic commentary on the lives and power struggles of various Manhattan socialites and up-and-comers and the gossip that propels and damages their relationships. While men frequently are the subject of their lively discussions and play an important role in the action on-stage, they are strictly characters mentioned but never seen.
Or consider the e e cummings poem -
Cambridge ladies who live in furnished souls
are unbeautiful and have comfortable minds
are invariably interested in so many things—
at the present writing one still finds
delighted fingers knitting for the is it Poles?
perhaps. While permanent faces coyly bandy
scandal of Mrs. N and Professor D
.... the Cambridge ladies do not care, above
Cambridge if sometimes in its box of
sky lavender and cornerless, the
moon rattles like a fragment of angry candy
Remember?
"The Women" a 1936 American play, by Clare Boothe Luce, an acerbic commentary on the lives and power struggles of various Manhattan socialites and up-and-comers and the gossip that propels and damages their relationships. While men frequently are the subject of their lively discussions and play an important role in the action on-stage, they are strictly characters mentioned but never seen.
Or consider the e e cummings poem -
Cambridge ladies who live in furnished souls
are unbeautiful and have comfortable minds
are invariably interested in so many things—
at the present writing one still finds
delighted fingers knitting for the is it Poles?
perhaps. While permanent faces coyly bandy
scandal of Mrs. N and Professor D
.... the Cambridge ladies do not care, above
Cambridge if sometimes in its box of
sky lavender and cornerless, the
moon rattles like a fragment of angry candy
6
"Women as prey" resonated for me. I am sure that that feeling is real and that it infects women as well as men.
2
Income inequality must be the order of the day.
Women pay the same exact amount for rent, food, gas and utilities as men do.
Why should women receive less money and pay more in order to just survive?
Maybe women should get an at least a 10% discount.
Women pay the same exact amount for rent, food, gas and utilities as men do.
Why should women receive less money and pay more in order to just survive?
Maybe women should get an at least a 10% discount.
10
Women have higher abesntism and drop out of the work force to play house. That's why they make less. Also women cannot be charged more for health care though they live longer and use more of it. Women have been enjoying a double standard for generations. Believe me you don't want equity.
1
We have reached an impasse that's hard to solve. Résumés don't get promoted, people do. Do women feel comfortable casually discussing men when they are around? Do professional women feel comfortable drinking around men, on a regular basis, with whom they work?
In today's world, the charge of sexism can be a career-killer: is it any wonder many men seek (perhaps unconsciously in their hiring choices) to avoid it? Socializing is a major part of any successful person's career, yet the age-old war-of-the-sexes strongly works against inclusion.
This is very unfair, it is infuriating, but it is a very human thing. Unfortunately, it transcends gender and includes race. Only very powerful initiatives can address it, and those have been but marginally successful. This will not be a quick victory, but rather one of long evolution.
In today's world, the charge of sexism can be a career-killer: is it any wonder many men seek (perhaps unconsciously in their hiring choices) to avoid it? Socializing is a major part of any successful person's career, yet the age-old war-of-the-sexes strongly works against inclusion.
This is very unfair, it is infuriating, but it is a very human thing. Unfortunately, it transcends gender and includes race. Only very powerful initiatives can address it, and those have been but marginally successful. This will not be a quick victory, but rather one of long evolution.
4
Most of us don't want to take orders from a woman or be beaten by a woman in the world of business. It is easy to speak off the record and to be blunt with a man. A woman cannot be easily trusted. She may support abortion and claim a right to hide her mistake. It all says a lot about character - and old men like me who don't welcome the brave new world.
3
At least you're honest, which is about all I can say.
6
Thank God for the inevitable end of us all.
7
Her mistake?
10
This article and the many comments to it are testament to the extraordinary amount of talent that this country wastes in its drive to be #1. The flaccid growth and backwards social state of all those Middle Eastern countries touting an even more "men first" philosophy show anyone willing to see that the way of the "man on top" is the way to the bottom in terms of business efficiency and effectiveness.
Waste the brain power of anyone in your country and you waste the efforts of your nation to "be great" --- ever.
Waste the brain power of anyone in your country and you waste the efforts of your nation to "be great" --- ever.
9
What a silly assertion The US is a superpower and economic giant and you claim we are wasting talent? Far from it, the best have risen to the top and I am glad of it, not matter what sex or how they got there.
This article is inaccurate. Many women succeed and outsmart men because they are smart, think fast, and are articulated. Yes, many women do that and many man acknowledge it. While it is true that women do not have many high-ranking positions, this is because women do not really try. If a woman wants to succeed and get at the top, she can do it if she really tries. It is like being an entrepreneur. If you have the guts, passion, and ability to launch yourself into the unknown you will succeed. Unfortunately, many women are timid, have no voice and prefer to be in their comfort zone. But this also applies to men. There are many men that have no drive to succeed and love to be told what to do regardless if their boss is a woman or a man. Women that succeed also come already naturally equipped with the drive for it; they have a vision and a purpose in life; it is already part of their genes and personality, and politics has nothing to do with it. If HC is not the president is because she depended on the vote of the masses; most are ignorant and uneducated, and they see and hear on TV 24/7 only trash thru advertisement and tacky programs. They do not have the ability to think for themselves, make correct judgments, and differentiate the truth from lies. Also, the corrupted Electoral College, and the foreign intruders are really the ones who decide who the president is. This has absolutely nothing to do with HC and all the intelligent women out there. Please stop denigrating women.
4
Reading through this article and some of the comments, as I sit in exile from another state after being threatened with 'retire or we'll find a way to fire you', I can't help but remember the feeling of 'you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't'. It's not the results, the vision, or even the personality of a woman executive. It's the deep-down hostility of many men and some women against women's leadership. At least they came right out and said 'we want a man for the job, a younger man with a family'. From where I was living and trying to work in a rural community, it seemed that Hillary was doomed from the start.
20
Why women aren't CEOs? Because maybe they don't want to be?
4
Wow, so few comments here made by men. Maybe they aren't interested in reading this kind of article. Or they don't feel like commenting on this issue. I guess that says a lot, as comments often do.
8
if you don't think misogyny played a big part in the election, imagine Hillary up there on the stage, with five kids from three different marriages (to hunky much younger men -- foreigners, even!) and getting props for her family values.
36
Absolutely! And taking flak because Bill cheated!
9
Extremely important topic as US enterprises do not operate at optimum performance levels mostly because men rationalize average results as great. Women simply know better and can distinguish between mediocre, average and good. Being cutthroat getting into the C-suite is antithetical to brilliant company strategy and workplace optimization and outstanding, ethical profits. The US GDP would improve 100% if women ran 75% of corporate America. Men simply cannot think beyond yesterday and fail at imiganation and innovation (managerially speaking, but I'm just saying).
7
At 80, I couldn't agree more with the women's findings about our culture, and Shankar Vedantam's "The Hidden Brain" has an excellent chapter on gender bias. Even now, I facilitate a writers' group formerly hosted by a man—most men left with him. Fortunately, two men thinking outside of the usual are still with us.
7
There is not a good solution to the problem of women's inability to climb to the very top of corporations such as McDonald's because it's the wrong problem. There is something fundamentally wrong with the values of men and women who would seek power at destructive organizations such as those. And any woman CEO earning 50-100 times more than the average worker at her organization is just as guilty as any man of contributing to the economic inequality that is so toxic to American democracy.
4
Attaboy Steve, slide into the Marxist theory of our sexist system! These women who want the top job obviously suffer from false consciousness.
5
I believe authenticity comes into play as well. Women - even ambitious ones - are not as likely to fit comfortably into the leadership boxes created by and for men. The price of doing so can mean trading off your own sense of self. And without a strong sense of self, where are you as a leader? It's insidious and pervasive in American business culture. Europe, where women generally are more respected in or out of the boardroom, does not box people in to one hyper-competitive model of leadership. This benefits male "beta style" leaders as well as women.
12
Unmistakably, this story is often man vs woman. But I have worked in extremely toxic environments with female professor colleagues, bosses, and deans. Sadly, when women get in positions of power, they target women similarly to the way men do. Frankly, I am not sure if misogynistic men or misogynistic women are worse. The oppressed becomes the oppressor.
11
Discrimination (maybe misogyny) against women begins with Mother Nature. Compare the time and trouble for men and women to
(a) produce gametes,
(b) gestate,
(c) nurse.
Not to mention the risks of sex play--bio- and sociological; and its place in quality of life.
It's easy come/easy go vs a huge handicap.
Three additional points:
1. Male executives typically had wives as unpaid support staff, running social life as bonus. Letters of recommendation would read--"And last but not least, Mrs. X' sparkle will be much appreciated by all." We remember the First Ladies; who remembers Mr. Thatcher? The thought of Slick Willy returning to the crime scene is hardly charming.
2. “It’s really all about money,” Given the personal and familial sacrifices women must make, it's no wonder many realize that enriching stockholders and other executive is not a worthwhile goal.
(3) Professionals--doctors, dentists, teachers, craftspeople--and artists take pride in their work. Separating fools from their money is not such a great job. Nor is hedge funding--to bleed corporations dry. Being rich is rarely the best life. Indeed money, is essentially a means to other ends. Living for money--like scrooge--is a perversion. This applies to life at many income levels. The quality of working life-time is vastly underappreciated--regardless of the pay. Whether is being a CEO or working on an assembly line, alienated labor is still selling life-time to enjoy life elsewhere.
(a) produce gametes,
(b) gestate,
(c) nurse.
Not to mention the risks of sex play--bio- and sociological; and its place in quality of life.
It's easy come/easy go vs a huge handicap.
Three additional points:
1. Male executives typically had wives as unpaid support staff, running social life as bonus. Letters of recommendation would read--"And last but not least, Mrs. X' sparkle will be much appreciated by all." We remember the First Ladies; who remembers Mr. Thatcher? The thought of Slick Willy returning to the crime scene is hardly charming.
2. “It’s really all about money,” Given the personal and familial sacrifices women must make, it's no wonder many realize that enriching stockholders and other executive is not a worthwhile goal.
(3) Professionals--doctors, dentists, teachers, craftspeople--and artists take pride in their work. Separating fools from their money is not such a great job. Nor is hedge funding--to bleed corporations dry. Being rich is rarely the best life. Indeed money, is essentially a means to other ends. Living for money--like scrooge--is a perversion. This applies to life at many income levels. The quality of working life-time is vastly underappreciated--regardless of the pay. Whether is being a CEO or working on an assembly line, alienated labor is still selling life-time to enjoy life elsewhere.
6
Its pretty simple. If you want women at the highest levels of any organization, then hire women in sufficient numbers for feeder positions to make it happen.
3
You did not read the article.
9
These comments, "If Hillary had only...." Just stop. If you want to witness a double standard and why women are not at the top, compare Trump to Clinton.
People attack Hillary for Bill's affairs when Hillary didn't have the bleeping affairs. But Donald Trump voters gave a free pass on his 3 wives, extra marital affairs and assaults on women (groping, grabbing and peeping).
Hillary was more than qualified for public office. Hillary had a plan for the country. You may not have liked her plan, fine. But many Americans didn't even hear her plan over the Donald Trump din.
People say she was a flawed candidate. Yet Trump is not flawed despite multiple bankruptcies, unpaid bills, no transparency with his tax returns, affairs up the yin yang, attacks against military heros like a John McCain, and a guy who has probably never stepped foot in a grocery store.
Hillary Clinton took money for a speech given to Goldman Sachs and she is met with horror. Trump has at least 6 Goldman Sachs alumni (all men) in his government with the new Scaramucci, and there's little public outcry.
Hillary was dragged through multiple hearings by Republicans. She survived them all. Trump can't even handle the press. Trump can't even manage his own staff. He's already talking of pardoning himself after 6 months in office. The Trump experiment is clearly not working.
But Donald Trump still gets the pass and Hillary Clinton still gets scrutiny. Mysogeny and patriarchy rule this country, pure and simple.
People attack Hillary for Bill's affairs when Hillary didn't have the bleeping affairs. But Donald Trump voters gave a free pass on his 3 wives, extra marital affairs and assaults on women (groping, grabbing and peeping).
Hillary was more than qualified for public office. Hillary had a plan for the country. You may not have liked her plan, fine. But many Americans didn't even hear her plan over the Donald Trump din.
People say she was a flawed candidate. Yet Trump is not flawed despite multiple bankruptcies, unpaid bills, no transparency with his tax returns, affairs up the yin yang, attacks against military heros like a John McCain, and a guy who has probably never stepped foot in a grocery store.
Hillary Clinton took money for a speech given to Goldman Sachs and she is met with horror. Trump has at least 6 Goldman Sachs alumni (all men) in his government with the new Scaramucci, and there's little public outcry.
Hillary was dragged through multiple hearings by Republicans. She survived them all. Trump can't even handle the press. Trump can't even manage his own staff. He's already talking of pardoning himself after 6 months in office. The Trump experiment is clearly not working.
But Donald Trump still gets the pass and Hillary Clinton still gets scrutiny. Mysogeny and patriarchy rule this country, pure and simple.
43
Hillary was attacked for attacking the victims of Bill's harrassment not for his consensual affairs.
2
Next time we will get an identical article "Why Sex Change Women or Men Aren’t
C.E.O.s" or "Why Tennis still Separates Men and Women Singles."
I've had quite a few Women as my boss; always a hassle.
C.E.O.s" or "Why Tennis still Separates Men and Women Singles."
I've had quite a few Women as my boss; always a hassle.
3
This thing about women not being "visionary". My yardsticks for "visionary" are Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, who are building spaceships and aiming to colonise the solar system. But what if they'd been women? They made their billions from Amazon and PayPal, basically retail, and there are already women who've done that.
It's the next step that interests me. "I'd like to go to Mars ... Hey! Guys! Think - I've got a billion dollars - we could build that rocket ourselves! Right here in the barn!" If it had been Elona who said that rather than Elon, how would it work out? She'd have to hire some good rocket engineers, but then so did Elon. Her job would be to act as the visionary focus of the whole enterprise.
In that role, would Elona Musk gather and inspire the technical respect and enthusiastic fanbase that SpaceX now has? Thoughts, anyone?
It's the next step that interests me. "I'd like to go to Mars ... Hey! Guys! Think - I've got a billion dollars - we could build that rocket ourselves! Right here in the barn!" If it had been Elona who said that rather than Elon, how would it work out? She'd have to hire some good rocket engineers, but then so did Elon. Her job would be to act as the visionary focus of the whole enterprise.
In that role, would Elona Musk gather and inspire the technical respect and enthusiastic fanbase that SpaceX now has? Thoughts, anyone?
3
From my own experience, I would say Elona Musk would run into an old-fashioned brick wall. For some reason, a lot of men, consciously and unconsciously feel threatened by female leadership and vision the reasons are no doubt complex but they feel diminished if a woman outshines them.
5
... and I should make it clear that I'd really like it to work out for Elona. But if it didn't, what would be stopping her?
1
I found the article to be illuminating. And, of course, all the while I am reading, I am thinking, gee is this story motivated by, and does it illuminate, Sue Chira's own experience as a senior executive at the Times. Near the end of the article, finally, she alludes to the fact that much of what she is reporting here does indeed resonate with her own experience.
And in that vein, i.e., with respect to how the Times thinks about women and about its female readers, I was also struck that at the bottom of the webpage containing this story, under the "Recommended for You" moniker -- which is based on the Times' modeling inferring interest in one category of stories from an expressed interest in another -- there are links not to other stories in today's paper about economic inequality but to three Wedding Announcements! But, of course, who else would be interested in a story titled "Why Women Aren't CEOs" besides women? You know, women, who are interested in women's topics, like marriages and births! The only surprise is that no links were included to stories about fashion and celebrities. After all, as Sally Blount, dean of Kellog School of Management, observes, in explanation of why women don't rise to the very top jobs, 'women are said to lack gravitas,' a view which is apparently shared by the web-editors at the New York Times!
And in that vein, i.e., with respect to how the Times thinks about women and about its female readers, I was also struck that at the bottom of the webpage containing this story, under the "Recommended for You" moniker -- which is based on the Times' modeling inferring interest in one category of stories from an expressed interest in another -- there are links not to other stories in today's paper about economic inequality but to three Wedding Announcements! But, of course, who else would be interested in a story titled "Why Women Aren't CEOs" besides women? You know, women, who are interested in women's topics, like marriages and births! The only surprise is that no links were included to stories about fashion and celebrities. After all, as Sally Blount, dean of Kellog School of Management, observes, in explanation of why women don't rise to the very top jobs, 'women are said to lack gravitas,' a view which is apparently shared by the web-editors at the New York Times!
8
Suffragist, not suffragette.
2
Women need to stop thinking that being 'likeable' is one of the keys to success. Being understanding and compassionate is, likeable isn't. I'm not sure I agree with women as 'prey' in the workforce. But I do believe men are more cowardly (bullying) and pack-like (herds) than women perceive. Consequently, women should respond accordingly. Attacked publicly, fight back viciously....and publicly. Kept outside of the 'pack' , demand to know why. I believe many men have to experience fear to learn respect. And women need to unleash their natural instincts to fight, viciously if necessary and to speak loudly, even if it means drowning out a man's voice. Remember women's testicles reside between their ears, men's hang uselessly between their legs....
5
Are you aware that the penis is the only organ in the human body, male or female, that serves dual purposes?
My comment above, makes about as much sense as your last line the only difference is that mine is the truth and yours is something you heard or read and are repeating here.
My comment above, makes about as much sense as your last line the only difference is that mine is the truth and yours is something you heard or read and are repeating here.
1
You go to work for the mafia, you play by mafia rules.
Frankly, I'm encouraged to hear that women are not rising to the highest levels of the corporate hierarchy. It makes me think that there might possibly be some hope for the female half of the human race.
Frankly, I'm encouraged to hear that women are not rising to the highest levels of the corporate hierarchy. It makes me think that there might possibly be some hope for the female half of the human race.
2
Cultural principles are rooted in the biological imperative of survival of a genetic line of living things. There were fewer than a billion people living before 1800 a.d. and when the basic values of all cultures were established thousands of years ago the principle concern was having enough people survive to reproduce to continue the group which identified with those cultures. This meant that while women and men were mostly alike and able to most things with similar skill and ability, gender roles were essential to maintain to facilitate ample child bearing and child raising and so became so important to convey and be maintained by each new generation that gender became a matter of crucial identity. Today, we fear over population and the cultural biases have no biological imperative until the population crashes. Biology does produce preferences amongst each gender but these show up by significant differences amongst the averages in the population but individuals can and do share those preferences in a great range of diversity. Throughout history some women have been better at roles usually filled by men and in corporations where the virtues of leadership are in achieving cooperation and self identifying with the institution women ought to do well. However, the gender biases persist and males tend to prefer having males in charge, but also the gender biases from biology make more women than men uncomfortable with standing out and taking on the loneliness of command.
Staff versus Line jobs are also part of this issue.
If you have 'run a division' with P&L responsibility versus running a staff function like HR; you are more likely to be a strong candidate for the top job.
I am always interested in companies that have more women at the C level as these firms are often better investments due to a better dynamic at the top level. Performance and not political correctness are what matters to some of us.
If you have 'run a division' with P&L responsibility versus running a staff function like HR; you are more likely to be a strong candidate for the top job.
I am always interested in companies that have more women at the C level as these firms are often better investments due to a better dynamic at the top level. Performance and not political correctness are what matters to some of us.
2
This is why it's so important to encourage and support female entrepreneurs. Women who leave all the male domination behind can flourish and provide opportunities to other women. Women-owned businesses are laboratories where new ways of interacting and achieving goals for the business can begin to take shape. We don't need to be stuck with the same old business models, where men are allowed to succeed because they play golf and women are expected to learn to play, too, but are still denied their chance to achieve. As more and more women leave the male-dominated workforce behind and create their own companies, work itself will be transformed and men will also begin to benefit. It is the future of working.
5
Men support other men only if it is to their own advantage, and will do the same for women for that reason only. The fight for dominance has been going on since the beginning of our species, and fairness is irrelevant. The better strategists will always win, and so far most of those have been men.
1
Producing results is the one thing that almost always defines a path forward. Be a man or a woman, personal accountability is within reach. If this leads to a CEO, it is a plus.
Many kinds of biases are evident today: gender bias, ethnic bias, language bias. This is just life. When one door closes, another opens.
Paying too much attention to the non-functional chaos rarely helps. The focus should be on things that are within our control. I suspect that the other 6 percent of the woman who made it to the top post also encountered similar challenges as those whose aspirations for a role in the top-office didn't pan out.
Some of the things said in this article are not what I want my high school aged daughter to believe in. These negatives can turn into an impediment of the sorts. As an analogy, in a driving session, I tell my daughter to focus on things that she can control or else she will quit driving.
Many kinds of biases are evident today: gender bias, ethnic bias, language bias. This is just life. When one door closes, another opens.
Paying too much attention to the non-functional chaos rarely helps. The focus should be on things that are within our control. I suspect that the other 6 percent of the woman who made it to the top post also encountered similar challenges as those whose aspirations for a role in the top-office didn't pan out.
Some of the things said in this article are not what I want my high school aged daughter to believe in. These negatives can turn into an impediment of the sorts. As an analogy, in a driving session, I tell my daughter to focus on things that she can control or else she will quit driving.
The portions that talk about Hillary- the vitriol she has endured needs to be considered carefully. Certainly her being a woman is a part of it and not to be taken lightly, but she also was very wooden and unable to put a charming spin on the unpleasant character compromises modern politics seems to require.
I have never heard it suggested that a man failed due to not "putting a charming spin" on something! You demonstrate what you argue against.
7
"A presenter asked a group of men and women whether anyone had expertise in breast-feeding. A man raised his hand. He had watched his wife for three months." This article and especially this paragraph says more than I ever could about my experience in a male-dominated industry.
The patronizing and unfair attitudes that this article describes can be found anywhere a woman comes up against male attitudes that they are more knowledgeable and superior to women, I find it to be especially true in dealing with contractors, painters, workmen of every kind, including the clerk in the hardware store who was convinced that the items I wanted were all wrong or the architect who took credit for my work. And all this happened in one of the most progressive cities in the country.
The patronizing and unfair attitudes that this article describes can be found anywhere a woman comes up against male attitudes that they are more knowledgeable and superior to women, I find it to be especially true in dealing with contractors, painters, workmen of every kind, including the clerk in the hardware store who was convinced that the items I wanted were all wrong or the architect who took credit for my work. And all this happened in one of the most progressive cities in the country.
8
While I do not disagree with the many issues that women face, it is also unfair to paint men with such a broad brush. There are many men who fail and many who face similar issues, be it their personality, race, color, religion, whatever. I have two sons and I am quite concerned about their future if they are judged on anything other than sheer merit. A truly progressive society should not have issues such as gender, race, religion, etc., be criteria for success. Whatever happened to good old MERIT?! Isn't that the way it should be?
5
The world's injustices are certainly not any one group's to claim. I don't think this article is saying women's concerns in the worldplace are to be considered to the exclusion of other groups'. It is merely highlighting some nuances in injustice that women encounter.
Re your concerns about merit, the article does a nice job of addressing it- these women feel they have advanced through merit, but breaking into and succeeding in the ultimate top sphere seems to require something more.
Re your concerns about merit, the article does a nice job of addressing it- these women feel they have advanced through merit, but breaking into and succeeding in the ultimate top sphere seems to require something more.
6
Good old-fashioned merit, sadly, rarely was. White men in power bestowed that power on those who looked and acted like them, keeping the power structure largely intact. One of the only situations in which one is truly judged by merit is when auditioning for a symphony orchestra: the candidates play behind a screen, totally unseen.
5
It is also that women are sometimes each other's worst enemies. I was never in the position to run a corporation but I did run a department. I received little support from other women who were in positions to mentor, and even less support once I became pregnant. In my experience, women seem to view each other with suspicion. It was not unusual for women, feeling threatened, to backstab one another. Therefore, we were often reliant upon men for advancement, which came with its own set of problems, many of which were outlined in this article. And sadly, some women were not above using their feminine charms to help advance their careers. It is difficult for women and we do face a very real glass ceiling. However, I do expect things to shift as women are surpassing men in entering college and obtaining Bachelor's and advanced degrees. Men are falling behind. This may make the workplace even uglier in the very short term but in the long term, I fully expect it will be men who will be struggling to keep up.
4
It would be great if we could shift the whole dynamic and change the way things are done to reflect both the way that men and women operate. Just like childcare, we need to change the model so both parents are participating more fully in their children's lives.
The problem is that the rich are mostly while men and they control who gets the money. This is actually a problem for our entire nation because nothing will improve for the lot of us, if we don't stop giving our money to these people. Further, we need to find a way to get it back from them. They have been robbing us from day one and it's got to stop!
The problem is that the rich are mostly while men and they control who gets the money. This is actually a problem for our entire nation because nothing will improve for the lot of us, if we don't stop giving our money to these people. Further, we need to find a way to get it back from them. They have been robbing us from day one and it's got to stop!
6
Humans aren't entirely rational, and I suspect one aspect of understanding how women get sidelined in the corporate world has to do with the formation of male dominance hierarchies in primate groups. In situations that have less well-defined social structure, and where there are mostly a bunch of competitive males present, irrational instincts kick-in to triggering behavior to establish who is the top Alpha Male. Women, if not present as sexual conquests or supporters or a particular man, are mostly irrelevant to a man's maneuvering to position himself as high as he can get in the hierarchy.
Maybe a Jane Goodall kind of analysis will help make men more self-aware and eventually lead to less male-hierarchy game playing and more rational decision making. But I think what will ultimately change the social dynamic is the increasing the number of women in the corporate world.
Maybe a Jane Goodall kind of analysis will help make men more self-aware and eventually lead to less male-hierarchy game playing and more rational decision making. But I think what will ultimately change the social dynamic is the increasing the number of women in the corporate world.
3
But women are primates, too. Many women, however unjustifiably, prefer having a male boss.
These dynamics are threatening the very existence of the Democratic party -- a party that’s base is 60% female and while its representation in the federal legislature is 80% male. Men who, despite claiming otherwise, and being required to claim otherwise to win election, are no more welcoming of or comfortable with women leading the party than ambitious men are with female leaders in the business world. (Nowhere has this been more apparent than with Biden who was always begrudgingly supportive of Hillary Clinton and now can’t resist assuring everyone he would have won if he had been nominated -- yet who, most likely, well knew he couldn’t have won the nomination).
If the activism Trump, and the increasingly over-the-top misogyny of the other party, is inspiring in women actually does lead to greater representation for women in the party, as office holders, it may create a crisis; especially among “progressives” who have talked a good game about “equality” over the last 50 years, but haven’t in fact done much to promote it.
If the activism Trump, and the increasingly over-the-top misogyny of the other party, is inspiring in women actually does lead to greater representation for women in the party, as office holders, it may create a crisis; especially among “progressives” who have talked a good game about “equality” over the last 50 years, but haven’t in fact done much to promote it.
8
"A year ago, dressed in suffragette white and addressing a cheering, weeping convention, Hillary Clinton stood for possibility."
Oh come on. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who stood for "possibility." His record is a long one that supported a government by and for citizens rather than by and for corporations. The "cheering weeping convention" was a scandal-ridden production that weakened and split what once was a party of the working class. Clinton's record of representing banks and corporations and colluding with Wasserman-Schultz is what ultimately lost the presidency to this woman. It had nothing to do with her gender. The theme "vote for the lesser evil" was less than inspiring. Democrats, you need to clean your own house before you can regain credibility needed to win elections.
Oh come on. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who stood for "possibility." His record is a long one that supported a government by and for citizens rather than by and for corporations. The "cheering weeping convention" was a scandal-ridden production that weakened and split what once was a party of the working class. Clinton's record of representing banks and corporations and colluding with Wasserman-Schultz is what ultimately lost the presidency to this woman. It had nothing to do with her gender. The theme "vote for the lesser evil" was less than inspiring. Democrats, you need to clean your own house before you can regain credibility needed to win elections.
4
See, this is what we women are talking about. Tearing this woman down, holding her to standards of perfectionism that exceed to be sure the commenter's moral character and ignoring all that she represents - which she does. She is representative. This is exactly what it is like being a woman in the corporate world. You work realy hard - because you like to - you take on all kinds of experiences and jobs, because you are a natural leader - the kind of leader that collaborates and distributes power as a form of leadership (different than your typical competitive low affect, low care man who is ore likely compelled to collect power and compete) - and you get people like this who - like Trump voters - are also populists. They are undereducated, and overly susceptible to the constant negative gossip coming from everywhere. And you know what? No way was Clinton a lesser evil. No way has the GOP been tearing this woman down for 30 years, joined by other totalitarian regimes - because she is evil. Quite the opposite. The person who wrote this is unconscious of their incompetence. Actually, probably there is a crack in their veneer of self perception. See, Daryl Bem's Theory of Self Perception is what explains this continued denial of making a terrible mistake. Far as I'm concerned, Sanders and Obama were both innocently duped into taking out Clinton by GOP operatives - Obama was a little too young and green to tackle the psychopaths of the world and Sanders is too direct and cranky.
7
Nah. You're forgetting that Bernie lost. Starting with the primary. By a lot. He's another example of assumed male superiority based on ego. His vision (including his HC plan) was him taking credit for the work of others. Most women - especially black women - saw right through that. He is BY NO MEASURE more accomplished or qualified than HRC, never released tax records, etc. His record in Congress (and life) is mediocre. He's a walking talking example of the double standard Chira is talking about. Hillary wasn't perfect. Her male opponents DIDNT HAVE TO BE.
7
One piece of the puzzle that is not discussed.
If we take two candidates for the same CEO role. Qualifications roughly equal. One male, one female. Both really want the job. Is either going to give it up volutarily? I doubt it.
Combine that with all the other things mentioned unless you feel that men who are also qualified need to just step aside because they are not women.
If we take two candidates for the same CEO role. Qualifications roughly equal. One male, one female. Both really want the job. Is either going to give it up volutarily? I doubt it.
Combine that with all the other things mentioned unless you feel that men who are also qualified need to just step aside because they are not women.
3
The only limits Hillary Clinton reminds me of are those that are self-imposed by corrupt, business as usual politicians with little or no observable personality and even less actual accomplishment.
2
Lemme guess, Larry. You're a male person. One thing that means is, you have the privilege of not even seeing the hurdles women face, much less surmounting them or being responsible for changing a deeply unfair and backward system. You'd be a better person (and the world a better place) if you opened your eyes. It will feel good in a different way. Denial takes a toll on the psyche.
4
I've worked engineering jobs and have seen all of the criticisms mentioned in this article at play. I've pondered the solutions. The only real solution in the long term is to have 50 % representation male/female with current bonuses tied to achieving that goal.
In my experience men will puff and parade and elbow others and choose a path that is worse for the company as long as a promotion for themselves is guaranteed. It's the "me first" mentality. We can see it in play with our current President. Nothing matters but self enrichment at others expense. Not all males play that way, but those that ascend to the top are sharks that bite.
Women are more fundamentally focused on success for the organization and think that someone will notice and promote her. Sometimes that works, but the higher up you go the less likely it will be effective.
I would love to see more and more women start their own businesses. They have the expertise, the chops and the know-how to turn them into successes. Fundamentally, they can change corporate culture within their own organizations. Hyper competitiveness within the company will make way for more collaborative efforts. Cooperation within a business is more important for the company's bottom line than promotion of a puffed shirt.
In my experience men will puff and parade and elbow others and choose a path that is worse for the company as long as a promotion for themselves is guaranteed. It's the "me first" mentality. We can see it in play with our current President. Nothing matters but self enrichment at others expense. Not all males play that way, but those that ascend to the top are sharks that bite.
Women are more fundamentally focused on success for the organization and think that someone will notice and promote her. Sometimes that works, but the higher up you go the less likely it will be effective.
I would love to see more and more women start their own businesses. They have the expertise, the chops and the know-how to turn them into successes. Fundamentally, they can change corporate culture within their own organizations. Hyper competitiveness within the company will make way for more collaborative efforts. Cooperation within a business is more important for the company's bottom line than promotion of a puffed shirt.
15
Almost every sentence of this story made me recall specific instances of when that particular thing had happened to me. I think women are reluctant to speak because, yes, these are unfair bad things that happen along the way, but not every single time, just sometimes. So, you doubt your perceptions. Also, it is hard to mention these things without sounding like whining, which a woman can never, ever do (after all, men face difficulties also, do they not?). Nonetheless, they are real.
One thing that surprised me as I approached the top was that I received no support from upper-level colleagues, including executive women. They knew this was happening because later a couple of them actually apologized. I am still mystified and hurt by this. C'est la vie.
I got mentored somewhat as I climbed the ladder, but when you get close to the top you're on your own, baby.
One thing that surprised me as I approached the top was that I received no support from upper-level colleagues, including executive women. They knew this was happening because later a couple of them actually apologized. I am still mystified and hurt by this. C'est la vie.
I got mentored somewhat as I climbed the ladder, but when you get close to the top you're on your own, baby.
10
The problem is, if women want to really compete for real in the workforce, on a purely equal basis with men, then they've got to be prepared for the absolutely ruthless competition at the top. Men will "outmanouver" other men...why would they not do the same to a competing woman? For a competitive executive to be 'extra nice' to a woman, simply because she is female, is likely to be perceived by the woman as patronizing and condescending...and she would be right.
this was an excellently researched article on a subject that's long overdue for examination. it's disappointing to see despair rather than hope for a brighter future from women who have a first hand view, I can only hope the inevitability of progress means things will be better over time.
But i wish you hadn't used Hilary Clinton as the lead and ending example..... the fact is women did not vote for her in any greater percent than they did for Bill, Gore or Obama. One has to ask why Hillary couldn't get more female support despite running against a candidate that utterly insulted and degraded women, and it suggests the problem is with her, not misogyny as she'd like to claim
But i wish you hadn't used Hilary Clinton as the lead and ending example..... the fact is women did not vote for her in any greater percent than they did for Bill, Gore or Obama. One has to ask why Hillary couldn't get more female support despite running against a candidate that utterly insulted and degraded women, and it suggests the problem is with her, not misogyny as she'd like to claim
Women must grow there own businesses, hire women, promote women, and boycott businesses who use the token hard working female plow horse to build their companies just before they crown the male leader. Women need to understand the power of their collective purchases, and when they do, women will have all the power they want.
3
This is exactly what is wrong with our politics and why Democrats may lose again, they are detached on so many front , the sad part is that 30 to 40 millions will skip the voting booth , only because they feel so disenfranchise , cheated for decades now with election results , from Gore , to Bush with Florida & Supreme Court decision , candidate with a 3 millions more vote can lose election , the democrats language is to weak , we are fighting with pocket knife ,republican bring the bazooka ,now going back on what is wrong with the old Democrats guard , they don't speak to my children's generation , for them and this article to still thinking that Hillary was not elected because she was a woman is the proof , she wasn't elected because she was not a good candidate , period.
1
Are you suggesting Trump was a better candidate? Not by ANY objective measure. Not in terms of character, competence, accomplishment or policy. We are losing stature, status and business - not to mention risking our national security. But "she wasn't perfect," for a woman means she was a bad candidate? Poppycock.
7
It's depressing that the widely accepted assumption is that it's acceptable to be a backstabbing, self-absorbed jerk if you're male, and as a result of this assumption we seem to want to make it more widely accepted for women to be backstabbing, self-absorbed jerks. Perhaps we are ignoring how much of macho top-level corporate culture is a form of performance (not dollars and cents performance, but theatrics), and the key to giving more women the golden key is not to encourage the continuation of this model among them, but to rewrite the script and punish the perpetuators of the macho culture. A complicated exercise in rethinking capitalist tropes and the cult of the individual, but vital to healing our culture as a whole.
7
No one is mentioning the deeply ingrained beliefs about women from Christian and other religions, almost all of which quite clearly patronize and relegate women to a 'less than' status. That is not a good starting position for anyone.
16
As president of a small business that has been successful over the past 12 years, I have regularly been asked by men and women, but men mostly - Did you ever expect that you would be this successful? And if I say yes, I get looks of incredulity and smirks that I must be joking. If I say, not quite in this way and that luck had a part to play in this, they seem much more comfortable with that as an answer.
I grew up in a family of entrepreneurs, have an MBA, and my husband felt more comfortable when he was making more money than I did over the years. It was only when he became disabled that I felt free to take over the breadwinning position, and put in the time (really long days) and effort to make my business grow and succeed further.
Gender roles are incredibly complex, and in spite of growing up in a time when I was told I could be or do anything, there are I have experienced many complications from marital role expectations to how comfortable I am speaking up for myself in a group of men (which I am not). I am more comfortable in my small business where I am seen as an expert in my field.
I grew up in a family of entrepreneurs, have an MBA, and my husband felt more comfortable when he was making more money than I did over the years. It was only when he became disabled that I felt free to take over the breadwinning position, and put in the time (really long days) and effort to make my business grow and succeed further.
Gender roles are incredibly complex, and in spite of growing up in a time when I was told I could be or do anything, there are I have experienced many complications from marital role expectations to how comfortable I am speaking up for myself in a group of men (which I am not). I am more comfortable in my small business where I am seen as an expert in my field.
10
Such a brilliant and perceptive article, particularly illuminating in the "subtler ways" analysis:
In Academia, this entrenched inequality may be even worse. With a cover of "well of course WE are enlightened about diversity", and nebulous channels of accountability, it is easy for those off-the-cuff restroom comments to occur (which are frequently far more crucial than what is said in the conference room.). Such as as "men just 'get it' more" (sic), and "she does really good work, and is nice to look at, too" (sic). Sick.
In Academia, this entrenched inequality may be even worse. With a cover of "well of course WE are enlightened about diversity", and nebulous channels of accountability, it is easy for those off-the-cuff restroom comments to occur (which are frequently far more crucial than what is said in the conference room.). Such as as "men just 'get it' more" (sic), and "she does really good work, and is nice to look at, too" (sic). Sick.
3
I really wish they would stop bringing Hilary into the story of political rejection because she is a woman.
In corporations, I do believe what they are saying here. Sensitive, thoughtful, and even honorable types of people are probably kept out of these positions; male or female. Profit, the almighty god of business in today's world. And I guess ruled by shareholders who care nothing about ethics (unless it kills profits), maybe it is only about profit now. What intelligent, thoughtful and visionary person would really want to lead the charge for such ugliness? So I really wonder why we are even comparing numbers.
It would have to be a company where the moral backbone of its ethos and its leadership genuinely believes in an ethical code of honor and integrity in all business dealings. That is not easy in the current world, and it probably never really was. Only such a place could welcome people that are best suited for genuine leadership. So if you want a corporation that welcomes talent of all types, build an ethos that welcomes genuine talent of all types, and probably you will see these fruits.
In corporations, I do believe what they are saying here. Sensitive, thoughtful, and even honorable types of people are probably kept out of these positions; male or female. Profit, the almighty god of business in today's world. And I guess ruled by shareholders who care nothing about ethics (unless it kills profits), maybe it is only about profit now. What intelligent, thoughtful and visionary person would really want to lead the charge for such ugliness? So I really wonder why we are even comparing numbers.
It would have to be a company where the moral backbone of its ethos and its leadership genuinely believes in an ethical code of honor and integrity in all business dealings. That is not easy in the current world, and it probably never really was. Only such a place could welcome people that are best suited for genuine leadership. So if you want a corporation that welcomes talent of all types, build an ethos that welcomes genuine talent of all types, and probably you will see these fruits.
5
Says a MAN who feels complete confidence on talking about breastfeeding: stop bringing up
Hillary!
Hillary!
4
Then there's this. I work in a department headed by a female Sr. VP who has absolutely no people skills: she once sent me a a Christmas card that had someone else's crossed out under which she wrote my name, never acknowledged an award I received for saving/making the company $8M in a critical financial area, never acknowledged the teams good work until a new CEO came in and made it part of her job requirements. Then, she is completely behind the curve on modern management, work-at-home, the list goes on. The team makes her.
Of course this is not dispositive of the entire issue but let's be clear that female managers can be just as bad at their jobs as men and not qualified for c-level jobs.
Of course this is not dispositive of the entire issue but let's be clear that female managers can be just as bad at their jobs as men and not qualified for c-level jobs.
6
The backlash is swift. ONE bad female manager is brought up to counter this entire article, which is based in part on research. I'm GUESSING FLL is male. But even if not, the socialization to argue against women runs deep. In case you forgot high school logic: one anecdotal example does not counter the preponderance of evidence.
13
Yes. Same impulse that leads people to say racism is no longer a problem since we've had a black president.
4
My own experience includes suggesting ideas which were not accepted until the very same idea was suggested by a male and then heralded as wonderful and visionary. One of my worst experiences was sitting with the president and my boss and making a suggestion which was accepted. Then later the president said the idea had come from my boss. Even though I was in the room and the words came out of my mouth, I was invisible. I was at least in the room but the bias was so ingrained that even good people couldn't recognize it when it happened. Changing slowly but not in my lifetime--looking at the current fact that it was acceptable for an all-male committee to be chosen to develop a new health-care system for the country,
Let me be clear--I fought it for myself and others. When in a position of authority, I forcefully corrected inequities and called out bias. It's just tiring and since I am now retired, I pass that responsibility to other men and women.
Let me be clear--I fought it for myself and others. When in a position of authority, I forcefully corrected inequities and called out bias. It's just tiring and since I am now retired, I pass that responsibility to other men and women.
24
Your idea got vetted by more senior people. You apparently don't understand heiarchy. I am male. I and many others have succeeded by making our bosses look good. You're attributing your lack of understanding of how organizations work to sexism. You're wrong.
1
Shame on you. You read my response and said the predictable "yes, but." She must have deserved that treatment.
I was a senior person and I understand about making my department and my bosses and the institution look good. And I wasn't talking about vetting. It does take work to become listened to and believe me I paid my dues. Think of all the assumptions you made in writing your response: that I didn't understand hierarchy (believe me, the hundreds of people who reported to me would say that I do), that I wasn't making my bosses look good (I was one of those rainmakers that always made the bosses look good); that "more senior people" vetted the idea (I was a senior person). I was never that type to play the "woman card" and whine about slights and even overt prejudices. But trust me, they were there--even by well-meaning individuals. In the future, before you say "yes, but..." look deeply to see what biases you have within yourself that caused you to say that. You will be surprised at what you find and pleased that you can make changes.
I was a senior person and I understand about making my department and my bosses and the institution look good. And I wasn't talking about vetting. It does take work to become listened to and believe me I paid my dues. Think of all the assumptions you made in writing your response: that I didn't understand hierarchy (believe me, the hundreds of people who reported to me would say that I do), that I wasn't making my bosses look good (I was one of those rainmakers that always made the bosses look good); that "more senior people" vetted the idea (I was a senior person). I was never that type to play the "woman card" and whine about slights and even overt prejudices. But trust me, they were there--even by well-meaning individuals. In the future, before you say "yes, but..." look deeply to see what biases you have within yourself that caused you to say that. You will be surprised at what you find and pleased that you can make changes.
4
To assume that women don't understand how hierarchy works and THAT proves gender bias doesn't exist rather bolsters Chira's analysis. To be clear: yes, we understand hierarchy. We not only have to deal with that just as men do, but ON TOP OF THAT, there's this REAL THING called gender bias. I'm guessing you're both male and white. Otherwise you wouldn't have the luxury of being quite so dismissive and/or oblivious to any experience other than your own.
3
The root issue in my view is the human ego. It always in some way wants to judge others and feel it is somehow superior. Perhaps more intelligent, skilled, creative, caring, more innovative, intuitive, a more accomplished problem solver, etc ... than someone else.
And of course among any large group of people some have certain innate talents and abilities that the next person doesn't have, and vice versa. This complicates life and what kind of recognition and position we should fairly achieve.
So men have egos, and so do women. How each manifests in its detail varies of course, but in my experience for every man with a big ego, there's a woman that matches him.
I don't know how to "fix" an ego problem. Most with big egos aren't aware they have one. And if they have some self awareness, becoming more humble and willing to treat others fairly and on the merits still requires continued self reflection and a willingness to change.
I'm completely support the goal of equality and fair treatment for all. We can move much closer to that goal. But it will happen one ego at a time through self effort and the desire to change. I hope enough egos agree.
And of course among any large group of people some have certain innate talents and abilities that the next person doesn't have, and vice versa. This complicates life and what kind of recognition and position we should fairly achieve.
So men have egos, and so do women. How each manifests in its detail varies of course, but in my experience for every man with a big ego, there's a woman that matches him.
I don't know how to "fix" an ego problem. Most with big egos aren't aware they have one. And if they have some self awareness, becoming more humble and willing to treat others fairly and on the merits still requires continued self reflection and a willingness to change.
I'm completely support the goal of equality and fair treatment for all. We can move much closer to that goal. But it will happen one ego at a time through self effort and the desire to change. I hope enough egos agree.
3
It's obviously true that both men and women have egos. It's just as obvious that a trait shared by both cannot account for why members of one group are treated differently from another, or why their prospects differ. So it's hard to see how this who theory is relevant here.
2
To a certain degree men accept women who adapt to male methods of conducting business. Engaging in vicious competition and employing cutthroat tactics to eviscerate your perceived "enemies" and advance yourself are admired ideas in the male business world.
Women who give in to this notion are more likely to succeed - but again, only up to a certain point. Because one of the tenets of men's "might makes right" system is that women are inherently inferior leaders precisely because they are not men.
Whether that is true or not is irrelevant; whether it is acknowledged or not is also irrelevant. The fact that so few women are leaders in this country testifies to the truth of the claim.
Men are terrified that women will change the "might makes right" system that has buoyed them to the top of the food chain. Women's very different methods -- which are based in the concept of working communally for the good of many, rather than for the good of just one -- would destroy the capitalist notion that we are all individuals competing against each other for control of limited resources.
Women who give in to this notion are more likely to succeed - but again, only up to a certain point. Because one of the tenets of men's "might makes right" system is that women are inherently inferior leaders precisely because they are not men.
Whether that is true or not is irrelevant; whether it is acknowledged or not is also irrelevant. The fact that so few women are leaders in this country testifies to the truth of the claim.
Men are terrified that women will change the "might makes right" system that has buoyed them to the top of the food chain. Women's very different methods -- which are based in the concept of working communally for the good of many, rather than for the good of just one -- would destroy the capitalist notion that we are all individuals competing against each other for control of limited resources.
17
Instead of women constantly lusting after the sterile male world, with its worship of wealth, backbiting competitiveness and boring meetings, why don't women lead where they are really needed and define their success and status via the quality of the children's lives they have the privilege and responsibility of rearing?
Women instinctively know the depth of dedication and commitment it takes to raise children - to be always-available one-on-one teachers, role-models, wardens, commentators, homemakers, and of course loving forgivers of childhood's infinite transgressions. The pay stinks, but so what? Successful civilizations have always depended on maternal sacrifice and devotion to thrive.I think it's time to honor that power once again.
Women instinctively know the depth of dedication and commitment it takes to raise children - to be always-available one-on-one teachers, role-models, wardens, commentators, homemakers, and of course loving forgivers of childhood's infinite transgressions. The pay stinks, but so what? Successful civilizations have always depended on maternal sacrifice and devotion to thrive.I think it's time to honor that power once again.
3
Margie Moore, what happens when a woman is unable to have children, is she considered less of a contribution to society? I understand and respect women who choose a traditional role for their life choice, maybe you should extend that same courtesy to those of us who don't or can't follow that path. I must also ask if you have been in a professional role in a male dominated career. It is more painful than you realize. Please be there to cheer efforts and not to force people into someone else's preconceived notions of what a gender role is. Do you condemn single fathers for stepping out of their traditional roles?
8
Sounds great but how to feed clothe and shelter these children? Life requires money - even if you can turn your nose up at the "male obsession" with money - someone is paying your bills- if you're at home being the nurturer and care taker and everything else you described above - it's easy to turn your back on the financial requirements of even a basic life. I am not a senior executive but this kind of binary thinking is so tiring. Women and mothers work for a variety of reasons; satisfaction, intellectual stimulation and yes sometimes the very basic fact that there are bills to pay for the children we bring into this world. Very self satisfied and one dimsensional to make that the sole provence of men.
5
As a working mother who is quite good at her job and whose salary is essential to paying my family's bills, I find this comment troubling. Being a woman in the corporate world is not about making a few extra bucks (because of some unwillingness to make "maternal sacrifices") or lusting after something that has traditionally belonged to men. For many it is a matter of providing for their families by doing something that they find interesting and challenging... and yes, that pays well enough to cover the bills. It's unfortunate that those who work hard and achieve results so often run up against invisible barriers. It's even more unfortunate when other people undercut successful women both professionally and personally by suggesting that maybe they should go home and focus on their families.
6
Sexism is also related to ageism. As a man gets closer to the age appropriate for senior jobs, he's judged by his fitness level. He doesn't need makeup or hair color. A woman is supposed to have a young face and her fitness level is irrelevant. Recently I saw a LinkedIn post of an ad for a tech product, "so simple even grandma could use it," with a pic of a smiley sixtyish woman. When I commented that this is ageism and sexism, people thought i overreacted. They said it was "cute." When we associate older women with grandmas and assume they're stupid, what can we expect? Even Judge Judy jokes about not understanding technology. We need to fight the association of "cute" and "female" every time we see it.
20
What I notice about LinkedIn is the grid of smiling professionals on their login page. Not one of them is over 40 and most look younger; especially the women. It's like they don't expect anyone over 40 to be doing a job search. Maybe they think we don't have computers or smart phones. I can hear the creator of the website saying, "LinkedIn's brand is associated with young and techie. No old people in our ads"
7
It was ageism and sexism, very obviously.
1
At least in American business, it sometimes seems that the main qualification for becoming CEO seems to be having a massive ego, a deficit of empathy, and a firm belief in one's own infallibility. Donald Trump is not a bad role model.
Competing with people like that for the top job is horrible. Being around them all the time is unbearable. But becoming one of them yourself is the worst of all.
Maybe the real reason women struggle to reach the top levels is because, compared with men, a higher percentage of them are decent human beings?
Competing with people like that for the top job is horrible. Being around them all the time is unbearable. But becoming one of them yourself is the worst of all.
Maybe the real reason women struggle to reach the top levels is because, compared with men, a higher percentage of them are decent human beings?
18
Get over it Susan Chira. Men and women are DIFFERENT vastly different. All the wishing of political correctness will not change biology. Men and women like men leaders much more than women leaders. As far as Hillary Clinton she's a joke. 40 years of free ride after free ride for being a woman and the wife of and she and her supporters claim she's victim of mysoginy? Right. Nothing to do with her being too arrogant or lazy to get out and campaign. Trump made many many more campaign appearance and drew bigger crowds than Mrs. Bill Clinton.
2
Of course men and women are different; no one is suggesting they're not. But let's not use that as an excuse as to why women shouldn't be leaders. If men and women "prefer" male leaders it's because that's what they've always seen, had, and known. It wasn't that long ago when doctors were almost exclusively men (and girls growing up were told we couldn't be doctors), but -- guess what! -- those newfangled lady docs are pretty darned good! And I'll bet women leaders would be pretty darned good, as well -- if we'd only give them a real shot.
As for your claim that Hillary Clinton -- a former law professor, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State -- owes it all to her husband, that's just absurd.
As for your claim that Hillary Clinton -- a former law professor, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State -- owes it all to her husband, that's just absurd.
5
She went to Yale law school and was a partner in a law firm. She was a valedictorian of Wellesley College. She became a Senator, a candidate for President, author, and Secretary of State in addition to being First Lady. She did not inherit millions like Trump did. How is that a free ride?
12
This is based on, what, your own hugely inflated ego? I wish I could say I was surprised at the kneejerk hostility. But you rather prove Susan's point: assertive women face immediate and firm backlash. Dare not EVEN DISCUSS bias or you'll be slapped down.
5
There is no difference between a woman or a man CEO. Both are generated by the same corporate values and structure.
Gender is meaningless.
Ask Hewlett-Packard
Gender is meaningless.
Ask Hewlett-Packard
1
I am very taken aback by how few comments there are on this article. This suggests the issue itself is even ignored. Ouch!
It is unfortunate that there is a statistically observable bias against women ending up #1 in a company. While the article does suggest that some of the distortion is a result of women making active choices (and, I think truly admirable ones) to place other life goals above careers, it is obvious that there are far greater and less defensible obstacles.
I do think the example of Ms. Clinton's failure is a poor one. Her case is far too complex and embroiled with political overtones (akin to the heat of a pizza oven) to claim as an example.
It is unfortunate that there is a statistically observable bias against women ending up #1 in a company. While the article does suggest that some of the distortion is a result of women making active choices (and, I think truly admirable ones) to place other life goals above careers, it is obvious that there are far greater and less defensible obstacles.
I do think the example of Ms. Clinton's failure is a poor one. Her case is far too complex and embroiled with political overtones (akin to the heat of a pizza oven) to claim as an example.
1
To ignore the elephant in the room would be journalistic malpractice. OF COURSE misogyny is part of the problem with HRC; that's not dwelt on, but mentioned as one of many examples. To pretend otherwise is to be in denial of an uncomfortable reality. A female leader had to be perfect, flawless AND "appealing." A male candidate could be a bloviating misogynistic con man with six bankruptcies. I rest my case.
7
This was an interesting article---but once again, we're making the mistake of talking about womanhood through a very white lens. First of all, none of the experiences in the article are explicitly by women of color.
This part of the article struck me:
“We are never taught to fight for ourselves,” said Ellen Kullman, the former chief executive of DuPont. “I think we tend to be brought up thinking that life’s fair, that you thrive and deliver, and the rest will take care of itself. It actually does work for most of your career.
This experience (of Ms. Kullman) that life is fair and you don't need to fight would likely not resonate with many woman of color as we are so used to fighting for a place in this unfair world.
And secondly, why is the article just focused on CEOs of businesses? What about nonprofits? I'd be curious to know what the research finds about how sexism operates in fields where women are CEOs in areas with predominantly women. I can tell you from my own experience that I'm in the nonprofit world and even though there are about 70% women in the field, somehow men make up about 80% of the leadership positions.
And thirdly, I'd love to hear more about female chauvinists--women who are uncomfortable with female leaders. Let's not forget: Hillary Clinton's biggest enemies in the end were white women who did her in and voted for the guy who said he'd grab woman's genitalia. Ugly fact: many women play a starring role in the downfall of another woman.
This part of the article struck me:
“We are never taught to fight for ourselves,” said Ellen Kullman, the former chief executive of DuPont. “I think we tend to be brought up thinking that life’s fair, that you thrive and deliver, and the rest will take care of itself. It actually does work for most of your career.
This experience (of Ms. Kullman) that life is fair and you don't need to fight would likely not resonate with many woman of color as we are so used to fighting for a place in this unfair world.
And secondly, why is the article just focused on CEOs of businesses? What about nonprofits? I'd be curious to know what the research finds about how sexism operates in fields where women are CEOs in areas with predominantly women. I can tell you from my own experience that I'm in the nonprofit world and even though there are about 70% women in the field, somehow men make up about 80% of the leadership positions.
And thirdly, I'd love to hear more about female chauvinists--women who are uncomfortable with female leaders. Let's not forget: Hillary Clinton's biggest enemies in the end were white women who did her in and voted for the guy who said he'd grab woman's genitalia. Ugly fact: many women play a starring role in the downfall of another woman.
17
Agree I'd like to know more about black women leaders. (The author does make the point that statistics are worst for WoC.)
2
Good article. Painful to read though.
2
Hillary lost many of us not because she was a woman but because she was a corporatist. Making this article, in part, about poor Hillary was a mistake and taints the real issues raised therein.
Hillary used her gender as a sword and a shield and then complained when her adversaries used it against her. She's a corporatist. Her gender is irrelevant.
Neither gender nor race guarantees progressive pro human policies.
As to the glass ceiling, it absolutely exists. Just look at the Senate. It amazes me that even GOP senators sit there and take it. But there again, their gender doesn't make them more willing to fight for human rights or women's rights. Many GOP women in the house and senate and state legislatures are just as anti woman as their holie than thou male colleagues.
Hillary used her gender as a sword and a shield and then complained when her adversaries used it against her. She's a corporatist. Her gender is irrelevant.
Neither gender nor race guarantees progressive pro human policies.
As to the glass ceiling, it absolutely exists. Just look at the Senate. It amazes me that even GOP senators sit there and take it. But there again, their gender doesn't make them more willing to fight for human rights or women's rights. Many GOP women in the house and senate and state legislatures are just as anti woman as their holie than thou male colleagues.
3
You're saying people voted against Clinton because she's a corporatist, is that right? So they chose to vote for the ultra-corporatist who has zero sense of ethics and zero loyalty to this country. But gender had nothing to do with it. Uh-huh.
3
I can think of one very recent example that counters that: the three Republican women who put the kibosh on Trumpcare last week. Both parties would be better for having more equal representation.
2
Not really. Those same women support many GOP initiatives.
If women want to be CEO's, they have every right to aspire to those positions. I have known some who were outstanding. But many males will sell their souls to be at the top and they will walk over anybody who tries to get in their way. Is the view worth the climb? For most of us, I seriously doubt it. And let's remember that these so-called titans of business are not geniuses. They have one mantra: cut jobs. It's easy.
2
I'm retired from a banking job of 42 years having started at the bottom and worked my way up to SVP. I had some great male bosses, and a really great female boss that helped me achieve much success. I also had some god awful male bosses that played "dodge ball 24/7". One was so bad, while his office was 2 doors away from mine, he would email me, rather than speak face to face. I came to realize he was probably borderline Aspergers.
In my experience there was acceptance of women on the retail side of banking, but not so much on the commercial side, where you could just see and feel the male bravado as the men swaggered down the halls. The few women that made it to senior levels had to work harder and smarter and accept the fact that that alone would not (necessarily) get them the recognition and promotions they sought.
In my experience there was acceptance of women on the retail side of banking, but not so much on the commercial side, where you could just see and feel the male bravado as the men swaggered down the halls. The few women that made it to senior levels had to work harder and smarter and accept the fact that that alone would not (necessarily) get them the recognition and promotions they sought.
6
I understand golf is sinking in popularity generally. Maybe that is one barrier falling.
3
So much self pity and finger pointing and so little real analysis. Fifty percent of MBA women leave the workforce in ten years, 50%! That siphons off a large cohort of potential business leaders well before they have any reasonable chance at a top job and they do it of their own free will. Getting to the top is no picnic, it takes full focus including heavy travel and yes, international posts on occasion that are not desirable but are necessary for advancement. Women drop out to have more balanced lives, that is the fault of men?
Abandon the pity party and recognize that women are over half our doctors, lawyers and women under 30 make more than men under 30....
Abandon the pity party and recognize that women are over half our doctors, lawyers and women under 30 make more than men under 30....
2
Women in MBA programs are not shrinking violets and are looking for successful careers. They are not predisposed to dropping out.
Thus, it's necessary to question why the drop-out rate is so high and why there are still relatively few women at senior levels in business. The high drop-out rates and the low representation of women at senior levels are systemic. That suggests that the root of the problem is systemic, too.
Thus, it's necessary to question why the drop-out rate is so high and why there are still relatively few women at senior levels in business. The high drop-out rates and the low representation of women at senior levels are systemic. That suggests that the root of the problem is systemic, too.
10
I spend nearly 2 decades doubting myself and yielding to a misogynistic, narcissistic boss. His underling, also a white man, was a contemptuous, belittling, misogynistic snob. A working-class woman who had risen by virtue of academic performance, determination and tactical shrewdness, I managed to stay several steps ahead of them, but was always unsure of my own ability. The boss was easily threatened by assertive women, so I toned it down. The snob was insulting and an ineffective professional, but I did not oppose him.
I watched him make choices that were certain to, and did, sink a major deal. His male friends blamed the other side for the debacle.
My successes were downplayed or ignored. I was treated as though I were nothing more than a working housewife, despite three Ivy League degrees. When business dried up, I was harassed and fired. I reluctantly went out on my own.
It was only then that I discovered what I should have known all along; not only am I good, I am very good. Only then did I remembered that I had been a success academically, admitted to the top graduate schools in my field. Only then did I recall the 99th percentile admission exam score. (Male colleagues who had attended inferior schools and obtained lower scores, suggested that I had earned that score because I had taken a prep course.)
My advice to women is to stay off the corporate ladder, because where women are concerned, the rungs are broken. Believe In yourself- make your own life.
I watched him make choices that were certain to, and did, sink a major deal. His male friends blamed the other side for the debacle.
My successes were downplayed or ignored. I was treated as though I were nothing more than a working housewife, despite three Ivy League degrees. When business dried up, I was harassed and fired. I reluctantly went out on my own.
It was only then that I discovered what I should have known all along; not only am I good, I am very good. Only then did I remembered that I had been a success academically, admitted to the top graduate schools in my field. Only then did I recall the 99th percentile admission exam score. (Male colleagues who had attended inferior schools and obtained lower scores, suggested that I had earned that score because I had taken a prep course.)
My advice to women is to stay off the corporate ladder, because where women are concerned, the rungs are broken. Believe In yourself- make your own life.
23
Bravo!
9
That is where the money is. So women need to go there.
Many men lose their position with profit dips as well so the McDonald's example example may or may not have been a good example. Playing golf with the "boy's" and going for drinks will most always play a part however. Which is normal. The need to build strong personal relationships is ever present and when you mix up the sexes it is probably hard to achieve that.
I think reality is women can easily compete with men. Gender has nothing to do with that. However, things like golf and joining one another at a bar or things of similar nature probably pay a more important role than one may think. It's part of the gig.
As for the woman who complained about recommending someone for a position and receiving no payback down the road... what a bad example. Did she recommend him because she thought he had the appropriate skill sets or was she looking for a payback at a later point in time? It sounds as if she was expecting tit for tat; something I would expect to see in the Trump Whitehouse or any political position actually. One should recommend someone based on the merits and not because of a potential payback at a later point in time. Of course, reality and the human mind may not want to go along with that line of thought. Too many in any pipeline looking to see what's in it for me.
I think reality is women can easily compete with men. Gender has nothing to do with that. However, things like golf and joining one another at a bar or things of similar nature probably pay a more important role than one may think. It's part of the gig.
As for the woman who complained about recommending someone for a position and receiving no payback down the road... what a bad example. Did she recommend him because she thought he had the appropriate skill sets or was she looking for a payback at a later point in time? It sounds as if she was expecting tit for tat; something I would expect to see in the Trump Whitehouse or any political position actually. One should recommend someone based on the merits and not because of a potential payback at a later point in time. Of course, reality and the human mind may not want to go along with that line of thought. Too many in any pipeline looking to see what's in it for me.
1
I'm tremendously amused by all the men who are commenting that gender "has nothing to do with it." That's speaking as the "default gender." Your privilege and bias are showing. My suggestion: do what a woman leader would do and what you suggest for them. Take responsibility. Examine HOW YOU are contributing to the problem in order to become part of the solution. We need women leaders and the innovations they will bring. Make room for them.
4
I may have not been clear enough. Gender has nothing to do with running a company. Both men & women can accomplish the task at hand with the appropriate skill sets.
Women do have a harder road to go down without a doubt. Beyond skill set personal relationships play a tremendous role on how far one advances. Given the number of men in the upper rungs of the ladder I think it is harder for a woman to get on equal footing with the personal relationship part of advancing upwards. Men need to pass through that gauntlet as well. But it is more difficult for a woman. This shouldn't be the case but it will be a hard barrier to overcome. Perhaps with time; we'll see.
Women do have a harder road to go down without a doubt. Beyond skill set personal relationships play a tremendous role on how far one advances. Given the number of men in the upper rungs of the ladder I think it is harder for a woman to get on equal footing with the personal relationship part of advancing upwards. Men need to pass through that gauntlet as well. But it is more difficult for a woman. This shouldn't be the case but it will be a hard barrier to overcome. Perhaps with time; we'll see.
1
"If I kick her, she's not going to kick back, but the men will." "We are never taught to fight for ourselves."
So true - who teaches this? The fathers AND THE MOTHERS.
Is standing up for yourself something that you only get to do if you have a prostate? I don't believe so, but believing that does makes it sure easier to stop trying.
Standing up for yourself does not make you a man, it makes you an adult. it separates the men from the boys, and the women from girls.
So true - who teaches this? The fathers AND THE MOTHERS.
Is standing up for yourself something that you only get to do if you have a prostate? I don't believe so, but believing that does makes it sure easier to stop trying.
Standing up for yourself does not make you a man, it makes you an adult. it separates the men from the boys, and the women from girls.
2
Sally Blount, dean of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern and the only woman to lead a top 10 business school, noted that data predicts that half or more of the women who earn an M.B.A. this year will drop out of the full-time work force within a decade. The reasons range from family conflicts to placing less inherent value on position or money.
In my day, mothers would often tell their teenage daughters that all boys want is sex. Not only is the male sex drive overarching, it also tends to separate men into winners and losers. "Loser" is a term commonly employed by women to describe undesirable men. "Alphas and omegas" are often used to describe men; because, like other primates, the alpha males get the females.
I once met a beautiful, insightful, and cynical woman who said that she wonders why any wealthy man would ever get married, because otherwise he could have all the beautiful women he could handle, which is all men really want anyway. But this was not just cynicism. As Henry Kissinger (the "horny hamster") once said "power is the greatest aphrodisiac." Similarly, men do not "get more handsome" as they age, they get more powerful.
It doesn't take a young man long to learn that the secret to sexual success is not his unalterable appearance, but more in wealth and power, which can usually be obtained with enough drive. It is this unspoken difference in motivation which explains why men tolerate the rat race that women most reasonably refuse.
In my day, mothers would often tell their teenage daughters that all boys want is sex. Not only is the male sex drive overarching, it also tends to separate men into winners and losers. "Loser" is a term commonly employed by women to describe undesirable men. "Alphas and omegas" are often used to describe men; because, like other primates, the alpha males get the females.
I once met a beautiful, insightful, and cynical woman who said that she wonders why any wealthy man would ever get married, because otherwise he could have all the beautiful women he could handle, which is all men really want anyway. But this was not just cynicism. As Henry Kissinger (the "horny hamster") once said "power is the greatest aphrodisiac." Similarly, men do not "get more handsome" as they age, they get more powerful.
It doesn't take a young man long to learn that the secret to sexual success is not his unalterable appearance, but more in wealth and power, which can usually be obtained with enough drive. It is this unspoken difference in motivation which explains why men tolerate the rat race that women most reasonably refuse.
4
Whining. All this female talk about being a CEO. Reminds me of that joke about what do you call a woman who doesn't become a CEO? A real estate agent.
Let's face it: Women always look at the size of your wallet and what you drive. They're wired that way. They always want the man to earn more than they do. Regardless of what they say. Otherwise, they whine.
Let's face it: Women always look at the size of your wallet and what you drive. They're wired that way. They always want the man to earn more than they do. Regardless of what they say. Otherwise, they whine.
2
This is a very sad and cynical comment. But also lays bare exactly what women face. Men who have achieved based on gender and dominance rather than vision and real accomplishment sense their false ego-based system is threatened by different leadership styles. They often (usually) react defensively. It takes a man with vision and real confidence (not just a built up ego) to see that making way for more diverse styles of leadership ALSO benefits men. Alpha is not necessarily better. :)
4
Not true of me or the women I know. So you'll have to drop the ridiculous "always."
2
A most important, and timely, article about the ongoing misogyny in a "macho' society where women's essential support, for us men to shine, is as indispensable and expected as the air we breathe (in and out!). We seem to have forgotten that, as a tribe, we lived, man and woman, as equals, opposites in perfect harmony and complementing each other; like day and night, black and white, individual and social, couldn't exist as individual entities, a duality instead must be present. That we men act discriminating women, and expecting from them twice as much to be considered barely equal is an insult to justice. I believe it has to do with men's insecurity about their own prowess, with the full knowledge (at least subconsciously) that,without a woman supporting him, his ability to function would disintegrate soon after. Further, we remain, compared to women, permanently and hopelessly immature, even though with a hypocritical facade; if still in doubt, witness our vulgar bully in chief, the apotheosis of stupidity personalized, a racist narcissist permanently hungry for adulation, deeply insecure, and who could care less about the suffering of others due to his cruel and shameless discriminatory abuse of power... in his men-dominated pluto-kleptocracy. In brief, women must continue to oppose this institutionalized violence, and accept those of us willing to stand side by side, and the courage, hard work and perseverance to see this gender wall/bias disintegrate.
6
Your sample is comprised of people who almost made it and likely is skewed toward people who ultimately were not qualified. When you ask them why they failed, of course they will attribute it to something else, conveniently gender. There are some success stories, as CEOs and country leaders (May, Merkel, Barra, Rometty, Nooyi), but still way less than 50%! Must be sexism... or is it possible women are inherently less capable to be leaders?
No.
5
During the election an attorney friend of mine in Richmond said that Hillary would never be elected because of the incredible animosity toward her among the conservative crowd and their ilk. He said they would rather vote for anyone than her, even the buffoon, Donald Trump. But why? We traced the hatred to the beginning, when she kept Rodham as her name, and "slipped up" saying she wasn't a cookie baking, stay at home wife. And when she had the gall to work on a universal health care plan when her husband was president, that did it. She was hated for being that and paid the price ever since. Uppity indeed.
15
Thanks for using McDonald's as an example. Not only are women not CEOs, but, of the top 10 fast food brands, NONE of them were founded by women.
1. McDonalds - Ray Kroc
2. KFC - Colonel Harland David Sanders
3. Subway - Fred DeLuca, Peter Buck
4. Pizza Hut - Dan and Frank Carney
5. Starbucks - Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl, Gordon Bowker (credit: Howard Schultz)
6. Burger King - David Edgerton, James McLamore
7. Dominos - Tom & James Monaghan
8. Dunkin Donuts - William Rosenberg
9. Dairy Queen - Sherb Noble
10. Papa Johns - John Schnatter
I also looked up the top 10 fastest growing brands, looking at brands founded after 2000. It's the same story. Not sure why?
1. McDonalds - Ray Kroc
2. KFC - Colonel Harland David Sanders
3. Subway - Fred DeLuca, Peter Buck
4. Pizza Hut - Dan and Frank Carney
5. Starbucks - Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl, Gordon Bowker (credit: Howard Schultz)
6. Burger King - David Edgerton, James McLamore
7. Dominos - Tom & James Monaghan
8. Dunkin Donuts - William Rosenberg
9. Dairy Queen - Sherb Noble
10. Papa Johns - John Schnatter
I also looked up the top 10 fastest growing brands, looking at brands founded after 2000. It's the same story. Not sure why?
2
Access to capital
8
For starters.
Two decades and more ago, I was a newly-hired untenured faculty member in a department of six tenured men, two with the doctorate, and the only woman at the entire college with a doctorate. One man harassed me very subtly e.g. posting nude photos of women in Western Art ( none of nude men) in the common office and on his office door. Earlier, He had said when I was being interviewed it was because I was a woman, and no one on the search committee said a word. (The dept. had never hired a woman.)Eventually I was denied tenure, although students named me Faculty of the Year award. Basically I was not "collegial"(read male) enough.
When I first came on the job market in the early 1980s, only 10% of faculty in my field were women. When I lost that chance, it was up to 40% but I was still the first woman ever hired in that department. I never got a full-time job in my field and my Social Security payment in retirement shows that.
Someone needs to acknowledge there has been a generation, maybe two, of American women paving the way (step stone by step stone) for the slow but steady advancement of women. Amen.
When I first came on the job market in the early 1980s, only 10% of faculty in my field were women. When I lost that chance, it was up to 40% but I was still the first woman ever hired in that department. I never got a full-time job in my field and my Social Security payment in retirement shows that.
Someone needs to acknowledge there has been a generation, maybe two, of American women paving the way (step stone by step stone) for the slow but steady advancement of women. Amen.
18
Let me thank you.
I hope you will continue to share your story, so young people understand where we are and why.
I learned many things from listening to the stories of my mother and her friends who were denied access to study and do work in fields where they could have made great contributions.
My mother's generation had great hope for my own that we would get the opportunities they were denied, and they imbued us with a belief that we could do anything.
I think we've learned that it is not that simple, that while explicit barriers have fallen, there are many more hidden obstacles that face us. If there is anything I've learned from my career it's that my own ability and results aren't enough, and that I should have been fighting for institutional change earlier.
I hope you will continue to share your story, so young people understand where we are and why.
I learned many things from listening to the stories of my mother and her friends who were denied access to study and do work in fields where they could have made great contributions.
My mother's generation had great hope for my own that we would get the opportunities they were denied, and they imbued us with a belief that we could do anything.
I think we've learned that it is not that simple, that while explicit barriers have fallen, there are many more hidden obstacles that face us. If there is anything I've learned from my career it's that my own ability and results aren't enough, and that I should have been fighting for institutional change earlier.
1
Hey Comment publishing arbiters.
When Comments are published, the newest are put at the top of the list (unless one punches oldest). So when one replies to a Comment are published, aren't the most recent Relplies, newest ones, put at the top of the Replies?
When Comments are published, the newest are put at the top of the list (unless one punches oldest). So when one replies to a Comment are published, aren't the most recent Relplies, newest ones, put at the top of the Replies?
3
The comments regarding Hillary Clinton nicely illustrate an issue nobody cares to discuss - it is impossible for many to discuss a women's performance objectively. It is not a foregone conclusion that women don't "win" simply because of their sex - it may simply be they aren't the best candidate for the job. Ask the employees at Yahoo or Avon. There may be no doubt the playing field isn't level, but if an objective critique of performance may be met with charges of "sexism," how exactly does one work with someone like that or help them progress?
5
Traditionally, the "best" person for the job has looked and acted like a white male. When candidates don't look and act in accordance with the conventional, historical norms, they get chosen a lot less often.
5
This is all true...through the current lenses of the current structures. The underlying reason? The absence of the feminine in today's structures. And, these structures are not going to change in my lifetime. They were built by men, for men. Women are going to have to take the lead in building NEW structures, and I believe building businesses is the best place to start. I am building a new business -- and we are INTENTIONALLY going to be 50/50 from the Board to the operations floor with a keen focus on additional diversity metrics. The men will join us, especially the much more aware and balanced younger men. I am building for the future I want.
13
Two points: No doubt misogyny played a part in the fact that Hillary Clinton did not become president. But what people don't talk about is that it's telling that the woman who came closest to becoming president is married to an ex-president. It is not someone who worked her way up forging political connections on her own.
Secondly, and I know many would disagree, but I wonder how all these women dress. I am thinking mostly of the news media because anchors and analysts are so visible on our television screens, but it may extend to other businesses. What I see is women in sleeveless tops, low-cut tops, garishly printed dresses. To me, it looks unprofessional. At the same time, men are wearing conservative suits and ties, even in the summer. There are conservative suits for women, and some women do wear them.
Secondly, and I know many would disagree, but I wonder how all these women dress. I am thinking mostly of the news media because anchors and analysts are so visible on our television screens, but it may extend to other businesses. What I see is women in sleeveless tops, low-cut tops, garishly printed dresses. To me, it looks unprofessional. At the same time, men are wearing conservative suits and ties, even in the summer. There are conservative suits for women, and some women do wear them.
9
I've noticed that too. Women in their jelly-bean-colored sleeveless sheath dresses or low-cut tops -- cocktail attire-- vs men in traditioal business attire, esp among TV achors.
there's one young blonde woman on CNN who not only wears sleeveless sheaths, they are cut deeply in around the shoulders and armpits in an athletic style, revealing even more skin. As a woman I deplore this -- she's bopping around covering the White House like she's dressed for a fraternity party. If I were her editor I'd say "You are not going on TV again in anything less than short sleeves, preferably with a jacket or blazer over your dress."
Clothing is symbolic.
there's one young blonde woman on CNN who not only wears sleeveless sheaths, they are cut deeply in around the shoulders and armpits in an athletic style, revealing even more skin. As a woman I deplore this -- she's bopping around covering the White House like she's dressed for a fraternity party. If I were her editor I'd say "You are not going on TV again in anything less than short sleeves, preferably with a jacket or blazer over your dress."
Clothing is symbolic.
This article is NOT a discussion on Hilary Clinton. It is a gut wrenching reflection of how hard it is to get to the top with all the inate biases women face. And the comments on how women dress do not merit a response. You are hoisted by your own petard.
6
Interesting. My perspective as a Democrat is quite different. I'd suggest Mrs Clinton was nominated and nearly won because she was a woman. It's time for this country to elect a woman President but first we need to nominate the right one. Objective review of Mrs Clinton's domestic and international record reveals a party insider on the edge of corruption with a poor recent international track record. Sure next to Trump she would have been far better, but as a party insider she would have continued to kick the can down the fiscal road, offered status quo in her first term, and played for re-election only. This perception of her is why middle America did not vote for her. And, her refusal to leave Bill even for a day during the Lewinsky crisis is a significant reason the majority of married women voted for Trump.
Misogyny exists. Corporate America is still run by white male 50 year olds. It will take a generation to remove them. Teach our kids to respect and see the value in each person regardless of gender, color, religion. Writing a new article on misogyny weekly will achieve nothing.
Misogyny exists. Corporate America is still run by white male 50 year olds. It will take a generation to remove them. Teach our kids to respect and see the value in each person regardless of gender, color, religion. Writing a new article on misogyny weekly will achieve nothing.
Here's a conundrum. During the 1970's it was a foregone conclusion that women were viewed as props in an office (we called it "office" not workplace) environment. If some rose to the top it was because certain men in positions of power endorsed them for their skills or cute personalities. Advertising was somewhat more even handed than other more conservative environments. Nevertheless there was a lot more overt sexism. We had to just accept is a part of working life. To get ahead meant working harder, longer and putting up with more open prejudice. We smiled and kept going. At a point along the way my career choice was forced to change. I was told at 40 by an agency president "You're too old and too expensive. I would never hire you." In 1992, after several attempts at other work, therapy and career counseling I walked into the nascent world of technology. No one really cared who was there it was all so new. Bringing skills from marketing was appreciated. I worked for developers half my age. Soon wrote for marketing publications beginning to proliferate on line. After the crash in 2001, when the tech startups who'd run for cover only years early re-emerged, at 51, I was aged out of the work I loved. Told I could sit in a back office and make sales calls for commissions. No one wanted to report to "their mother".
So is it sexism alone that keeps us from the work we love. I think not.
So is it sexism alone that keeps us from the work we love. I think not.
18
You are correct that ageism is alive and well. I have suffered it, too. But I'd also suggest that ageism might be especially cruel to women. Older male executives are often regarded as having "gravitas."
27
Cleopatra, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Jane Austen, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Susan B. Anthony, Emily Dickenson, Marie Curie, Helen Keller, Coco Chanel, Eleanor Roosevelt, Catherine Hepburn, Mother Theresa, Rosa Parks, Queen Elizabeth II, Billy Holiday, Betty Friedan, Anne Frank, Oprah WInfrey, JK Rowling, Amelia Earhart, TO NAME A FEW WOMEN who have significantly influenced or changed our world.
If you believe there are limit you will live your limits.
If you believe there are limit you will live your limits.
5
A quote from an article by Sady Doyle, Elle Dec 15 2016: "Patriarchy has always had room for the Exceptional Woman—the one woman smart enough, sweet enough, strong enough, soft enough, pure enough, sexy enough to satisfy all of our culture's contradictory demands on women, and thus make it to the top of a sexist system on merit alone. Patriarchy needs that woman. She provides men with an excuse to blame women for their own pain and struggles while simultaneously assuring women that sexism only needs to be outwitted to be overcome. She tells us that the system is survivable for women—you simply have to be the right kind of woman."
6
Oh come on. Shall we put your entire history of the world list of top women up against a list of male dominance? The entire point is, not that women don't possess leadership qualities, but that RELATIVELY FEW rise to top positions, with bias as a factor. Historical numbers bear this out, too. For every Catherine the Great, how many male czars?
Your (nevertheless inspiring) list does not change the overall reality. It rather reminds us that women must be truly exceptional, nearly giants, to achieve a place in the (written by men for men) history books. The article's point is that men often rise to the top in business by dint of a slanted hierarchy that favors them, frequently over more qualified and accomplished women.
To me this argues for MORE women and perhaps especially more Black women in leadership. By the time they've run the double gauntlet, they are likely to be very exceptional indeed.
Your (nevertheless inspiring) list does not change the overall reality. It rather reminds us that women must be truly exceptional, nearly giants, to achieve a place in the (written by men for men) history books. The article's point is that men often rise to the top in business by dint of a slanted hierarchy that favors them, frequently over more qualified and accomplished women.
To me this argues for MORE women and perhaps especially more Black women in leadership. By the time they've run the double gauntlet, they are likely to be very exceptional indeed.
2
The backlash happens at lower levels, too, and helps to explain why there are fewer female EVPs and SVPs.
As a gifted young woman in a finance setting (I was the dependable, hard-working, high-producing Number 2 to the head of an important business line), I was set upon by a male competitor who galvanized a successful campaign against me. My career never recovered.
The observation in this article that "women are prey" rings true. My modus operandi was to work hard, not to play politics or, for the most part, to fight back.
There is a good deal of comfort in reading that my problem has been experienced by many others, as I've blamed myself over the years for the fact that I was dislodged.
Thank you for this article.
As a gifted young woman in a finance setting (I was the dependable, hard-working, high-producing Number 2 to the head of an important business line), I was set upon by a male competitor who galvanized a successful campaign against me. My career never recovered.
The observation in this article that "women are prey" rings true. My modus operandi was to work hard, not to play politics or, for the most part, to fight back.
There is a good deal of comfort in reading that my problem has been experienced by many others, as I've blamed myself over the years for the fact that I was dislodged.
Thank you for this article.
27
If you were so "gifted" your track record would show it unambiguously and limited partners would be streaming to you with opportunities. You are likely not as you advertise.
6
Believe me, my track record was there and was acknowledged across years of transactions, both by internal partners and external. It was also acknowledged by years of superior performance reviews.
Regrettably, this was not a situation in which I had exposure to LPs, nor was it in a business line which typically adapts itself to capitalizing start-ups.
Interesting that you are so hostile without knowing the facts, Brand.
Regrettably, this was not a situation in which I had exposure to LPs, nor was it in a business line which typically adapts itself to capitalizing start-ups.
Interesting that you are so hostile without knowing the facts, Brand.
12
Psychological Harrassment is a major problem many women face in the workplace - severe at att levels, but more subtle at the top. Quebec has a groundbreaking law that people can use to successfully defend thenselves. It can be very helpful to women facing this kind of resistance. http://mcmillan.ca/mobile/showpublication.aspx?show=100675
4
It's not about being a woman, it's about being weak.
4
No, it's also a factor of being socialized differently. If it were merely a matter of "being weak", it wouldn't be so widespread.
The women who climb the corporate ladder are strong individuals, not shrinking violets.
The women who climb the corporate ladder are strong individuals, not shrinking violets.
17
Pat Carbine said about 46 years ago that women would reach equality in business when a mediocre female could rise as high as a mediocre male.
41
But they have. Exhibit A: Marissa Meyer
1
There are many reasons that a man, or a woman, does not get the top job. There are men who could claim all the reasons quoted here for not making it but being men they have no gender or race card to blame. Perhaps they were too untidy, didn't go to the right school, were overweight; there are always reasons you can find why someone else got the job. Gender and race are the easy ones but the bottom line is usually that those making the decision found someone they thought more qualified, or better suited, for the job than you. Are they always right? No they are not but that is the way it goes.
And please stop bringing up Hillary Clinton. I would have loved to have a chance to have voted for Carly Fiorina, a far more worthy candidate in my view, but I would never vote for Hillary Clinton because she has proved over and over again that she is unsuitable for any high office. Re-read William Safire's old NYT column "A blizzard of lies" if you want to know why.
And please stop bringing up Hillary Clinton. I would have loved to have a chance to have voted for Carly Fiorina, a far more worthy candidate in my view, but I would never vote for Hillary Clinton because she has proved over and over again that she is unsuitable for any high office. Re-read William Safire's old NYT column "A blizzard of lies" if you want to know why.
6
Hillary lost a majority of white woken that is women as in women to Trump. This drivel dies not help cure that "resistance."
"The parallels with politics are striking. Research in both fields, including some conducted after Mrs. Clinton’s loss, has shown it’s harder for assertive, ambitious women to be seen as likable, and easier to conclude they lack some intangible, ill-defined quality of leadership."
At the highest level of corporate infighting, the subject here though you would not know it from this gender gender gender drivel, with zero concern for class, are per one study, sociopaths. Most men are not there. The one that are came overwhelmingly from the right class.
Hillary looks like a woman whose political career is based on a man she attached to. Trump looks like the buffoon he is and to whom she lost the majority if white women voters.
Identity politics is not politics. It is just narcissism.
"The parallels with politics are striking. Research in both fields, including some conducted after Mrs. Clinton’s loss, has shown it’s harder for assertive, ambitious women to be seen as likable, and easier to conclude they lack some intangible, ill-defined quality of leadership."
At the highest level of corporate infighting, the subject here though you would not know it from this gender gender gender drivel, with zero concern for class, are per one study, sociopaths. Most men are not there. The one that are came overwhelmingly from the right class.
Hillary looks like a woman whose political career is based on a man she attached to. Trump looks like the buffoon he is and to whom she lost the majority if white women voters.
Identity politics is not politics. It is just narcissism.
8
I supported HC with my time and money. Can we blame Russia and Comey!
The election held before Rudy intimated that a bombshell announcement was coming, she wins. The next day Comey opened his "mouth!" Is Muller gonna go there?
The election held before Rudy intimated that a bombshell announcement was coming, she wins. The next day Comey opened his "mouth!" Is Muller gonna go there?
2
Good column and great comments. I notice a plea for affirmative action, moving some people along based at least partly on gender or whatever. I am fine with that. Affirmative action ye shall always with you. Right now, in the USA, affirmative action is for pale pigment males. I notice that pale pigment male judges are uncomfortable with affirmative action plans for any group that varies from them. But 1960's affirmative action policies worked. Desegregation worked. And then ppg's (pale-pigment-guys) with gender phobia and a competitive over reach for pale-pigment-guy-privilege (PPGP, its in the DSM, look it up), those guys are now very nervous and it will be trench warfare from now on. Look at how Senator Harris was treated twice! by her pale pigment guy equals. Ted Cruz calls Mitch McConnel a liar on the senate floor. Not a peep from Mitch. Senator Warren reads a letter from Correta King on the floor and Mictch invokes article 19 (whatever that is) to shut her up. It is only going to get worse.
18
Learn to kick back and aim for the teeth.
8
It's all about misogyny. It starts when little boys encounter gross, sometimes evil and arbitrary, substitutes for their mothers in the form of elementary and high school teachers. Why would men (or women) want to work for one of these figures later in life? It's pretty obvious. It's women who were fooled into thinking they could have it all. Now, most women remove themselves from the abuse (and it really is abuse) 10 years after the MBA because they are smarter than most men and because they can. Hillary is a fine example of someone who ran for "something" her whole life with ambitious blinders on. Her marriage to Bill Clinton is a paradox. She might have gotten elected ( by those white women who did not vote for her ) had she divorced him. Because it was, after all, white women and not men who put the knife in her back. She may have talked the talk, but in her personal life she did not walk it!
2
Not sure what is cooking there but its seems all this getting women to top has few characteristics
1. It is all about white women. Mostly with connections and pedigree.
2. Most of the bosses become women champion when they get the top job and reasons are obvious ...they wont rock the boat. So to have smooth tenure you need woman as deputies ..no question asked and many times free unpaid fan following
3. This is mostly another ploy by Baby boomers to not to hand over reigns to next generation (as they are more equitable and human) but delay that by becoming champions of women power blah blah blah
3. Based on personal assessment most of the women who make beyond middle management have little women left in them or anything that they believe in.
History shows that women rights follow (and thank god for it ) not highest common factor but lowest common denominator rights to minorities, vulnerable classes so this wont go well.
1. It is all about white women. Mostly with connections and pedigree.
2. Most of the bosses become women champion when they get the top job and reasons are obvious ...they wont rock the boat. So to have smooth tenure you need woman as deputies ..no question asked and many times free unpaid fan following
3. This is mostly another ploy by Baby boomers to not to hand over reigns to next generation (as they are more equitable and human) but delay that by becoming champions of women power blah blah blah
3. Based on personal assessment most of the women who make beyond middle management have little women left in them or anything that they believe in.
History shows that women rights follow (and thank god for it ) not highest common factor but lowest common denominator rights to minorities, vulnerable classes so this wont go well.
4
Interesting article published in this newspaper, which ousted its own female editor.
19
It's called biology. Accept it.
2
You mean that white men think they have a biological ability to lead better than minorities and women? I'm pretty sure there are other, more accurate names for that.
17
Women have to be gold to be called silver.
19
Pure alchemy in your thinking.
2
White men! White men! We must always and forever make sure to blame all our problems on white men!
Im a woman. Instead of getting trapped in the corporate game and being sad that no one would hire me to be a giant tool in their machine, I decided to start my own business.
Im also gay, and my woman partner also owns her own business. Both of us discriminate everyday in hiring choices. I will basically only hire gay, queer, or transgender employees for my business. My wife has a transgender employee, but she also employs some white guys. She pays the transgender man better and gives him the best jobs. Shes also planning on scaling back her business at the end of the year so we can go on a two month long vacation. Shes going to fire the white guys and shes going to keep the transgender man.
Discrimination isnt bogarted by white men. If you want to help your tribe, just discriminate! We all know that everyone does it. You cant even stop it, its an inate part of our minds to like things that look like us. We cant stop discriminating, so we should just accept it and stop letting white dudes get all the benefits.
Im going to help LGBTQ people before I help others. I sure as heck know that no one else is going to go out of their way to help us. I will protect and nurture my tribe, and accept that Im a bigot who actively discriminates against people who arent like me.
Im a woman. Instead of getting trapped in the corporate game and being sad that no one would hire me to be a giant tool in their machine, I decided to start my own business.
Im also gay, and my woman partner also owns her own business. Both of us discriminate everyday in hiring choices. I will basically only hire gay, queer, or transgender employees for my business. My wife has a transgender employee, but she also employs some white guys. She pays the transgender man better and gives him the best jobs. Shes also planning on scaling back her business at the end of the year so we can go on a two month long vacation. Shes going to fire the white guys and shes going to keep the transgender man.
Discrimination isnt bogarted by white men. If you want to help your tribe, just discriminate! We all know that everyone does it. You cant even stop it, its an inate part of our minds to like things that look like us. We cant stop discriminating, so we should just accept it and stop letting white dudes get all the benefits.
Im going to help LGBTQ people before I help others. I sure as heck know that no one else is going to go out of their way to help us. I will protect and nurture my tribe, and accept that Im a bigot who actively discriminates against people who arent like me.
5
While per this article women are the victims of "win at all costs" cut throat personal aggrandizement at or near the C Suite, it is equally true that shareholders, employees and our economy in general is held hostage and damaged by all these amoral goons. Do we want CEOs and CFOs whose primary attribute is kicking the s..t out of their co-workers, or would we prefer to be run by people selected on actual performance and merit? BTW, the implication of this article (that women should develop the same "skills" as male C suite champions) is chilling, in comparison to the option that more attention is paid to rooting out "dodge ball" practices in C Suite recruitment and hiring.
9
I agree! In my career in Medicine. The two best hospital CEO's were woman. I worked closely with both, to me their great strength was in the ease with which they nurtured the organization.
Maybe that is my bias, Our culture will finally progress when we have the same regard for service as we do for competition.
Maybe that is my bias, Our culture will finally progress when we have the same regard for service as we do for competition.
4
This is a thoughtful, well written article on the theater of business. It is, however, too narrow. It is not about women being powerless. It is about clan culture. Certainly, in most cases it is men at the top who define the rules of the game, but the same dynamic of unfairness and passive-aggressive disrespect runs equally rampant in cases where women rule. If you are not a middle-aged woman with children (or at least a middle-aged woman) you will be shut out of advancement as a man, if not outright demoted, in a business run by women of that age. In summary, it is not about men and their secret rules of the game. It is about humans in power and their inability to crave more power by gathering others around them who mirror them. It is a story as old has cave paintings.
6
If you think women in corporate businesses have a tough time, try running a small business as a single woman. You get it from all sides, male employees, female employees, your own family and in some cases your best friends. Even sometimes your clients.
The amount of times over the 35 years I ran a small business when I was forced to swallow derogatory remarks and attitudes is uncountable.
The amount of times over the 35 years I ran a small business when I was forced to swallow derogatory remarks and attitudes is uncountable.
23
Agreed. Women still do better on their own than locked into a discriminatory business or institution.
6
You did not address the issue of women who other women as they make the climb to the C level. We often hear about men's clubs and old boy networks, but women won't reach the highest levels of corporate responsibility until their peers -- other women-- lend their wholehearted support.
6
I heartily agree.
3
Business and most of modern society is a scam anyway. It's just about fooling the masses into buying some unnecessary trinket or service. Nothing of any substance, just cheapening human existence. All the while humans are making life very hard or impossible for any other living being. It will not end well for technological-industrial society.
4
Most of the CEOs I have met are useless heels. They don't bring vision or ability to the table. They posture, pretend, and make unnecessary changes to mark their territory. They get paid ridiculous sums of money for absolutely no reason. In my opinion, a well run company would have a mechanism for the employees to fire the boss.
7
Please, no more assertions Hillary Clinton lost in part because of misogyny. Her strategy let Trump win the Midwest. The scandal over her use of a private email server took the air out of her campaign.
Yes, some people wanted her to lose because she's a woman- but probably more people wanted her to win because she's a woman.
Count me among those who wanted her to win. That's why I campaigned for her. That's why I voted for her.
Yes, some people wanted her to lose because she's a woman- but probably more people wanted her to win because she's a woman.
Count me among those who wanted her to win. That's why I campaigned for her. That's why I voted for her.
4
Faux email scandal, but fodder for clicks for revenue and exploited by those fearful of her Presidency and Obama's, such as Koch politicians. Email server set up by State Department's IT and secured beyond that by her own money. No nefarious reason, same email server as she used when Senator. She like Trump now didn't use desktop or laptop at time, but a smartphone. Three classified emails in a government bureaucracy in which each department has its own classifications. The worst was so minor as to be laughable. Emails were for background research by staff, and the State Department's network was so old that staff had to forward emails home to print them. Meanwhile, Clinton used diplomatic pouches and face-to-face or phone communication. If Trump didn't ditch his smartphone before leaving Russia, all subsequent communication would be in his folder in Russia. Hillary ditched her temporary phone, which had been monitored-- but she was aware she was under surveillance in Russia.
1
Perception vs reality.
Less dependable? Most of the time but not some of the time. CEO's need to be an all of the time type people.
Less visionary? Depends on what we are talking about in terms of vision. Women can have an enormous vision but do those visions have anything to do with the business at hand? Apparently not. Becuase anything that can lead to greater profits usually gets the first seat.
Less comfortable with self-promotion? WHAT! How many women's magazines are there endlessly discussing fashion, makeup and relationship advice? One of the largest self-promotion industries is female self-promotion.
Men are not threatened by assertive women. Stop the sexism, will you?
Women are socialized to be unapologetically competitive or haven't you heard the socializing that girls do in high school bathrooms?
Aristotle said it best and I paraphrase:
Nothing is more proof of what is right than success.
Stop blaming others. Lots of women are successful who what to be successful period.
Less dependable? Most of the time but not some of the time. CEO's need to be an all of the time type people.
Less visionary? Depends on what we are talking about in terms of vision. Women can have an enormous vision but do those visions have anything to do with the business at hand? Apparently not. Becuase anything that can lead to greater profits usually gets the first seat.
Less comfortable with self-promotion? WHAT! How many women's magazines are there endlessly discussing fashion, makeup and relationship advice? One of the largest self-promotion industries is female self-promotion.
Men are not threatened by assertive women. Stop the sexism, will you?
Women are socialized to be unapologetically competitive or haven't you heard the socializing that girls do in high school bathrooms?
Aristotle said it best and I paraphrase:
Nothing is more proof of what is right than success.
Stop blaming others. Lots of women are successful who what to be successful period.
2
I lost my job so a man could have the title, not to do the work though, just the title. It justified the pay raise.
5
Given what I know about corporate culture, why should we celebrate the fact that anyone, either a woman or a man, was able to claw his way to the top? Chira should be asking a more intelligent question: "Why aren't more women drug dealers?" It might not pay as well, but at least it's more honorable.
6
I worked as the planning director for a small town in Maine in the 1990's. I was the only department head with a master's degree required for the job and won numerous state, regional and national awards for my work. I watched the town manager routinely go to lunch with the public works director, his assistant, and the finance director - all male. Through the grapevine I heard they were discussing my budget and department scope of responsibilities. When I brought this up, gently of course, I was viewed as a complainer. The codes officer, who was a man, routinely refused to comply with rules adopted by the planning board, which I administered. The town manager refused to do anything about it. When I was offered another job, the town manager wished me well and was probably glad to get rid of me. They hired a man for the job, gave him a bigger salary, and put the codes office under his jurisdiction. A few months later the finance director was offered another job. The manager's response? A counter offer that nearly doubled his salary. He stayed on. He is now the town manager. That's how it works.
14
Men form rigid hierarchies rather than cooperative groups all the time, and women are "undercut" by men, not women, all the time. And probably vice versa. You paint quite a picture with its noble men and catty women. What are the evolutionary psychology references for this?
"Now she is a reminder of the limits women continue to confront" Or she is a reminder of the limits that cynical, entitled, blinkered establishment politicians continue to confront as people look for more authentic leaders. Putting Hillary's loss squarely on her womanhood is exactly the kind of obliviousness that helped her lose. Yes, there was sexism, but she had many more liabilities than that.
2
Well this was a timely article. I manage a family business, and yesterday a brother in law made multiple attacks on my abilities. It took all my powers of self control not to escalate. How this man would love to see me give up, and let him have control. Not today, Not tomorrow, Not Ever. It's quite a slog.
10
I see this entitled male behavior with males at all levels. I just started a new job and it's so obvious but I'm like the James Comey of the organization and I have notes and I will go to HR. Ladies, document what happens and be ready to use it...forcefully! Maybe we can overcome this disparity.
6
Besides the political connections, the article was pretty good. Clinton lost because she alienated the progressive branch and is a neoliberal corporate Democrat; most youth voters are not interested in voting for neoliberals, which is why Bernie Sanders did so well. In most cases, it had nothing to do with gender. Clinton could have won if she was a representative of the people, and not corporations.
3
I posit that it is biased to state that "in most cases" it had nothing to do with gender. You can't know that. You are apparently speaking as member of the "default class," which is an inherently biased point of view. Until privileged white males stop assuming their POV applies to everything and everyone, the problem is going to be slow to budge. Maybe a first step is to realize how you, too, are limited by this ridiculous male dominance hierarchy.
1
First, the top half of the article talks about women being judged too harshly. The lower portion mentions women not getting honest feedback. There's a fine line between the two that isn't explored here.
Second, men who avoid close professional interactions with women, especially younger women, to avoid accusations of harassment-- they have a point. Harassment is disgusting, and so are false accusations. Both do happen.
Even if false accusations are rare (and I know they are), only one can ruin a career. So I don't fault men for taking steps to preserve their careers, any more than I fault women for taking steps to preserve theirs.
Second, men who avoid close professional interactions with women, especially younger women, to avoid accusations of harassment-- they have a point. Harassment is disgusting, and so are false accusations. Both do happen.
Even if false accusations are rare (and I know they are), only one can ruin a career. So I don't fault men for taking steps to preserve their careers, any more than I fault women for taking steps to preserve theirs.
2
Thorough and thoughtful analysis and spot on. My 40+ working years in journalism and business began in 1986, when a college advisor "advised" me on graduation not to apply for graduate school because I'd be "depriving a man of the seat and I was going to get married and have children." The shock of bias and discrimination was horrific after four years as a campus leader. And it hasn't stopped.
Though now many working women play for higher stakes, the same deficits in women's ability to hit back exist. Men play hardball and not on the high road. If you take your eye off the ball, you are lost.
The only time I have seen anything like equality or respect for female executives is when they reach "a certain age" and the sexual biases begin to fade. Think Christine La Garde or Angela Merkel. But that is a long time to wait, slogging it out in the trenches.
Though now many working women play for higher stakes, the same deficits in women's ability to hit back exist. Men play hardball and not on the high road. If you take your eye off the ball, you are lost.
The only time I have seen anything like equality or respect for female executives is when they reach "a certain age" and the sexual biases begin to fade. Think Christine La Garde or Angela Merkel. But that is a long time to wait, slogging it out in the trenches.
4
Typo - it was 1968 - the halcyon year of protest - that I began working!
3
The glass ceiling for women is glacier thick and thawing is not in sight. Look no further -- the most illustrious recent example of the bias in full action is the election outcome that we now are living.
5
Most women do not exert the broad picture but are tit for tat. In the 70's they did not have the majors, advanced degrees from top schools. Most drop out of the business world at some point to procreate and that stifles them for life in the business world. If that is not enough: it has always been a guy's game and they ladies do not really want you in it. If they let you play fine; you just will never get to the top. Nothing can be done about it. Cards are stacked against you and I have watched this since 1975; not much has changed in all of those decades.
3
I think Hillary has it right. Donald Trump looks the part. That cultural bias carries over to choosing CEO's. That bias is not going to change quickly.
2
Nice guys don't finish last, nice girls do. "The male kingdom" is an intensely competitive place within a complex game. Meritocracy has little to do with winning. Winners usually do not get acceptance, they get fealty. That fealty lasts until their next stumble and then the game is on again.
It is not about women figuring out the game, many already know. It's about men figuring out how to use women to win the game, their game - then women really become part of the game.
But remember, the most you'll ever get is fealty.
It is not about women figuring out the game, many already know. It's about men figuring out how to use women to win the game, their game - then women really become part of the game.
But remember, the most you'll ever get is fealty.
2
How do you think the public and Congress would handle a Hillary Clinton who acted like a Donald Trump? Moved her family in and gave Bill a top job, refused to show tax returns, etc. etc. all of this is unfolding right in front of us - this is how we treat women who are intelligent and educated with a great track record in congress and the State Dept. and this is who we give the job to, the guy who is a liar and a con man and zero experience.
14
It's not just women who suffer unfairness in the workplace, as this article points out, "He hasn’t made his number in seven years. He’s tall and good looking" men who are not tall or not good looking are also NOT going to get named CEO, no matter how much they might be qualified or deserving. Us short ugly hard-working guys don't get a lot of sympathy despite the fact everyone knows this unfair advantage.
6
All the more reason the patriarchy needs to be shattered. The era of alpha needs to end.
2
At the upper tiers of corporate America, if a woman is being overlooked for a top position and more men are vying for the same position, logic dictates more men are overlooked then women are.....
1
Clinton is not a good example to show the limits of women in top leader ship positions. Clinton made decisions that in hind sight must be deemed failures. One example is Libya which was going to be Clinton's proving run as a hawk showing her toughness. It ultimately resulted in a failed state, a potentially destabilized Southern Europe (time will tell) and maybe with the subsequent limitless flow of migrants from Syria and Africa her ambitions might have had a hand in turning out people voting for Brexit. A stretch? Maybe, but entirely plausible and therefore her incompetence not her sex decided, among other things, her electoral college loss.
4
The argument stands. Clinton is not allowed any mistakes. Look who's in the White House.
3
Yet my anger goes to women who accept this and think "oh well, that's life" and just go on their merry way. Kind of like the women who voted for Donald Trump.
They have done nothing to help women, in fact hindered it. This isn't all about gender, this is about who can do the job - better. Don't ever tell me a previous Senator and Secretary of State is less than the person in the White House now.
If the US citizens demand a male president, can you find someone who has brains, integrity, experience, class, responsible behavior, and does not have the reputation of a woman groper? At least?
I was recommended recently to serve on a sort of prestigious local committee by another professional woman from the organization. I emailed the organization's CEO to let "him" know of my interest. I have served on one of the organization's community councils as a volunteer for several years, after retiring. My working credentials are impeccable. I am the most qualified person for this committee.
I never even got an email back from "him" - nothing. I am resigning from any affiliation with the organization at the next sub committee meeting. Time to move on.
By the way, the previous CEO was a woman who always answered emails and was always appreciative of professional input, from either a "her or a him".
They have done nothing to help women, in fact hindered it. This isn't all about gender, this is about who can do the job - better. Don't ever tell me a previous Senator and Secretary of State is less than the person in the White House now.
If the US citizens demand a male president, can you find someone who has brains, integrity, experience, class, responsible behavior, and does not have the reputation of a woman groper? At least?
I was recommended recently to serve on a sort of prestigious local committee by another professional woman from the organization. I emailed the organization's CEO to let "him" know of my interest. I have served on one of the organization's community councils as a volunteer for several years, after retiring. My working credentials are impeccable. I am the most qualified person for this committee.
I never even got an email back from "him" - nothing. I am resigning from any affiliation with the organization at the next sub committee meeting. Time to move on.
By the way, the previous CEO was a woman who always answered emails and was always appreciative of professional input, from either a "her or a him".
6
Don't resign. Fight back. Publicly demand a response from the CEO. If you believe you weren't going to be appointed anyway, you have nothing to lose. I believe this is a major issue for women, they walk away. Don't. You deserve a response, demand one.
5
LISAG
I have considered your opinion, and thank you. I do have other venues of commitment though, and will pursue them instead.
I have rehearsed that conversation with "him" - like, "I just wanted you to know Bill, the real reason I am resigning is that you did not even have the integrity to contact me, either way, after my email to you. I am curious if you will not even have the courtesy to contact a consumer, a community member, how can you be responsible to lead the healthcare facility in this community?"
MIMA
I have considered your opinion, and thank you. I do have other venues of commitment though, and will pursue them instead.
I have rehearsed that conversation with "him" - like, "I just wanted you to know Bill, the real reason I am resigning is that you did not even have the integrity to contact me, either way, after my email to you. I am curious if you will not even have the courtesy to contact a consumer, a community member, how can you be responsible to lead the healthcare facility in this community?"
MIMA
2
A few comments:
Any organization whose underlying ethic is competition will lead to the behaviours (yes, in our culture mostly male ones) described in this article.
These women are vying for positions in which they may be paid hundreds of times what the people who clean their offices earn, people who may also need a vacation or an expensive treatment for a newly diagnosed cancer.
The desperate need for status and recognition in our anxious and fearful society stunts the emotional freedom and growth of all of us.
Many of these women seem deeply aggrieved, but it might be salutary for them and their male competitors to ask why they are so attached to prestige and material rewards.
Equal pay for these women would be step forward, but a halting one indeed..
Any organization whose underlying ethic is competition will lead to the behaviours (yes, in our culture mostly male ones) described in this article.
These women are vying for positions in which they may be paid hundreds of times what the people who clean their offices earn, people who may also need a vacation or an expensive treatment for a newly diagnosed cancer.
The desperate need for status and recognition in our anxious and fearful society stunts the emotional freedom and growth of all of us.
Many of these women seem deeply aggrieved, but it might be salutary for them and their male competitors to ask why they are so attached to prestige and material rewards.
Equal pay for these women would be step forward, but a halting one indeed..
3
Thank you for this thoughtful article seeking to understand the challenges to social change. As women continue to become educated and gain wealth, I think there should be more women-initiated businesses and companies. Women bosses won't necessarily be fairer to other women, but the more women-owned businesses there are, the harder it will become to maintain this dissonance and inequality. In reality, women are going to walk away and become competitors or economic dropouts if they can't get parity or rise to the top on merit instead of gender. Many women still seek employment in education and health fields, and accept lower salaries, because they do not want to be lonely or feel threatened at work.
3
It might have been a more balanced article, if the authors had included comment from McDonald executives or board members on why Ms.Fields was dismissed. Saying she was blamed for the first monthly drop in profits sounds a bit thin, and i wonder if there were other items that led to her firing. I wonder if it isn't more easy to use gender as the default reason for lack of promotion or firing and skip over the other factors. For the record I have worked with and even for several women in a 31 year career on Wall Street and never thought twice about the gender aspect. Performance was so large a criterion than almost no one cared about gender. I tried to instill in my three daughters that you could be anything you wanted to, just do it.
4
I empathize with everything said here - got that t-shirt. (And I'd like to acknowledge the men who have experienced the same bias towards "gravitas" over merit.)
The big questions are:
1) Why isn't promotion to CEO based on merit? What's the downside?
2) On the battlefield or sports field, has any side won when the leaders are fighting for themselves not the team?
3) Over time I've seen that what goes around comes around. But how much more human capital are we going to waste?
4) Companies have leapfrogged competitors when they promote on merit, teamwork, and value human capital. But that's not what anyone remembers.
When I started in business world as an assistant account executive in a top 5 ad agency, I was assigned the project of writing case histories for leading business schools. The story had to be simple. Promoting on merit, teamwork, and valuing human capital isn't simple.
One strategy to achieving the Rockefeller Foundation 100x25 goal is to bust the myths that prop up "gravitas" and simplify the true, hard-to-articulate "character" of leadership at winning companies.
Sincerely.
The big questions are:
1) Why isn't promotion to CEO based on merit? What's the downside?
2) On the battlefield or sports field, has any side won when the leaders are fighting for themselves not the team?
3) Over time I've seen that what goes around comes around. But how much more human capital are we going to waste?
4) Companies have leapfrogged competitors when they promote on merit, teamwork, and value human capital. But that's not what anyone remembers.
When I started in business world as an assistant account executive in a top 5 ad agency, I was assigned the project of writing case histories for leading business schools. The story had to be simple. Promoting on merit, teamwork, and valuing human capital isn't simple.
One strategy to achieving the Rockefeller Foundation 100x25 goal is to bust the myths that prop up "gravitas" and simplify the true, hard-to-articulate "character" of leadership at winning companies.
Sincerely.
6
I was a mechanic who had owned my own shop. I was also a college graduate who taught elem. school. Being a teacher requires 2 jobs for a decent existence.
I saw a chance to become a mechanic working for a city in the San Gabriel valley that would pay more than my teaching job and allow me to sell my own shop and spend more time with my children.
Out of a room full of test takers, close to 100, I was the only woman. At the end, I had the highest written test score, so I was called in for an interview with a panel of 5 men. I was asked more detailed questions about how to repair certain automotive problems. I answered them all well. Finally, I was told that they just couldn't hire me because the shop was all men and the wives of the men would be unhappy at having a female working alongside their husbands.
An attorney I contacted said it would cost more in legal fees than it was worth to pursue anything. The glass ceiling exists at ALL jobs!
I saw a chance to become a mechanic working for a city in the San Gabriel valley that would pay more than my teaching job and allow me to sell my own shop and spend more time with my children.
Out of a room full of test takers, close to 100, I was the only woman. At the end, I had the highest written test score, so I was called in for an interview with a panel of 5 men. I was asked more detailed questions about how to repair certain automotive problems. I answered them all well. Finally, I was told that they just couldn't hire me because the shop was all men and the wives of the men would be unhappy at having a female working alongside their husbands.
An attorney I contacted said it would cost more in legal fees than it was worth to pursue anything. The glass ceiling exists at ALL jobs!
26
Find another attorney and pursue your claim. Contact the ACLU, the Department of Labor and other government agencies. Start a media campaign. You have an actionable case. Your civil rights have been violated, you are entitled to bring suit.
5
I've been in the workplace for almost 30 years, both in the US and France, and I've seen how men look to emulate successful men and they enjoy all the company accolades for their own achievements, like a 'soldier' shows off his medals. They also accept leadership roles more readily than women.
Women don't seem to look for accolades. Instead, they feel empowered by hard work and dedication to their profession or to their employer. As women gain more praise for their achievements in the workplace and take on more leadership roles, everyone will win.
Women don't seem to look for accolades. Instead, they feel empowered by hard work and dedication to their profession or to their employer. As women gain more praise for their achievements in the workplace and take on more leadership roles, everyone will win.
6
Very interesting article. Perhaps a bit too long. My personal experience confirms most of the findings. Nevertheless it is worth noting that the number of women rising through the ranks is increasing fast and this is the prerequisite for a change. Also worth discussing is the effectiveness of forcing a promotion based on anti discrimination policies. It is a truly complex matter, always worth debating in a constructive way.
6
For obvious reasons, the author of this article points to the failure of women to rise to the top mostly being explained by men blocking them. What I have wondered is why there are so few women entrepreneurs who have started fabulously successful for profit companies. Leave aside traditional male strongholds like banking or manufacturing. How do you explain how none of the top software, ecommerce or other internet companies have been started by women? These are companies that the customers couldn't care less who is running it. Do you actually think that Snapchat could not have been started by a woman because of a man blocking her? The author should explore this question. Perhaps that will yield more interesting explanations.
8
Did you see the recent Wall Street Journal article about the pittance of VC funding that women receive compared to men? The women do, however, receive many more unwanted sexual advancements.
19
This topic has been covered fairly thoroughly over the years. It is notoriously difficult for women and minorities to get financing from prospective investors.
14
Surely the sharks of Wall Street would shun investment in women founded companies to further the cause of male dominance rather than make a bunch of money. Sorry, I don't think so.
4
Corporations are male structures based on male principles such as hierarchy, systems and logic. This article deals almost exclusively with behavioral, environmental and other more superficial manifestations of the corporate world, which discriminate against women.
Even if all the latter problems could be solved it doesn't seem probable that the basic conditions for women would change dramatically. It's not conceivable that the lack of female CEO's is entirely a consequence of male behavior (just as the lack of female chess-players isn't due to the treatment in the club).
For more women to become CEO's the very structure of corporations would have to be less masculine. If that would entail less profit hysteria and a more humane environment, it could be a blessing. Anyway, it's what we have to engage in, and it means basic political work by every gender.
Even if all the latter problems could be solved it doesn't seem probable that the basic conditions for women would change dramatically. It's not conceivable that the lack of female CEO's is entirely a consequence of male behavior (just as the lack of female chess-players isn't due to the treatment in the club).
For more women to become CEO's the very structure of corporations would have to be less masculine. If that would entail less profit hysteria and a more humane environment, it could be a blessing. Anyway, it's what we have to engage in, and it means basic political work by every gender.
17
If engaging in that work means less logic, count me out.
I have no idea where folks get the notion that females are less logical in their thinking. You actually do not even know what you are talking about when you talk about logic, but allow me to enlighten you, in layman's terms, to help you understand. Logic is the Operating System of a culture. We are currently running Dialectical Logic. It is a very old world view, and in fact, does not match up with the nature of reality. One problem with dialectical logic, is that is presupposes the capacity for infinite expansion. On a finite planet- we are running up against the major bug in the system. Unless & until we incorporate the unity principle into our logic (operating system), we will destroy ourselves no doubt & quite soon. Ironically, the next jump in Logic is into a system that presupposes the unity of All. Kind of like females are inclined to do. Don't be so smug, puppy: the Logic you are so fluent in is not only irrelevant: it's deadly.
5
Have you ever noticed when a company is in bad shape or facing some sort of bad situation it's their sisters and their mothers and their aunts to the rescue, on the hustings (or front steps) to answer all the angry questions? The when things don't miraculously improve much if at all, sis, mom, or auntie gets all the blame! She had her chance; she was going to reverse the downturn, fix the pay gap, etc. ad infinitum.
Makes one wonder why we would want that in the first place. I guess it's the hope that like Elizabeth I we'll overcome the impossible odds.
Makes one wonder why we would want that in the first place. I guess it's the hope that like Elizabeth I we'll overcome the impossible odds.
8
Nope, haven't noticed that. I did notice that Elizabeth Holmes, running Theranos and touted as the female Steve Jobs, turned out to be a total and complete fraud.
1
Yes, there is already a name for this phenomenon of finally bringing in women to clean up the mess .... it is called the "glass cliff."
Here is the wikipedia entry on the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cliff
Here is the wikipedia entry on the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cliff
3
I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned the secret weapon many high-powered men possess that their female counterparts usually do not. I'm referring to a stay-at-home spouse who makes those weekend golf games, late dinners and last minute business trips possible. In my experience as a mother with kids, it's extremely hard to compete against male colleagues with wives at home to take care of everything.
114
I get tired of the endless commentary about who gets to be CEO. Whether men or women, there are very, very few CEO positions, and those positions often do go to the tall men who "fit the part." The real issue is that many, many other people who contribute to the success of businesses and institutions are way undervalued, as the "C-Suite" is overvalued. There should be better pay and more respect for the professional and blue collar workers without which there would be no business at all -- no market of customers either.
37
My solution was to aim toward being president of my own company. I'd had 25 great years that included being a "technical housewife" and decided that was enough. With computers, answering machines and a long list of peer colleagues, I started my own business and hired the best in the business to bolster my success. We no longer needed juniors, because we could do the job right the first time, and in less time. i wasn't interested in growing the business. I had plenty of clients and friends who knew the quality of my work. It has been the right thing to do and has allowed me to work right into retirement.
19
After jumping off the corporate ladder to start my own company because I was tired of playing by a rule book that didn't include women, I'm amazed at the number of people from my old employer who say they miss me and my unique views.
The sad part is that my views aren't that unique - they're just different from the dominant male hierarchy within so many organizations today. When shareholders realize that companies are the poorer in diverse thought and out of touch with the rest of our society - which happens to be one that is becoming more, not less, diverse with more women controlling the wallet - perhaps they will demand changes.
The 1980s movie "War Games" said it best: sometimes the easiest way to win is NOT to play.
The sad part is that my views aren't that unique - they're just different from the dominant male hierarchy within so many organizations today. When shareholders realize that companies are the poorer in diverse thought and out of touch with the rest of our society - which happens to be one that is becoming more, not less, diverse with more women controlling the wallet - perhaps they will demand changes.
The 1980s movie "War Games" said it best: sometimes the easiest way to win is NOT to play.
28
In my 25 year career, the people who have had the most influence on my growth have been women. In addition to their leadership and business skills, I believe their ability to understand how being an outsider (I am a Minority) created different challenges for me increased the value of their guidance. We weren't part of their club but we were part of our club.
5
Nothing much has changed in 40 years. I taught men about SDLC, how to ask questions and write requirements. What did it get me? A continuous reduction in consulting fees. I retired in 2009
4
I have to be honest, Hillary did in Hillary. If she had not been acting as if She, and ONLY She Deserved the Presidency, then she would have gone a lot farther than she did. Also, because of her acting as if she was The ONLY Priviledged Candidate, she grotesquely overran Bernie Sanders, quite obviously interfering in the Primary Campaigns and sabotaging them against Mr. Sanders, culminating in Mr. Sanders appearing beaten up and bruised to stand down his race for Dem Ticket...
THAT is what brought Mrs. Clinton down: Her own actions. Not the mysognies of others, in this case. Yes, in the business and general political world women are vastly handicapped, just like the gerrymandering of regions, it is a social gerrymandering where those in the high points (mostly men, rich, white, etc) get to make the rules for everyone else. But in the specific case of Hillary Clinton and the 2016 race for President, she destroyed herself and there is no one else to blame.
THAT is what brought Mrs. Clinton down: Her own actions. Not the mysognies of others, in this case. Yes, in the business and general political world women are vastly handicapped, just like the gerrymandering of regions, it is a social gerrymandering where those in the high points (mostly men, rich, white, etc) get to make the rules for everyone else. But in the specific case of Hillary Clinton and the 2016 race for President, she destroyed herself and there is no one else to blame.
15
@B. Honest
You and nobody else can explain what Hillary Clinton did to Bernie Sanders that caused him to lose the South Carolina primary. And how did Hillary ACT as if she was supposed to be the U. S. President? And in comparison, Donald Trump was a model of humility? Donald Trump had no credentials to match Hillary's for the U. S. presidency, so why should she have behaved otherwise? Just to fulfill a stereotype? You are part of the problem.
You and nobody else can explain what Hillary Clinton did to Bernie Sanders that caused him to lose the South Carolina primary. And how did Hillary ACT as if she was supposed to be the U. S. President? And in comparison, Donald Trump was a model of humility? Donald Trump had no credentials to match Hillary's for the U. S. presidency, so why should she have behaved otherwise? Just to fulfill a stereotype? You are part of the problem.
32
Hillary was not the perfect candidate, but she offered a lot more competence in the area of governing than our current chief executive did and had a lot fewer violations of ethics than he. Had overt and subconscious mysogyny not been at work in even a small percentage of voters, there is no doubt that she would now be commander-in-chief. I just don't see how anyone can justify putting a loose canon in the White House and downplay DJT's narcissistic capriciousness, self-interest, and incompetence.
14
Sanders lost most of the primaries. His voters can't understand why minority voters didn't fall for his charade, so they cry that is was stolen.
1
Worked for a large company for many years and watched men get promoted left and right for work that involved my input and often ideas. Wear a suit, show up to work, don't get pregnant and you'll certainly get promoted. Meanwhile, I got laid off shortly I returned from maternity leave, and time and time again, did not receive promotions well deserved. Oh well. I've been so discouraged during the time when I was most creative and innovative, and motivated to work. Now I've leaned out, opting to work part time and spending more time on my family and the place that matters, my home.
17
I found unconscious bias when I ran a subsidiary of a large insurance company in the late 70's. The male employees expected me to be a mother or sister not a dad. One employee's real sister was stunned that I was his boss and he was obviously ashamed at being diminished in her eyes. Also, our clients would thank a male colleague for lunch in the executive dining room even though I was clearly the host. In a subsequent job I was told I made 20% less than a colleague with similar experience and education because he had a family to support and I didn't. While this was in the dark ages, it's clear in this article that the biases (conscious or unconscious) are still there. Sad.
26
Try observing how the average women treats a waiter or housekeeper compared to how the average man treats the same people. Some 'coaching' here - learn to respect all people in your organization, regardless of their position. You may find that you'll gain support from all levels of your company if your people believe that you're on their side. I know that this is a broad generality - but there's some truth here....
3
What are you implying? Are you saying men treat people better? I have trouble following.
5
On average, men treat the people who are below them in rank or status better than women do.
That is absolutely ridiculous. And denigrates women. I'm sure we can all provide contrary examples. Case in point: the man in the WH. See the thing about bias is, you can't see it when you're in it.
2
You can't manage what you can't measure.
Companies often don't clearly define the criteria for success for every position. Ironically, the problem is worse the higher the pay, so it's no wonder that the "club" mentality is at its peak at the top of the ladder.
Want your company to truly succeed, and want that success to be stable and long lasting? Define metrics for success and use those metrics for analysis and decision making.
Fail to do that, and you leave your most important positions (and therefore decisions) vulnerable to dirty politics, and we all know how that turns out...
Companies often don't clearly define the criteria for success for every position. Ironically, the problem is worse the higher the pay, so it's no wonder that the "club" mentality is at its peak at the top of the ladder.
Want your company to truly succeed, and want that success to be stable and long lasting? Define metrics for success and use those metrics for analysis and decision making.
Fail to do that, and you leave your most important positions (and therefore decisions) vulnerable to dirty politics, and we all know how that turns out...
7
Norway fixed their problem of "not enough female upper management". The Norwegian Parliament passed a law that 40% of a company's corporate boardroom must be female or the company be shut down. When management complained, they were told "then develop them". And they did.
Before anyone complains, it works the other way, also. In the few industries that might be dominated by females 40% of their executives must be male.
In 2015, Germany mandated that 30% of the corporate board must be female. Spain,France,and Iceland mandate 30%. The Netherlands has a voluntary target of 30%. Britain has no mandate, but encourages companies to join the "30% club".
The US lags behind with 17% at best.
Before anyone complains, it works the other way, also. In the few industries that might be dominated by females 40% of their executives must be male.
In 2015, Germany mandated that 30% of the corporate board must be female. Spain,France,and Iceland mandate 30%. The Netherlands has a voluntary target of 30%. Britain has no mandate, but encourages companies to join the "30% club".
The US lags behind with 17% at best.
37
The results show that profits have declined. Such mandates cede economic growth to the us and china. But hey these rich can afford to lose money. Better for global equity. Also a boon to social sciences. Thanks a lot!
2
Get involved with 2020 Women on Boards, which has set a deadline for corporations to have 20% of their boards be female. www.2020wob.org
As for the male seeking a board seat, take note of research that CEOs make the WORST board directors. Indeed, board members should ask, "Why do we need another white male (CEO) on our board? We have so many already!
As for the male seeking a board seat, take note of research that CEOs make the WORST board directors. Indeed, board members should ask, "Why do we need another white male (CEO) on our board? We have so many already!
2
I love the comeback, "Then develop them." That is where it's at. Awesome. Thank you.
3
I'm a 37 year old female surgeon in a leadership position since age 34. This is not the same as a business CEO, but has given me perspective on women in a high pressure, male dominated environment.
Growing up it never occurred to me that I should be any less successful than males in anything. I immigrated as a child from a communist country where the idea of achievement inequality between the sexes was not prominent. Perhaps this is why I was not expecting inequality at school or work. The problem is worse in the US.
My discovery that women face specific challenges in my field was late and unwelcome. In my training as a surgeon I noticed that when men brought up a problem they were being proactive; when women did so they were complaining too much. I have been told my personality is "black," whereas I am certain my male coworkers who act exactly as I do have never been told such a thing. I have been conversationally asked by my boss in a crowded operating room whether/when I am going to get pregnant.
I see a lot of promise as well. More women join surgical fields and many are in leadership roles. A subtle sign of progress is that women in surgery are willing to be both feminine and tough. As a student I saw women abandon wearing makeup and long hair, apparently hoping to be more accepted as surgeons if they showed fewer external signs of femininity. Now I see more acceptance as just women who happen to work in the field. But barriers and much implicit bias remain.
Growing up it never occurred to me that I should be any less successful than males in anything. I immigrated as a child from a communist country where the idea of achievement inequality between the sexes was not prominent. Perhaps this is why I was not expecting inequality at school or work. The problem is worse in the US.
My discovery that women face specific challenges in my field was late and unwelcome. In my training as a surgeon I noticed that when men brought up a problem they were being proactive; when women did so they were complaining too much. I have been told my personality is "black," whereas I am certain my male coworkers who act exactly as I do have never been told such a thing. I have been conversationally asked by my boss in a crowded operating room whether/when I am going to get pregnant.
I see a lot of promise as well. More women join surgical fields and many are in leadership roles. A subtle sign of progress is that women in surgery are willing to be both feminine and tough. As a student I saw women abandon wearing makeup and long hair, apparently hoping to be more accepted as surgeons if they showed fewer external signs of femininity. Now I see more acceptance as just women who happen to work in the field. But barriers and much implicit bias remain.
20
Your response to your boss the next time he asks when you are going to get pregnant, is to respond nonchalantly - and without missing a beat is - ' as soon as you are.'
Failure is the cost of being in a competitive society. Seeing failure through our particular subjectivity: woman, black, Asian, short, catholic, Mormon....nonincumbant handicap is part of human frailty. To be fair and balanced, the article should have interviewed men who failed and see how unfair the world was to them. But then again can we really use the world failure when talk about people in the 0.0001 percent from the 0.001percent? I am totally grateful to be a citizen in the fairest society in the history of the world. At the end of the day, I care about the preservation of the system that benefits the 99.9999 percent, not who the absolutely top top winners are.
9
Being at the very top is like winning the powerball lottery: a matter of luck. The more tickets you buy the greater your odds of winning. Nothing in social sciences can proper take into account the fact that men buy more tickets in attempts to show that the lottery is rigged against women. Notwithstanding the lack of scientific evidence there will be no shortage of perceptions of unfairness, just as lottery losers will have no shortage of explanations of why they didn't choose the right numbers this time.
We learn from an early age that men are men and women, well are women. And thereafter men believe they understand other men best.
At the same time, men learn about women through the bond they develop with their mother, in most cases.
This bond resides in a man until their last breath and there is no way to undo or erase that early and crucial memory in a man (or woman for that matter).
Every relationship similarly is thereby measured against that early bond with a man's mother.
And any relationship with a woman in the work place or even a woman as boss is measured in the same way, in reference to that first relationship with his mother.
At the same time, men learn about women through the bond they develop with their mother, in most cases.
This bond resides in a man until their last breath and there is no way to undo or erase that early and crucial memory in a man (or woman for that matter).
Every relationship similarly is thereby measured against that early bond with a man's mother.
And any relationship with a woman in the work place or even a woman as boss is measured in the same way, in reference to that first relationship with his mother.
6
Well, that's just sad. Who your mother is is an accident of birth. Let's hope you are in the minority that one relationship has that much impact for good or ill. Perhaps time to broaden your horizons. Plus, I'm glad I'm not your wife. Completely, illogical approach to life.
5
In my experience when men are uncomfortable with women in authority it is because they perceive and/ or buy the idea that men are inherently superior to women. Therefore if a woman is telling them what to do their social worth is diminished. I think the argument above is over thinking it a bit. I don't equate every man with my dad... why would a man do the same with their mother?
10
@ Emma and @ AH - I think there is some merit to what Andrew is saying - what we learn directly and indirectly in our early years is deep-seated and highly influential, not logical at all. There's a LOT in anyone's approach to life that is illogical and unexamined, probably even yours, AH, so I don't think you can fault him on that too much. And there is no doubt in my mind that your dad influenced you greatly as to who and what men are and can be, for instance, Emma, even if you do not outright equate other men with your dad. Or even, perhaps especially, if you HAD no dad. But @Andrew, what men and women "are" is not the same across the board, so it is here that I think your argument falls down. The difference in world view of someone who grew up in a household of strict, traditional gender roles vs. someone who grew up in a nontraditional household, e.g., egalitarian dad or bread-winning mom, would no doubt affect how a child grows up to see the sexes. So I do agree with AH in that we all could benefit from continually broadening our horizons. And I do agree with Emma that the male superiority assumption is a subtle, pervasive societal message that makes it hard for men AND women to accept the viability of a confident, competent woman.
2
When I started my career in the '80s I worked for the classic white-shirt-and-tie, mostly male, corporation. The good-old-boy network was how things worked: men shepherded each other's careers. Promotions were awarded to men whose families were growing, in order to increase their incomes. My own hiring was hotly contested, I later discovered, because the job could've gone to a man who "needed it to support his family." This was typical and all very out in the open. It wasn't until women and minorities started climbing the corporate ladder that merit suddenly became a qualification -- but only for the women and minorities; there were still plenty of jobs for the son of the boss's golf buddy.
I, sadly, was not terribly surprised when one of the most qualified candidates in history lost to a repugnant, clueless neophyte. The bars for men and women are set at very, very different heights.
I, sadly, was not terribly surprised when one of the most qualified candidates in history lost to a repugnant, clueless neophyte. The bars for men and women are set at very, very different heights.
262
As a woman entrepreneur, I can tell you voting for Clinton was never possible for me. And it had nothing to do with her being female. Like most readers of the NYT, presumably, you just do not understand how educated, hard-working people like myself CHOSE to vote for Trump because he stands against excessive taxation, over-regulation of businesses, Obamacare, weakened military, inability to say "blue lives matter," etc. You may think I am clueless and "deplorable," as per Clinton, but then again I think you are naive and close-minded. So there you go.
The article should be rewritten by changing men to white men.
Similar discriminations apply to colored men -- on much greater extent.
Similar discriminations apply to colored men -- on much greater extent.
32
It's the pits unless a woman plans. Women need to plan carefully to select careers with mid-level satisfaction, and select mates (if they so desire) for the nurturing and maturity characteristics that are not common.
4
I have worked in IT since the late 80's. Of course my colleagues and managers have all been men, mostly white. In my experience, misogyny has gotten much worse since about 2003. I don't know why, but I have been treated worse now. When I started in IT, no one cared that I was female. Now everyone cares.
163
I too started in the late 80s- just a thought - ageism also impacts women more distinctly.
9
It's probably purely your anecdote experience. I very doubt Travis Kalannick would still be fired if it's 2003 according to what I've heard the IT industry was like before.
I too have worked in what we called "high tech" for 35 years. It's as bad as it's ever been.
It got worse during the Bush administration (2001-09). The religious right made a strong comeback. Their idea is that women should stay home to care for the children and prepare herself for her husband (as the middle east imams suggest). Women who chose a different life were somehow suspect.
~
It got worse during the Bush administration (2001-09). The religious right made a strong comeback. Their idea is that women should stay home to care for the children and prepare herself for her husband (as the middle east imams suggest). Women who chose a different life were somehow suspect.
~
1
Thank You Miss Susan,
The structural barriers faced by the intelligent and courageous women interviewed for this article resonates with so many readers including myself due to the simple fact that it is the TRUTH. I have always argued that sexism, racism, nepotism and the likes can only be cured by punitive measures, as one of your interviewee mentioned, withholding bonuses or promotion if there is not meaningful change in behavior. History has thought us that privilege is never voluntarily given up. In this case, men being the privileged class, the majority being white men, will not give up their privilege unless forced to. Thanks.
The structural barriers faced by the intelligent and courageous women interviewed for this article resonates with so many readers including myself due to the simple fact that it is the TRUTH. I have always argued that sexism, racism, nepotism and the likes can only be cured by punitive measures, as one of your interviewee mentioned, withholding bonuses or promotion if there is not meaningful change in behavior. History has thought us that privilege is never voluntarily given up. In this case, men being the privileged class, the majority being white men, will not give up their privilege unless forced to. Thanks.
22
Men are set up to coalesce in groups and hunt for pray or for enemies. This is an adaptation set up by evolution, and among evolutionary psychologists it is well understood. By contrast, women are NOT adapted to aggregating in groups. Other women want to have equal rank, so they undermine those unfortunate women who rise. The result is that successful women must act alone.
It seems that men then see women as convenient pray. The results are clearly understood from an evolutionary perspective. And despite cultural progress they are ultimately NOT very changeable. Men and women carry genes that have been subjected to evolutionary pressures during millennia. They exist because those who carried them left more children. This cannot possibly be fixed in the 21st century, unless someone edits those genes.
So do not expect changes. The progress we have seen thus far is probably the best possible scenario. And democrats should immediately stop any talk of another female president. At best, a VP may work, i.e. what the article calls a 'dependable backup'
It seems that men then see women as convenient pray. The results are clearly understood from an evolutionary perspective. And despite cultural progress they are ultimately NOT very changeable. Men and women carry genes that have been subjected to evolutionary pressures during millennia. They exist because those who carried them left more children. This cannot possibly be fixed in the 21st century, unless someone edits those genes.
So do not expect changes. The progress we have seen thus far is probably the best possible scenario. And democrats should immediately stop any talk of another female president. At best, a VP may work, i.e. what the article calls a 'dependable backup'
4
Hunt for PREY.
And Lamarckian ideas like the heritability of acquired or social traits is very much a questionable explanation. There have been women who hunt throughout history.
And Lamarckian ideas like the heritability of acquired or social traits is very much a questionable explanation. There have been women who hunt throughout history.
10
Big public pyramid corporations are organized like the military and favor authoritarian personalities who are demonstrably devoted to the firm, moving anywhere for the next promotion, and while being other directed more loyal to superiors than to colleagues. The information flows up and demands flow downwards. It's efficient where there are minimal changes to the ways things are done. Males on average are more like this than are females. Given the small number of top spots these overall average preferences favor the selection of males. But the overwhelming proportion of males already in high positions is a huge factor, too. Those men are going to exaggerate the prevalence of gender related preferences in their evaluations of male and female candidates.
The traditional pyramidal authoritarian model often could be replaced with models that favor more collaborative ones where females' preferences are superior.
The traditional pyramidal authoritarian model often could be replaced with models that favor more collaborative ones where females' preferences are superior.
5
The problems these women face are faced by all of us. I work in a technical field and recently joined a new group. The depth of my experience in contrast to my peers is significant, having worked in the field and the company for four times as long. This gives me the advantage of being highly effective and by external, abstract measures, and on delivery and quality I'm better in the extreme. The people who work for me produce five times as much as other groups despite the fact that I was originally saddled with the organizations worst performers a year ago when I joined.
Despite this, when we went through a mid-year review, my boss told me they would give me the lowest possible positive rating. My areas for improvement were to appear more positive to others and to not be so involved in the details. But of course, it's both my critical eye and my ability to go deep when necessary, but pull out when others can be trusted, that have been the key to my success. This advice is also contrary to the stated company values which enshrine the values of "speaking frankly" and "diving deep."
I took the feedback as another way of saying "too technical / not nice enough," which I doubt my male peers will ever hear in their performance reviews.
It's no surprised that in situations where there are fixed rules and clear external measures, like in school, women find much more parity in their success compared to men than in situations where the assessments are personal and unauditable.
Despite this, when we went through a mid-year review, my boss told me they would give me the lowest possible positive rating. My areas for improvement were to appear more positive to others and to not be so involved in the details. But of course, it's both my critical eye and my ability to go deep when necessary, but pull out when others can be trusted, that have been the key to my success. This advice is also contrary to the stated company values which enshrine the values of "speaking frankly" and "diving deep."
I took the feedback as another way of saying "too technical / not nice enough," which I doubt my male peers will ever hear in their performance reviews.
It's no surprised that in situations where there are fixed rules and clear external measures, like in school, women find much more parity in their success compared to men than in situations where the assessments are personal and unauditable.
41
CEOs who are dismissive of the contributions by female executives aren't always men. Having worked for a male CEO who valued his senior team members regardless of gender, and a female CEO who could not stand having any other women executive look competent, I can attest that the phenomenon is not easily explained as a male/female dichotomy.
20
The harvard business review article and the leanin/mckinsey rerferences do not provide any data. The HBR research is behind a paywall and the leanin reference was pretty flashy but there was no link to any of the survey questions or results. As judge judy says, if you dont bring the evidence, it doesnt exist. Once you get past the flash and anecdotes of the studies, you are left with a plate of unwarranted inferences and bias.
If you make claims, have the courtesy to provide the data so people can determine for themselves how the inferences fit the data.
If you make claims, have the courtesy to provide the data so people can determine for themselves how the inferences fit the data.
8
I agree with everything shared in this article, and have experienced much of it in senior management and Big 5 consulting roles.
I would add that women can be part of the problem, too, though in different ways. There is not much of a sisterhood in the corporate world - in fact, they are perfectly capable of throwing their female colleagues under the bus for their own chance to gain a little ground. And just one woman who is flirtatious with the menfolk perpetuates the "she slept her way to the top" stereotype - whether a real or perceived behavior (and sometimes it is real).
I would add that women can be part of the problem, too, though in different ways. There is not much of a sisterhood in the corporate world - in fact, they are perfectly capable of throwing their female colleagues under the bus for their own chance to gain a little ground. And just one woman who is flirtatious with the menfolk perpetuates the "she slept her way to the top" stereotype - whether a real or perceived behavior (and sometimes it is real).
16
The attention we give to this unjust reality--though understandable, as dysfunction is perversely fascinating (see Trump)--may be perpetuating it. Perhaps we should spend more time looking to other models: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Mother
1
Women can't just rise to the top solely on numbers. You need to have great leadership, and that means having leverage and knowing when to use it. That means being liked and being sociable. As a woman you can't avoid playing the game. You not only have to master it but you have to do so in a way that doesn't offend a mans pride. Men and social structures didn't evolve around following a woman. Women need to understand this and act accordingly.
I want to emphasize that I'm only pointing out at the way things are. Women can't just decide they want to change men's behavior that has evolved for thousands of years. If you step up to a competitive man, challenge and threaten his position (or chance at success); you have got to be better at him in every way and ruthless. As an example of what I'm talking about, look at Griselda Blanco from "Cocaine Cowboys." Look at Cheng I Sao, a female pirate with an Navy of 50,000 men. This is how things are. If women want to succeed in leadership they need to learn from female leaders and not try to emulate men. You just aren't men.
I want to emphasize that I'm only pointing out at the way things are. Women can't just decide they want to change men's behavior that has evolved for thousands of years. If you step up to a competitive man, challenge and threaten his position (or chance at success); you have got to be better at him in every way and ruthless. As an example of what I'm talking about, look at Griselda Blanco from "Cocaine Cowboys." Look at Cheng I Sao, a female pirate with an Navy of 50,000 men. This is how things are. If women want to succeed in leadership they need to learn from female leaders and not try to emulate men. You just aren't men.
3
I believe women are disadvantaged at every step. If you're assertive, you're a bitch; if you're smart, you're a bitch; if you question, you're a bitch. The women that I saw who did well were people that didn't pose a threat to male workers that were liked by key players. What's also interesting is that I found women have it easier in Japan despite the common assumption. Once I was accepted in the work place as an equal to a man, that was it. Here, I have to prove myself over and over, every single day. It's simply exhausting.
42
You hit the nail on the head! It is exhausting.
2
What about women at the "top"who have this same bias against other women?
16
Though ruthless women are certainly out there in some numbers, my corporate experience indicates that men as a whole seem more willing to fire, cut, slash and burn, then move on. Women more often want to give the flailing sales guy another month to get his act together, find ways not to lay off quite so many in one false swoop and hold the line on ethics. Consultant driven Wall Street demands that today's executives manage that daily stock price to the penny, leaving all the risky visionary stuff to start ups. Quarterly results down a tick? Lay off half your employees and do it yesterday! Ruthlessly run lean, or private equity may swoop in, slash your payroll, pump up your debt and profit obscenely in the process. In business as in many other areas of life, far more men seem to wear ruthlessness on their sleeves as a badge of honor. Even women who are driven by necessity to do "ruthless" things are labeled in far less honorable ways.
11
Excellent article revealing important truths. As we seek to change the ratio, It's critical to recognize that fear of losing power and status is a human tendency. If women, or minorities, were the prevailing power group, we too might resist change. We too would lead organizations without the full range of human perspectives, skills, etc. Blaming the in-power group, in this case men, engenders guilt, shame and humiliation. Most people defend against these unpleasant thoughts and feelings. Then the defensiveness itself becomes an additional obstacle to change. We need to lower the existing obstacles, not create new ones.
4
Chira touched on key points that exhibit why women have been ignored throughout their careers and especially once they reach the top. I hate to nitpick, but I think the definition of work is going to always be a bone of contention. Chira wrote, "More than 40 years after women began pouring into the workplace, only a handful have made it all the way to the top of corporate America." This statement excludes women who worked prior to 1977. This comment makes it seem as women just started working and that it's only been a short period of time. It also implies to me that this article is only about white women. Towards the end she makes a cursory reference to black women's belief in their power to rise in corporate America, but it's an afterthought. I believe writers should start incorporating the multiple narratives of women workers. Instead of starting at the 70s, let's be a bit more realistic. Women have been working since the inception of this country, black women worked without pay as enslaved, and white women were able to craft their narrative much later. It's not hard to understand why 27% of black women believe that they have an opportunity to rise to the top. I just wish articles that focus on white women's ability to climb the corporate ladder would be more forthcoming. Stop pretending that women includes all women. Especially, when we are starting at the 70s.
18
Maybe stories about women in their thirties and their experiences would better round out this story. I have worked with many top notch women in IT and i am confident that over time this will correct itself. Im not saying don't report on it, but work towards a better future for us who still have many years left in our careers. One flaw with identity politics is the imposition of change from the outside or afar, and not organically over time. We cannot always wish for change and expect it to happen in an instant.
1
Read some history. It hasn't been "an instant." This battle's been actively engaged for over 100 years, which should be long enough for a society to recognize that work place competence isn't defined by gender (or race, or ethnicity, or anything else unrelated to task at hand). And 100 years ought to long enough for the culture to become an amalgam of male and female values, rather than women STILL trying to excel in a "man's world" environment.
More history: rather than emerging just in time for Millennials, the tech industry blossomed out of WWII government spending on R&D.
More history: rather than emerging just in time for Millennials, the tech industry blossomed out of WWII government spending on R&D.
15
It happened to me. I was too intimidating, always in my reviews. I just quit and started my own company. Other women need to do the same.
19
I did the same and strongly recommend it to other women. I'm still intimidating but who ever has a problem with that now should be aware that it's his or her problem. I'm not in charge to solve their personal problems. once you're hired and your superior has that problem it automatically becomes yours. so go own way.
9
My position is that women may be discriminated but other categories of men also are
Consider that there are several categories of men and women not just one of each. And I am not talking about race, religion, social or whatever.
Most of the people selected for companies top managerial positions fall into one category. Many well qualified and deserving men and women are not selected for these positions because they are considered lacking some character attribute.
Maybe the conversation about discrimination should include discriminated men as well
Consider that there are several categories of men and women not just one of each. And I am not talking about race, religion, social or whatever.
Most of the people selected for companies top managerial positions fall into one category. Many well qualified and deserving men and women are not selected for these positions because they are considered lacking some character attribute.
Maybe the conversation about discrimination should include discriminated men as well
9
As a woman who has been passed over for a C-level job, what I notice is that women must walk an incredibly tiny tightrope of "acceptable" behavior to succeed, whereas men get much more latitude. One example comes to mind of a male CFO whose table manners were truly revolting- chewing and talking with mouth wide open, dropping food from his mouth to the table due to overstuffing each bite, spraying food onto stablemates, etc. Colleagues would whisper about it but laugh it off behind his back, due to his perceived competence. A woman would not get that leeway. What is seen as a quirky behavior for a man, is a career-killer for a woman. Off-color jokes, strange taste in clothing, unkempt appearance- OK for men, fagettaboutit for women. Imagine someone who looked like Steve Bannon but was a woman, working for a president. I felt many times as if I had to choose between being myself, and being a woman who could walk that tiny line. I couldn't, and have started my own business. I admire women who can do it, but don't really see how they manage it. One tiny slip, and you're done.
249
And a woman with a bad hair dye job or jabbing arms would be laughed off the stage.
This is such a complicated issue.
Need to go out/socialize with women subordinates; do so and risk accusation of improprieties. Need to create hiring quotas; do so and everyone thinks "diversity hire". Need to change aggressive tactics at c-suite; do so and the person who doesn't buy in advances. Need to make women more aggressive; do so and even other women see them as bossy. Need to promote after family leave; do so and alienate the men and women who worked during that time. Need women to be free to be breadwinners for their families; do so and studies show marital satisfaction drops. Promote a man based on merit; do so with this environment, women sneer that it was his sex that elevated him.
It doesn't help for me to point out that things are hard. But if the race for promotion is a social/professional tournament, the self-interest of those in the tournament will stop them from disadvantaging themselves. You can't expect the Warriors to shoot less 3's because it's not fair to their opponents who don't do it as well. Their opponents need to adapt to the game/tournament, and until social conditions (from a young age) change, so do women. Sex quotas and focus on more female execs have the effect of making men play even more defense against women for fear of the diversity publicity/hire boxing out their merit. That's not fair, but neither is life - those who are in the race for top jobs are already a lucky and privileged set of people, men or women.
Need to go out/socialize with women subordinates; do so and risk accusation of improprieties. Need to create hiring quotas; do so and everyone thinks "diversity hire". Need to change aggressive tactics at c-suite; do so and the person who doesn't buy in advances. Need to make women more aggressive; do so and even other women see them as bossy. Need to promote after family leave; do so and alienate the men and women who worked during that time. Need women to be free to be breadwinners for their families; do so and studies show marital satisfaction drops. Promote a man based on merit; do so with this environment, women sneer that it was his sex that elevated him.
It doesn't help for me to point out that things are hard. But if the race for promotion is a social/professional tournament, the self-interest of those in the tournament will stop them from disadvantaging themselves. You can't expect the Warriors to shoot less 3's because it's not fair to their opponents who don't do it as well. Their opponents need to adapt to the game/tournament, and until social conditions (from a young age) change, so do women. Sex quotas and focus on more female execs have the effect of making men play even more defense against women for fear of the diversity publicity/hire boxing out their merit. That's not fair, but neither is life - those who are in the race for top jobs are already a lucky and privileged set of people, men or women.
12
We live on the same planet in separate worlds.
7
I tried to coach women on my team. Two different women and two different outcomes from my perspective. one outcome from theirs.
one reported me into my boss because I set goals without considering her personal situation with her baby and her partner. I never considered those as something to consider asking or be told about. now I know better.
another reported me to the management because I asked in an open meeting if her input was based on dogma, intuition or cost/benefit analysis. she insisted I was being disrespectful. I and others I work with like to hear the basis of an opinion so we can address the conversation accordingly.
now I avoid coaching women or to help their way around the organization. their loss.
one reported me into my boss because I set goals without considering her personal situation with her baby and her partner. I never considered those as something to consider asking or be told about. now I know better.
another reported me to the management because I asked in an open meeting if her input was based on dogma, intuition or cost/benefit analysis. she insisted I was being disrespectful. I and others I work with like to hear the basis of an opinion so we can address the conversation accordingly.
now I avoid coaching women or to help their way around the organization. their loss.
2
Women have had to adapt to men's temperaments for millenia. Would it kill you to adapt a bit to us? To save a marriage? To support a daughter? To recruit and retain talented employees and managers?
15
So you've written off coaching all women because of two negative experiences. If you'd had a bad experience with a man on your team, would you have stopped coaching all men? I swear people have one negative experience with a woman or minority, and suddenly that individual represents their entire group. This doesn't apply to men.
2
Actually, yes. The first employee's family has nothing to do with the company. The second employee couldn't stand up for her position so she blamed sexism. The problem, though, is that the writer has taken the actions of two people to define the behaviors of 51 percent of humanity. That's just fallacious and unintelligent.
1
Women can take criticism, but I believe prefer more positive to negative feedback (5:1 for a successful marriage in studies). I also think they prefer it more directly, but that's just a hunch. I'm sure plenty of people saw that show about some men's soccer coach with a stellar record who took over the women's team and used his same approach of totally running down his players and they did terribly, until he switched to a far more positive style and they won a championship.
34
Interesting- what was the film?
My remarks will be limited to Hillary Clinton's loss of the election and nothing else.
No question there was misogyny at work to some extent. Yet I heard more people saying they would vote for Hillary BECAUSE she was a woman. The way some of these people pushed the point gave me no doubt that if all the politics of the candidates remained the same but it was Diane Trump vs Herbert Clinton most of these people would have voted for Diane Trump.
Yes, there was misogyny. But much or all of that was offset by the number of people who voted for Hillary strictly because she was a woman, and for no other reason.
No question there was misogyny at work to some extent. Yet I heard more people saying they would vote for Hillary BECAUSE she was a woman. The way some of these people pushed the point gave me no doubt that if all the politics of the candidates remained the same but it was Diane Trump vs Herbert Clinton most of these people would have voted for Diane Trump.
Yes, there was misogyny. But much or all of that was offset by the number of people who voted for Hillary strictly because she was a woman, and for no other reason.
8
I agree, and I am a woman who would love to see a woman as President. But that woman needs to be the best candidate, or we are simply reinforcing the glass ceiling. If Barack Obama could win as a black man, gender is not the only reason that Hillary lost. We cannot make the same mistake, for example, with a talented person like Kamala Harris, unless she truly is the best candidate and can in a presidential election.
1
So men and women have been voting for men because they are men for century's and now the most qualified candidate by far is a woman and you claim she only got votes because she is a women? Crazy.
1
I would think numbers plays a role. The tech industry constantly is berated for not having enough women. Not enough women are getting computer science degrees. Therefore there are much fewer candidates. Thinning the candidate pool further are interruptions in starting families. Let me be clear, I don't begrudge women from doing this. However sidetracking your career path and priorities doesn't not aid a climb up the corporate ladder. Lastly, busting into what is often a good ol boys club is difficult.
4
Perhaps, but the reason that women sidetrack their careers is often not as simple as just "starting a family." In many cases, I think, women see staying at home with their children as a desirable option when mentoring, rewards and promotions, and the associated satisfaction are elusive at work. If it were easier to be a young career woman, than fewer women would opt out of the workforce.
2
The higher up a woman (or man), the more people they are responsible for. If a woman is a CEO, she may be responsible for the well-being of tens of thousands of employees. If she takes extended time off to start a family, she is choosing the well-being of her children over the well-being of tens of thousands of employees who rely on their CEO to be effective, not absent. Personal problems are not company problems. Check your issues at the door.
1
Another subtle claim that misogyny cost Hillary the election. Give it a rest.
10
And there it is.
27
I know women who did not vote for HRC because they think a woman cannot run this country. misogyny at it's worst.
20
Female friend-a-mine, law school grad, working in an insurance company on actuarial stuff had a routine evaluation by a gent in HR. She was pleased with the meeting. Seeming, all went well.
Next day, at the "meeting," she was panned by the interviewer, blind-sided.
So, Nina, what did you do? Didja jump across the table and grab the varlet by the throat?
No, she broke into tears.
Next day, at the "meeting," she was panned by the interviewer, blind-sided.
So, Nina, what did you do? Didja jump across the table and grab the varlet by the throat?
No, she broke into tears.
8
For many women, tears come when they are angry. You see weakness, I say HR guy watch out...you have no idea what's coming.
2
"Binders full of women" ... tells you all you need to know.
18
The article notes over and over the many accomplishments of the women whose stories are told here but the very sad reality is that it may be something so small that kept them from advancing. Think of HRC -- one of the most common negatives heard about her was people hated her voice. Too shrill. I have heard that kind of thing said about female co-workers (too bossy, too emotional, talks too much, talks too loud, too annoying) over the years from male counterparts. Knit together enough men saying these things behind closed office doors and that woman's career is permanently stalled.
At the same time, I have worked with men who could be described the exact same way but people - men and women - roll their eyes and say, "that's just how he is." It just does not hold the men back in the same way, no matter how loud the drumbeat is.
At the same time, I have worked with men who could be described the exact same way but people - men and women - roll their eyes and say, "that's just how he is." It just does not hold the men back in the same way, no matter how loud the drumbeat is.
56
A lot here. But one factor, discussed in one of Anne Crittendon's later book's, if I'm not mistaken, is that women tend to be more ethical in the workplace. So in an environment where capitalism -- the pursuit of profit alone -- dominates (and so often in an incredibly shortsighted, short term manner), it can be negative to view things more holistically, to seek to bring in concerns about people, workers, the environment, public health and the health of one's customers, science, etc. I have found in many different high profile environments that women are more prone to raise such concerns and to seek social and environmental justice.
Anyway my two cents in case it inspires any thoughts or articles. You get more organization and analysis for more money ...
Anyway my two cents in case it inspires any thoughts or articles. You get more organization and analysis for more money ...
13
In my day job, I serve as a chief strategy officer for a Midwestern financial services firm. By any measure, I've achieved a modicum of success, while raising two children and a nurturing a marriage.
I recently left a position as vice chair of the board of directors of an arts organization. My tenure of nine years included leadership roles such as chairing the annual gala, the development committee and serving as vice chair for the last two years. When the chair position came open, I thought I would be asked to serve, but when the chair of the governance committee called a meeting with me, it was to inform me that a CEO of a local firm planned to join the board and serve as chair. I was devastated. I suggested would he consider the vice chair role first to let me serve a term as chair, then he could move into the chair role. Unfortunately that wasn't an option.
I decided to serve another term as vice chair because the new chair was someone I know and respect and thought I could learn a lot from him--which I did. Like many women, however, with this role, my demanding job and young children entering school age, I felt my priorities needed an adjustment and decided to resign from the board. Arriving at that decision took a lengthy process and a lot of soul-searching. In the end, I know it is the right one--for now
A month later, the chair emailed me saying that his term was up in a year and would I consider returning to the board to serve as chair.
The struggle is real.
I recently left a position as vice chair of the board of directors of an arts organization. My tenure of nine years included leadership roles such as chairing the annual gala, the development committee and serving as vice chair for the last two years. When the chair position came open, I thought I would be asked to serve, but when the chair of the governance committee called a meeting with me, it was to inform me that a CEO of a local firm planned to join the board and serve as chair. I was devastated. I suggested would he consider the vice chair role first to let me serve a term as chair, then he could move into the chair role. Unfortunately that wasn't an option.
I decided to serve another term as vice chair because the new chair was someone I know and respect and thought I could learn a lot from him--which I did. Like many women, however, with this role, my demanding job and young children entering school age, I felt my priorities needed an adjustment and decided to resign from the board. Arriving at that decision took a lengthy process and a lot of soul-searching. In the end, I know it is the right one--for now
A month later, the chair emailed me saying that his term was up in a year and would I consider returning to the board to serve as chair.
The struggle is real.
30
Women in corporate America often do the work and men get the credit. Speaking from experience ... why? Because women tend to be more collaborative and willing to share their expertise and skill willingly. Men are more competitive and ring help each other. So they lean on women but don't acknowledge their contributions, often claiming them for themselves. Cutthroat. For women to succeed in that kind of environment requires them to do the same, and most won't.
23
Everything described in this article applies just as forcefully for minorities who work hard to move up the ranks. As a minority, I felt you could literally replace the word "woman" with "minority" throughout this article and it would read the exact same way and have the same meaning. So why does this article, and ones like it, not address that issue? (This article devotes a single sentence to this.)
With the explosion in recent discourse about women in the workplace, it seems unfortunate and short-sighted NOT to frame that discourse as the struggle of ALL disadvantaged groups who encounter systemic barriers rising in their organizations. All this media chatter is ostensibly about "Women in the Workplace," but when you read/watch that media chatter, it's really just about WHITE women in the workplace. I find it extremely ironic this discourse is about the unfairness of exclusion, yet is framed in such an exclusionary way itself; what's even more dangerous / sadder is that it seems wholly unaware of that exclusionary tendency, or simply doesn't care about it at all.
With the explosion in recent discourse about women in the workplace, it seems unfortunate and short-sighted NOT to frame that discourse as the struggle of ALL disadvantaged groups who encounter systemic barriers rising in their organizations. All this media chatter is ostensibly about "Women in the Workplace," but when you read/watch that media chatter, it's really just about WHITE women in the workplace. I find it extremely ironic this discourse is about the unfairness of exclusion, yet is framed in such an exclusionary way itself; what's even more dangerous / sadder is that it seems wholly unaware of that exclusionary tendency, or simply doesn't care about it at all.
28
Statistically, women (regardless of race) are more underrepresented than people of color overall, or than men of color. See for instance Who Rules America.
Men of color got the vote in the US before women did. A man of color made it into the White House before a woman did. Women are more than 50% of the population, yet getting women into 20% of the Fortune 500 seats is an aggressive goal. That's why this article is about exclusion of women, and not general exclusion.
Men of color got the vote in the US before women did. A man of color made it into the White House before a woman did. Women are more than 50% of the population, yet getting women into 20% of the Fortune 500 seats is an aggressive goal. That's why this article is about exclusion of women, and not general exclusion.
17
While I appreciate women have struggled inordinately in rising to the top – especially in light of not shattering that highest, hardest ceiling in 2016 despite a supremely qualified candidate – your logic nevertheless seems flawed.
First, while it is true women of all colors fare statistically worse than minorities of all genders, the overall data masks important details. One, for example: if you remove technology companies from the list, I don't think your stat remains true, because an especially heavy concentration of minority executives reside in tech companies given that tech workers are disproportionately minorities in the first place, and the US disfavors non-STEM immigrants.
Second, even if women of all colors fare statistically worse than minorities of both genders, that does not justify exclusionary media coverage. Substantially ALL the airtime devoted to Women in the Workplace issues are about WHITE women in the workplace, even though a quarter of all women (and all humans) are non-white, and 40% if you count white Hispanics. To justify exclusionary media coverage on the basis that "those who suffer most should get the airtime" seems thickly ironic given the whole point of all this is to stop exclusion, period. Not stop exclusion against white women; stop exclusion against all humans. By your rationale, this article and all others should solely be about exclusion of MINORITY women, since they fare statistically worst of all, from boardrooms to the White House.
First, while it is true women of all colors fare statistically worse than minorities of all genders, the overall data masks important details. One, for example: if you remove technology companies from the list, I don't think your stat remains true, because an especially heavy concentration of minority executives reside in tech companies given that tech workers are disproportionately minorities in the first place, and the US disfavors non-STEM immigrants.
Second, even if women of all colors fare statistically worse than minorities of both genders, that does not justify exclusionary media coverage. Substantially ALL the airtime devoted to Women in the Workplace issues are about WHITE women in the workplace, even though a quarter of all women (and all humans) are non-white, and 40% if you count white Hispanics. To justify exclusionary media coverage on the basis that "those who suffer most should get the airtime" seems thickly ironic given the whole point of all this is to stop exclusion, period. Not stop exclusion against white women; stop exclusion against all humans. By your rationale, this article and all others should solely be about exclusion of MINORITY women, since they fare statistically worst of all, from boardrooms to the White House.
2
Beyond being an attention-getting lead sentence, Hillary Clinton is a poor example of the not-so-hidden bias that women face as they rise through an organization. The women profiled all put in their time, made, or exceeded their numbers, and built real value for their companies. That they were edged out shows clearly the need for an evolution in manners and attitudes that will hopefully come sooner than later.
While Mrs Clinton rose to partner in a law firm once upon a time, and was likely in the early group of women to be so recognized and promoted, her career and achievements since 1992 have been as the wife of a successful man; it may well be that being the Governor's wife helped her ascent prior to 1992.
Her failed attempts to be President have more to do with her being a weak candidate and running a presumptive, out of touch campaign than with any other factor. Equating her experience with that of the women executives profiled does them a disservice.
While Mrs Clinton rose to partner in a law firm once upon a time, and was likely in the early group of women to be so recognized and promoted, her career and achievements since 1992 have been as the wife of a successful man; it may well be that being the Governor's wife helped her ascent prior to 1992.
Her failed attempts to be President have more to do with her being a weak candidate and running a presumptive, out of touch campaign than with any other factor. Equating her experience with that of the women executives profiled does them a disservice.
16
Oh stop it. She earned more votes than any white man in history, and nearly 3 million more than a horrible, unqualified white man. Senator, Secretary of State. Misogyny played a huge role in this race. Plenty of hateful white men came out to oppose a woman on the ballot. And rich white men used dirty tricks to skew the electoral margin in their favor. Hillary did not lose the popular vote. She won it handily. And an anti-democratic system created by old dead white men designed in part to preserve slavery and inequality made it possible.
76
Yeah, yeah, yeah. How many pampered sons of wealthy executives are CEOs? George W Bush became president because he was so frat-boy "likable." And no one thinks his father's wealth and position helped? An draft dodging, irresponsible, barely literate dolt is currently our president, but it is the woman who competed with him who has faults.
Every woman always has a fatal flaw. She is using her sex to get ahead. She is profiting from her husband/father's power. She is "unlikeable." She makes mistakes. On and on and on. But in reality her first and biggest mistake is always to be a woman. Second mistake is to be smart and ambitious. Third mistake is (again) is to be a woman.
THIS was Hillary Clinton's problem. If she were not married to Bill Clinton she would still have been successful as a lawyer and maybe as a politician, but she still would have been criticized as undeserving and unlikable and a lousy candidate. No one like a smarty-pants girl, especially the boys and a big bunch of the girls as well. Just be honest about what Hillary faced already.
Every woman always has a fatal flaw. She is using her sex to get ahead. She is profiting from her husband/father's power. She is "unlikeable." She makes mistakes. On and on and on. But in reality her first and biggest mistake is always to be a woman. Second mistake is to be smart and ambitious. Third mistake is (again) is to be a woman.
THIS was Hillary Clinton's problem. If she were not married to Bill Clinton she would still have been successful as a lawyer and maybe as a politician, but she still would have been criticized as undeserving and unlikable and a lousy candidate. No one like a smarty-pants girl, especially the boys and a big bunch of the girls as well. Just be honest about what Hillary faced already.
49
Yes, it is why the female valedictorians in high school are not as popular as the home coming Queen.
7
Women do not automatically help other women in corporate environments, especially if they are male-dominated. This is a myth we need to stop telling women. If anything, the opposite is true. In order to succeed in corporate America or professional service firms you need both male and female mentors. Women face many obstacles and are forced to waste too much time and energy creating the perfect image of being ambitious (but not too driven), polished (but not too attractive), positive (but never funny), smart (but not a know-it-all), etc.
26
The title of a book written by men about women considers for CEO or POTUS:
"We promote and value woman.. But. Just. Not. This. One. "
"We promote and value woman.. But. Just. Not. This. One. "
26
this article speaks truth. While I was a wellfunded scientist at an ivy league university, I made a decision that basically undid my career. It was a fairly trivial management decision that my male colleague, senior in the ridiculous heirarchy of academia, disliked. My viewpoint was validated by senior administration, but the blistering ad hominem attack by my colleague, followed by his essentially locking me out of a grant that we were both part of, ended my interest in serious pursuit of high achievement. the price was too high, the company too mean and Machiavellian. Many of us just don't want to be part of that. I left academe completely a few years after the incident and am much happir working in a more explicitly collaborative environment. my colleague is still alpha where I left him.
14
Although much of this article is a bummer, I find this part heartening:
> “Before heading to the C-suite, I didn’t feel I was handicapped at all,” she said, echoing conversations with many other women.
If that's widely true, then it's a great sign of progress -- how many women 20 years ago would have said that about upper management positions?
The recent big increase in Fortune 500 CEOs who are women is also encouraging, even if a true 50-50 balance is still far away.
> “Before heading to the C-suite, I didn’t feel I was handicapped at all,” she said, echoing conversations with many other women.
If that's widely true, then it's a great sign of progress -- how many women 20 years ago would have said that about upper management positions?
The recent big increase in Fortune 500 CEOs who are women is also encouraging, even if a true 50-50 balance is still far away.
7
Hi Peter, I found that line dubious at best, and challenge the apriorism that that is at all true. I'd love to think so, I have not in any way found so, and I am working to change it (through the foundation of an NFP that focuses on a ground up change and my own mentoring efforts). But it's not true yet.
5
The answer is right there in the Bible, multiple times...........
The issue people don't understand is for many jobs it's a zero Sum game. This is especially true for the C-suite. One winner, one loser and the consequences of losing is not only losing the shot at the top job with logarithmic levels of reward and control. It's the loss for everyone supporting you and even the possibility of firing for the loser's side. In the case of the President of McDonalds who likely left with Millions in compensation. I don't feel bad in the least.
The people I feel bad for are in the middle, struggling men and women getting killed by healthcare, childcare, No raises, no affordable housing. I want my daughter to learn stem, feel proud and fight as hard as she can based on her abilities to win.
Lastly, I voted for Hillary. I love Hillary but she lost because she didn't connect with some white women Or working class white men. And decades and billions in negative ads. That takes a toll. She also lost because Trump was a blank slate (A Hollywood image of the benevolent, tough negotiating CEO). Told his base everything they wanted to hear and never, ever had to move to the middle or answer for lies the way a normal politician would. He was considered an outsider in a change election. And republicans rallied behind him (Also didn't help that Bernie Sanders was not a traditional democrat who fought tooth and nail to the end and never truly getting fully behind our candidate. But again. This is a zero sum world. Winner takes all.
The people I feel bad for are in the middle, struggling men and women getting killed by healthcare, childcare, No raises, no affordable housing. I want my daughter to learn stem, feel proud and fight as hard as she can based on her abilities to win.
Lastly, I voted for Hillary. I love Hillary but she lost because she didn't connect with some white women Or working class white men. And decades and billions in negative ads. That takes a toll. She also lost because Trump was a blank slate (A Hollywood image of the benevolent, tough negotiating CEO). Told his base everything they wanted to hear and never, ever had to move to the middle or answer for lies the way a normal politician would. He was considered an outsider in a change election. And republicans rallied behind him (Also didn't help that Bernie Sanders was not a traditional democrat who fought tooth and nail to the end and never truly getting fully behind our candidate. But again. This is a zero sum world. Winner takes all.
11
As a former trade-journalist I have seen a lot of C-suites from inside. One of the misconceptions is that the work is done in the C-suite but that is almost never the case. In a way they are just the poster boys while the real strategy of a company is done in the second and third layer. I have known some C's of Fortune 500-companies that are mere puppets played by smart women in the second layer. Look at governments. It is hardly ever a president that really leads a country.
6
It is true that women have it harder.I live in the one most progressive countries,am highly educated and considered myself a feminist.All until I encountered a direct ambitious boss.I had a problem with the fact that she was too assertive.I am deeply ashamed of this and am struggling with this.A lot of men are struggling with this.It feels it like we are losing power that came to us just becase of our sex and it is not comfortable.I am trying to change my hidden prejudices and I hope women understand this is hard on us men too and we need time.
20
Yes, it is appreciated. More than you could ever know. There are organizations that you can join that are addressing just that. In Australia there is 'Male Champions of Change' it is an organsation of male leaders leading the learning in change of unconscience (and conscience!) bias and working hard to promote change (including their own re-learning).
6
The reason more women are not CEO's? They're just not as ruthless as men.
6
Stop for more than a minute and think about the implicit message here. What values matter most to a society? What kind of a world do you want to help create? Not much to find laudable in the corporate model.
12
My two most successful female acquaintances in my industry - finance - have made it by "being one of the boys". They will drink, party, talk crap and happily visit strip clubs as part of a big night out with colleagues "it's not a big deal, most of us are just having a drink there - only a few actually pay for anything". They are known for being emotionless and tough. They dress in bland black suits and wear little makeup. They know any display of femininity is not an advantage and in fact have conditioned themselves to think their behavior is "normal" and "sexism does not exist". One is also single and childless. The other has a stay-at-home husband who has never ever worked a day in his life. Co-incidence? I don't think so.
Until the definition of a good leader changes to include what are viewed as "female traits" there is little opportunity for women wanting to reach the top while retaining their identity and having a healthy home life. The sacrifice is too great.
Until the definition of a good leader changes to include what are viewed as "female traits" there is little opportunity for women wanting to reach the top while retaining their identity and having a healthy home life. The sacrifice is too great.
43
Are you as a woman being judgemental about these two women, by any chance? Have they said that not wearing makeup and wearing black pants is a burden? Is the single lady with no issue, even interested in marriage and motherhood? Why is the stay-at-home husband being called out for never having worked in his life--- is housework not work or inferior? Would you be as disparaging about a stay-at-home mom?
Not all women have the same aspirations. That doesn't make them less "feminine." I am a woman, don't wear makeup, am nearly always seen in pants, don't want marriage, definitely no children.
Not all women have the same aspirations. That doesn't make them less "feminine." I am a woman, don't wear makeup, am nearly always seen in pants, don't want marriage, definitely no children.
3
Going to strip club with your colleagues is borderline sexual harassment..
2
The arrogance and entitlement of the women interviewed in this piece is astonishing. It's not enough to make millions of dollars, to make it to the C-suite, to wield immense power and influence. Nope -- you have some kind of moral right to make it all the way to the top. No man would ever think like that. If you win, you win, and if you lose, you lose, but I have never heard a man express the idea that becoming CEO of an enormous company, after already becoming wealthy and powerful, is some kind of moral right. Does it occur to any of them that lots of people want those jobs, that they're going to compete -- hard -- to win them, and that at some point you're going to have to take responsibility for the outcome?
Even more interestingly, none of the women interviewed in this piece seem to have an iota of self-examination, and none of them even hinted at anything they could have done better professionally. Apparently, every single one of them did brilliant jobs, were incredibly effective and successful, and the only reasons they didn't end up permanently entrenched at the very top is irrational institutional sexism. That attitude is an unbelievable display of hubris.
Finally, another noteworthy fact none of these women mentioned is that if you make it to CEO in corporate America, you're paid more, on average, than your male counterparts https://www.wsj.com/articles/women-ceos-dont-get-paid-less-than-men-in-b... Discrimination, huh?
Even more interestingly, none of the women interviewed in this piece seem to have an iota of self-examination, and none of them even hinted at anything they could have done better professionally. Apparently, every single one of them did brilliant jobs, were incredibly effective and successful, and the only reasons they didn't end up permanently entrenched at the very top is irrational institutional sexism. That attitude is an unbelievable display of hubris.
Finally, another noteworthy fact none of these women mentioned is that if you make it to CEO in corporate America, you're paid more, on average, than your male counterparts https://www.wsj.com/articles/women-ceos-dont-get-paid-less-than-men-in-b... Discrimination, huh?
15
You have got to be kidding me. No man feels entitled. Just all a bunch of Boy Scouts happily playing by the rules and cheering the winner like good sports, while harboring no grudges, prejudices, or unhanded tactics.
Meanwhile, the women are a bunch of big whiners who are routinely given more than their due. Same with all those racial minorities too, I bet.
I want to visit this version of America some day cause it's not where I live!
Meanwhile, the women are a bunch of big whiners who are routinely given more than their due. Same with all those racial minorities too, I bet.
I want to visit this version of America some day cause it's not where I live!
16
The arrogance and entitlement you show in believing you know better than the women who loved this what the dynamic was is appalling.
12
It is a man thing. The idea of reporting to a female boss is a very unattractive idea.
3
The worst bosses I have had have been female. Sadly, I have vowed I will never report to a woman again.
4
I was at my son's 10U baseball game a couple weeks ago. A group of slightly older boys showed up to root on the younger kids. They were loud and disruptive, but everyone - including the umpire and all of the parents - smiled and shook their heads at the "boys will be boys" behavior.
Now, imagine a group of girls showing up and disrupting the on-field play.
Notions of proper male and female behavior start very early and they are very, very deeply rooted.
Now, imagine a group of girls showing up and disrupting the on-field play.
Notions of proper male and female behavior start very early and they are very, very deeply rooted.
26
I get it, but is looking at the corporate executive world the best place to gauge how "women" as a whole are doing? Perhaps it is more a reflection of the depravity of the business world than it is a reflection of sexism.
What I mean is, what if you looked at medicine? I've come across a number of female surgeons in recent years and my initial reaction was to think "woah! you're a trauma/ortho/neuro surgeon? cool!" It was refreshing and interesting to see normal women from my generation in these fields I associated with the jocks and bros of medicine - like those surgeons I knew as my friends' parents growing up.
I'm sure there are still far fewer women in surgery, even in the younger generations, but I'd be willing to bet this is because fewer women choose surgery. At the same time, I'd be willing to bet the number of women physicians in non-surgical specialties is about even with men.
The top of the business and financial world is cutthroat, demanding and probably requires forgoing some level of morality in order to achieve the highest ranks. And sure, at the top, it's probably a bro culture that actively excludes women at times. But my question is, who wants to be a part of that anyway? Men commit more murders en masse, do women want to be more equal in this?
There is a true female equivalent to the corporate CEO. It is the corporate CEO's wife. After all, what could be better than earning $100 million a year? Not working at all and having your husband do it for you.
What I mean is, what if you looked at medicine? I've come across a number of female surgeons in recent years and my initial reaction was to think "woah! you're a trauma/ortho/neuro surgeon? cool!" It was refreshing and interesting to see normal women from my generation in these fields I associated with the jocks and bros of medicine - like those surgeons I knew as my friends' parents growing up.
I'm sure there are still far fewer women in surgery, even in the younger generations, but I'd be willing to bet this is because fewer women choose surgery. At the same time, I'd be willing to bet the number of women physicians in non-surgical specialties is about even with men.
The top of the business and financial world is cutthroat, demanding and probably requires forgoing some level of morality in order to achieve the highest ranks. And sure, at the top, it's probably a bro culture that actively excludes women at times. But my question is, who wants to be a part of that anyway? Men commit more murders en masse, do women want to be more equal in this?
There is a true female equivalent to the corporate CEO. It is the corporate CEO's wife. After all, what could be better than earning $100 million a year? Not working at all and having your husband do it for you.
4
It comes down to perceived loyalty. If you're stupid but loyal, well you can always hire a smart #2 to run the day-to-day. But someone whose loyalty is not known or cannot be relied upon will get stopped somewhere along the path on the way up.
Many of the leaders in upper levels fancy themselves as renegades who don't like to color inside the lines. It might be with regard to finances, it might be with regard to relationships, or personal behaviors, or something else - it depends on the person and the organization.
Who is most likely to keep their secrets? Who is most likely to cover for them if things get ugly? That's the person who will be brought into the circle. If you're not perceived as that person, don't hold your breath waiting to be invited in.
Many of the leaders in upper levels fancy themselves as renegades who don't like to color inside the lines. It might be with regard to finances, it might be with regard to relationships, or personal behaviors, or something else - it depends on the person and the organization.
Who is most likely to keep their secrets? Who is most likely to cover for them if things get ugly? That's the person who will be brought into the circle. If you're not perceived as that person, don't hold your breath waiting to be invited in.
6
One more thing:
Don't be so sure that companies and people who make a big public show of female empowerment aren't just capitalizing on a very nice PR opportunity.
Don't be so sure that companies and people who make a big public show of female empowerment aren't just capitalizing on a very nice PR opportunity.
9
"I never drank with them. I never tried to be one of the guys. I spent more energy on performance.”
There are cultures where a man is not trusted until his fellows have joined him in besotted revelry.
Long ago, during the congressional hearings on the Billy Sol Estes scandal, a congressman, in the dock, recalled regretfully, the advice he received from his Sargent:
"Never trust a man who doesn't smoke, drink and chase women."
This all seems quaint these days, but there is a grain of wisdom lurking beneath it all.
There are cultures where a man is not trusted until his fellows have joined him in besotted revelry.
Long ago, during the congressional hearings on the Billy Sol Estes scandal, a congressman, in the dock, recalled regretfully, the advice he received from his Sargent:
"Never trust a man who doesn't smoke, drink and chase women."
This all seems quaint these days, but there is a grain of wisdom lurking beneath it all.
4
Is anyone who is not a tall and good-looking white male still wedded to the fantasy of a meritocratic corporate America? If you really want to play that game, better to start your own business.
6
Even then the competition is badly unequal because men control most of the financing one needs to start a business.
1
As the young founder of a 1970s headhunting firm in Silicon Valley that specialized in recruiting women and minorities for technology companies, I am astounded that this article so quickly dismisses the "pipeline" issue. Our clients included small companies like Microsoft, Apple and Oracle. I later became a venture capitalist, entrepreneur and investor, so I have been directly involved in hundreds of executive hires.
Yes, all of the other systemic issues in the article are important, but the pipeline is crucial to the reason why women are under-represented as CEOs.
Invert the corporate pyramid and you get a funnel, not a pipeline. This funnel governs all success, everywhere. The more people entering the funnel, the more qualified - and representative - the winners will be regardless of sex, race, etc.
Both beliefs & truths determine who enters the funnel. Racial prejudice, class, personal relationships and pure stupidity all prevent many of the best candidates from even getting a chance to compete.
A headhunter has a priest-like relationship with a client, so I quickly learned that the biggest strike against women is that they get pregnant. The unspoken reality is that companies are reluctant to hire and invest in young women, no matter how talented, because many abandon their careers for motherhood just as they are about to begin earning their keep. Viva la difference, but the bottom line suffers. No one wants to talk about this, but it is absolutely real.
Yes, all of the other systemic issues in the article are important, but the pipeline is crucial to the reason why women are under-represented as CEOs.
Invert the corporate pyramid and you get a funnel, not a pipeline. This funnel governs all success, everywhere. The more people entering the funnel, the more qualified - and representative - the winners will be regardless of sex, race, etc.
Both beliefs & truths determine who enters the funnel. Racial prejudice, class, personal relationships and pure stupidity all prevent many of the best candidates from even getting a chance to compete.
A headhunter has a priest-like relationship with a client, so I quickly learned that the biggest strike against women is that they get pregnant. The unspoken reality is that companies are reluctant to hire and invest in young women, no matter how talented, because many abandon their careers for motherhood just as they are about to begin earning their keep. Viva la difference, but the bottom line suffers. No one wants to talk about this, but it is absolutely real.
83
Nonsense.
If potential pregnancy was the problem, and companies were serious about promoting women, then boards and recruiters would be falling over themselves to promote women over 45. and we all know that isn't happening.
Pregnancy/motherhood is an excuse to keep women down.
If potential pregnancy was the problem, and companies were serious about promoting women, then boards and recruiters would be falling over themselves to promote women over 45. and we all know that isn't happening.
Pregnancy/motherhood is an excuse to keep women down.
24
Easy answer. Women are just as productive when pregnant. The break for child birth, additional burden on their time and stress of a major life event has to be factored in by the company hiring the woman.
Most HR departments that I know of are run by women. My question is why are these same women not driving change in culture at their workplaces on behalf of other women.
Women are as much to blame for the current workplace status quo as are the men.
Most HR departments that I know of are run by women. My question is why are these same women not driving change in culture at their workplaces on behalf of other women.
Women are as much to blame for the current workplace status quo as are the men.
2
Sorry Bill,
Your post is the best example of how Tech, including this country's best and brightest, has failed its female workers. Case after case of harassment along with this kind of narrow-mindedness demonstrates a culture of men who feel entitled while women feel bullied. If the Tech industry, with the largest bottom lines in the most progressive part of the country, can't get it right - women are very much at risk for losing it all: health care parity, education parity, and - who knows, even the right to vote.
Your post is the best example of how Tech, including this country's best and brightest, has failed its female workers. Case after case of harassment along with this kind of narrow-mindedness demonstrates a culture of men who feel entitled while women feel bullied. If the Tech industry, with the largest bottom lines in the most progressive part of the country, can't get it right - women are very much at risk for losing it all: health care parity, education parity, and - who knows, even the right to vote.
3
We learned a lot in the last election cycle. Racism and misogyny have deep roots in our society. For women to rise they must start the company. Entering the corporate world and expecting the top (or near top) spot comes with forty years of being overlooked and slapped down at every turn.
103
I'm not sure there's an easy answer to find our way out of the dark labyrinth towards the light. It could be hardwired biologically and not just a matter of more sociologists studying the topic. This dog eat dog, welcome to the jungle behavior can be seen in many animal species on almost any National Geographic special. Of course awareness helps, but the innate competiveness inherent in the Y chromosome is going to manifest itself somewhere. And those hyper competitive males in the C-suite don't just push women over the cliff, they push each other out of the way at every opportunity. Of course they'll gang up on women, in a competitive group fighting for status the most underrepresented group will always be at a grave disadvantage.
Speaking as a male I know I don't want women becoming more like the men. I can't stand relentless self-promoters and those that are unapologetically competitive, male or female. That's the last thing anyone wants, there are enough problems on the planet with the men acting like men.
Big companies are driven by results. The evidence is clear that women deliver on their end. Perhaps the women join together to become the majority in a certain company. Perhaps they drop out altogether from the corporate hierarchy and go the entrepreneurial route, taking their knowledge and experience and eschewing the barriers altogether. Perhaps this is a job for shareholder activists demanding a better bottom line. I'd say hedge funds but . . .
Speaking as a male I know I don't want women becoming more like the men. I can't stand relentless self-promoters and those that are unapologetically competitive, male or female. That's the last thing anyone wants, there are enough problems on the planet with the men acting like men.
Big companies are driven by results. The evidence is clear that women deliver on their end. Perhaps the women join together to become the majority in a certain company. Perhaps they drop out altogether from the corporate hierarchy and go the entrepreneurial route, taking their knowledge and experience and eschewing the barriers altogether. Perhaps this is a job for shareholder activists demanding a better bottom line. I'd say hedge funds but . . .
52
This is why so many women start their own firms, and not just the young and gifted female tech entrepreneurs today who have to face the reptilian Silicon Valley VC predators, per the hundreds of stories about sexual harassment in that snake pit. In the 20th century (remember that?) and before, women over 40 - often fed up with the male domination over business - took the reins of their own lives and careers by starting such firms as Weight Watchers, Liz Claiborne, Ruth Chris Steakhouse, and Mary Kay Cosmetics, not to mention very valuable nonprofits, including AARP, Planned Parenthood, and Girl Scouts of America.
In graduate business courses, women CEOs are given short shrift in courses where right-brain strengths are as essential as quant skills. Some universities (and business media) are still hailing Jack Welch as exemplary, while women students cringe (3 wives, ridiculous parachute...). We need the next bank of MBA case histories to feature Sheryl Sandburg, Oprah Winfrey, Indra Nooyi (the three are consistently the top focal CEOs for term papers among my women students in leadership and organizational development courses), Denise Morrison, and Meg Whitman, to name a few. Stop lionizing male CEOs in business courses and the media, and then we might see a pivot in the C-suite.
In graduate business courses, women CEOs are given short shrift in courses where right-brain strengths are as essential as quant skills. Some universities (and business media) are still hailing Jack Welch as exemplary, while women students cringe (3 wives, ridiculous parachute...). We need the next bank of MBA case histories to feature Sheryl Sandburg, Oprah Winfrey, Indra Nooyi (the three are consistently the top focal CEOs for term papers among my women students in leadership and organizational development courses), Denise Morrison, and Meg Whitman, to name a few. Stop lionizing male CEOs in business courses and the media, and then we might see a pivot in the C-suite.
156
"Jack Welch as exemplary"
Let us ask ourselves what would be said about a woman who was married to her 2nd husband and, while being interviewed by the editor of the Harvard Business Review, had an "encounter" with the interviewer on the couch in his office.
I doubt that she would be celebrated as a business visionary.
Let us ask ourselves what would be said about a woman who was married to her 2nd husband and, while being interviewed by the editor of the Harvard Business Review, had an "encounter" with the interviewer on the couch in his office.
I doubt that she would be celebrated as a business visionary.
1
My wife is an almost-CEO, of a very well-known company, once a Fortune 100--and now no longer in business.
The man the board chose for CEO--brash, aggressive, ready to "shake things up" in a company whose stock had doubled in the prior five years--oversaw the exit of 10 out of 12 top executives in the first year. My wife stayed, although he did his best to get rid of her.
In less than five years, this well-respected, successful company was broken into pieces. The stock price stayed absolutely flat during his reign. And now? Thousands of jobs, gone. The company gone. And, thank heavens, the CEO gone. In fact, it appears that he may have paid someone to wipe the internet clean of him.
Now my wife serves on several boards, including one that now has a female CEO. In order to get this woman in the top spot, one board member, who was firm in his coded convictions about never putting a woman in place, had to be encouraged to leave the board. Two more had to be constantly coached, reminded that the female candidate was the most experienced and qualified for the job (sound familiar, Hillary?).
Oh, and the stock price? A rise of 30% in less than two years. And yes, it's been her doing, not the result of something that happened before.
Women are viable leaders, with skills that encourage growth and seek innovation. It's time for big-toothed, glad-handing male superegos to move over and let women get the work done.
The man the board chose for CEO--brash, aggressive, ready to "shake things up" in a company whose stock had doubled in the prior five years--oversaw the exit of 10 out of 12 top executives in the first year. My wife stayed, although he did his best to get rid of her.
In less than five years, this well-respected, successful company was broken into pieces. The stock price stayed absolutely flat during his reign. And now? Thousands of jobs, gone. The company gone. And, thank heavens, the CEO gone. In fact, it appears that he may have paid someone to wipe the internet clean of him.
Now my wife serves on several boards, including one that now has a female CEO. In order to get this woman in the top spot, one board member, who was firm in his coded convictions about never putting a woman in place, had to be encouraged to leave the board. Two more had to be constantly coached, reminded that the female candidate was the most experienced and qualified for the job (sound familiar, Hillary?).
Oh, and the stock price? A rise of 30% in less than two years. And yes, it's been her doing, not the result of something that happened before.
Women are viable leaders, with skills that encourage growth and seek innovation. It's time for big-toothed, glad-handing male superegos to move over and let women get the work done.
340
Why not just have the most talented be given opportunities, irrespective of generalist?
1
I think you raise a very valuable point - companies need more women who sit on the board to help pull women up the last step. Having a pipeline of qualified female candidates is clearly not enough to get the job done.
3
When I read the references to HRC I kept thinking about the accomplished women in my life, who said they voted for Trump because Hillary was "too ambitious" and "would do anything to get to the top". It was painful to see the look of recognition on their faces when I gently pointed out the inherent sexism of their thinking.
Women grouse with each other because we all share the same experience of having the door slammed in our faces. But when it comes down to it, we can't trust each other either. I've done extensive research on women in a male dominated industry. The most shocking thing I discovered was that many of the women who had made it into the boys club participated with those men in the exact exclusionary practices that marginalized them when they started out in the businesses.
I think that our position in the workplace is so tenuous that we see each other as competition rather than comrades in long, drawn-out battle.
Women grouse with each other because we all share the same experience of having the door slammed in our faces. But when it comes down to it, we can't trust each other either. I've done extensive research on women in a male dominated industry. The most shocking thing I discovered was that many of the women who had made it into the boys club participated with those men in the exact exclusionary practices that marginalized them when they started out in the businesses.
I think that our position in the workplace is so tenuous that we see each other as competition rather than comrades in long, drawn-out battle.
21
The article struck home for me on a number of fronts. As a woman who began practicing law in the early seventies, I have watch much of the blatant sexism to which I was subjected become far more subtle and difficult to nail down. But as I tell young women starting their career, it is there - you must be aware and wary of it. I don't think truly effective change can come until the white male viewpoint no longer is assumed to be the norm. Sonja Sotomayer experienced the phenomenon during her confirmation hearings when she was criticized for suggesting the system could benefit from the views of a 'wise Latina.' That offended many in the Senate and beyond who would never react to a similar observation about participation by those who shared their 'normal' white male view of the law - and for that matter, of life. I am a lawyer, not a woman lawyer - there are no similarly described man lawyers, and until they too are separately named, woman and minorities trying to advance in any career, from the trades to the corporate suite, will always have an extra burden to overcome.
33
I was told by the female head of the business dept in my law firm that I would never make partner if I had children.
I just heard a recorded interview today where Ivanka Trump was asked what she shared in common with her dad. She said: golf and real estate. When Trump was asked he said, sex. It was an utterly crude and startling comment which was reinforced before when he told Howard Stern if Ivanka wasn't his daughter, he'd have sex with her.
13
I'm with you all on this one. 42 yo cis female. I've got the highest degree in my field (healthcare/insurance) and an Ivy MBA. 4/5 & 5/5 performance rating every year. Achieved 150-200% of my financial targets, networked extensively with all the right people in the org. Not that it should matter, but no kids either. Constantly told by hr and leadership that I am a valued employee. And yes I do get along quite well with my colleagues. With all that, I haven't moved one bit in the five years at my current company.
It's hard not to get down about it. I just hope there is better a world for my niece.
It's hard not to get down about it. I just hope there is better a world for my niece.
55
Unless you really love your company, work up another offer from a competitor and see how fast your present company comes around.
21
But are you sitting waiting to be given a more stellar role or are you actively chasing and fighting for one? In my experience women remain very passive and lack the aggression often needed to steal C Suite jobs. Being capable is one thing, being hungry and a bullying your way into leadership is another.
2
Darn right! Completely agree!
1
“We are never taught to fight for ourselves,”
Apparently there is a secret cabal that teaches us men this and I never knew about it.
Getting to the top requires playing (dirty?) politics and outlasting others, something woman are less likely to do when they take time off to have children.
Apparently there is a secret cabal that teaches us men this and I never knew about it.
Getting to the top requires playing (dirty?) politics and outlasting others, something woman are less likely to do when they take time off to have children.
12
It happens to women whether or not they have children, but the "they take time off to have kids" is a convenient excuse for men, who get to have families without sacrificing their careers, because there's a woman willing to do it for them.
14
Well women could too (stay at home husband), but statistically women breadwinners are much less likely to "marry down" to a husband who makes less than a man is. It boils down to the choices we make.
My experience in a corporate environment at a junior level was that I was expected to be a team player and promoting myself meant I was not part of a team. When the CEO of the non profit I worked for complimented a project I worked hard on and was stymied at every turn I was not given the credit in my performance review. I was naive and did no realize that I should have written my own performance review and asked for it to go in my file. The men in my department did get promoted but I did not. I should have been better at self promotion but that was met with being ostracized.
14
Don't internalize the outside biases against you as your fault. They are not.
Let's not white women that much credit. The majority of them did vote for Trump.
11
Of women who voted, not the majority of women.
2
Nope. Hillary won the most votes.
6
In politics at least, this problem does not seem to exist to the same extent in other countries, so it is an American problem, a problem with the way men (and women) are in this country rather than a general problem of gender. It may be that in other countries where socialist outlooks are more acceptable and prevalent, competition and winning are not more important than doing a better job.
Winning the competition for the top job and doing a better job are not necessarily connected. People who are good at playing the promotion game will rise and succeed in getting promoted before their inability to deliver superior performance on their jobs becomes apparent. When they make it to the top, it would seem that this inability would finally become manifest; unfortunately, the same skills that won them promotion (such as making others look bad and laying traps for them) can keep the truth from emerging for quite a while.
The arrogance that enables competitive men to rise to the top may be a disadvantage in making the corporation more successful, but as long as only such men rise to the top, the disadvantage they bring will be hidden since all corporations will share it.
Winning the competition for the top job and doing a better job are not necessarily connected. People who are good at playing the promotion game will rise and succeed in getting promoted before their inability to deliver superior performance on their jobs becomes apparent. When they make it to the top, it would seem that this inability would finally become manifest; unfortunately, the same skills that won them promotion (such as making others look bad and laying traps for them) can keep the truth from emerging for quite a while.
The arrogance that enables competitive men to rise to the top may be a disadvantage in making the corporation more successful, but as long as only such men rise to the top, the disadvantage they bring will be hidden since all corporations will share it.
111
Very wise.
I agree that the subtle biases kick in the higher up you go. When I was younger, my extreme determination to accomplish my goals and ignore or push through the obstacles, kept me moving forward. It was not until my 50s that I became more aware of how many difficult, subtle obstacles there were.
For many years I felt I had figured out how to be one of the guys, to be part of the boys club in a male profession. But I had ignored all the innuendos that I wasn't quite good enough, I just kept my focus on being better. Then I gradually realized that I wasn't included in certain male bonding rituals. And I remember the shock when my boss, who was younger than me, talked about how nervous he was traveling alone with a woman as we rode to the airport.
I've also been surprised at how prejudiced women can be towards women, clearly treating their female boss with less respect, for example. I was always proud of my strong self-confidence, but for the first time, started to feel it crumble with the realization that I'd hit the ceiling.
For many years I felt I had figured out how to be one of the guys, to be part of the boys club in a male profession. But I had ignored all the innuendos that I wasn't quite good enough, I just kept my focus on being better. Then I gradually realized that I wasn't included in certain male bonding rituals. And I remember the shock when my boss, who was younger than me, talked about how nervous he was traveling alone with a woman as we rode to the airport.
I've also been surprised at how prejudiced women can be towards women, clearly treating their female boss with less respect, for example. I was always proud of my strong self-confidence, but for the first time, started to feel it crumble with the realization that I'd hit the ceiling.
106
Good insights about the bonding rituals. I hope you won't give up. I sense the trick is to change the rules so being excluded from the male bonding rituals isn't a handicap. What I observed is that because men are willing to kill competitively, they want to feel safe and with women, they often don't know how to work together to do both.
6
Rebecca, one thing to keep in mind is that the guys were happy to have us when we were in our 20s, 30s and, if we were "well-preserved", into our 40s.
But live-by-the-sword, die-by-the-sword. They loved us when we were young, fun and attractive, but by the time we're 50 -- even if we're still fun and do really great work -- we're out. We remind them of their mothers or wives.
I almost feel sorry for them that they are so stunted in their views.
But live-by-the-sword, die-by-the-sword. They loved us when we were young, fun and attractive, but by the time we're 50 -- even if we're still fun and do really great work -- we're out. We remind them of their mothers or wives.
I almost feel sorry for them that they are so stunted in their views.
1
I attended an all-female school that pushed us to contribute and achieve. So when I went to work in finance, and later in tech, I was blissfully unaware that I would ever encounter challenges with being rewarded fairly and appropriately for good work. It's been a hard and disappointing lesson.
That being said, although there's clearly systemic bias, I've found there are some companies consciously working to treat women as equals. 15 years ago I worked for a very successful financial firm that absolutely regarded women as equals, and rewarded everyone equally based entirely on merit. But they shaped an egalitarian culture from the top.
Today I work at a highly-regarded tech firm, run by men who consider themselves progressive and enlightened. We have almost no female representation on the Board or at senior management levels, despite many women in the lower ranks. It takes women far longer to be promoted than men, despite doing equal, and in most cases, better work. Men's career paths are carefully cultivated, while women are ignored and overlooked. What this has taught me, after two decades in various corporate environments and male-dominated industries, is that management has to make gender equality a corporate priority, or unconscious and conscious bias will determine the outcomes.
That being said, although there's clearly systemic bias, I've found there are some companies consciously working to treat women as equals. 15 years ago I worked for a very successful financial firm that absolutely regarded women as equals, and rewarded everyone equally based entirely on merit. But they shaped an egalitarian culture from the top.
Today I work at a highly-regarded tech firm, run by men who consider themselves progressive and enlightened. We have almost no female representation on the Board or at senior management levels, despite many women in the lower ranks. It takes women far longer to be promoted than men, despite doing equal, and in most cases, better work. Men's career paths are carefully cultivated, while women are ignored and overlooked. What this has taught me, after two decades in various corporate environments and male-dominated industries, is that management has to make gender equality a corporate priority, or unconscious and conscious bias will determine the outcomes.
128
I just came back from the yearly internal meeting of the global high tech company where I work. Even though at least half of our Associates are women, every main stage presenter was a man. Even though the company positions acquisitions as driving career opportunity, I find they really mean career opportunity for men. The company seems to think these meetings inspire Associates. For me, they now remind me to lean in just enough to get my paycheck.
Even though my female supervisor has recognized me many times in the past for high performance (and I thank her for that), I have realized that with a cadre of alpha males at the top, I'm not going to find myself going anywhere. (And I have started looking elsewhere. I'm looking not so much to get ahead, as to get the opportunity to try something new, which also seems out of reach at my current employer.)
Even though my female supervisor has recognized me many times in the past for high performance (and I thank her for that), I have realized that with a cadre of alpha males at the top, I'm not going to find myself going anywhere. (And I have started looking elsewhere. I'm looking not so much to get ahead, as to get the opportunity to try something new, which also seems out of reach at my current employer.)
11
This article and the excuses evident in the comments point to the fact that men cannot deal with any change in management relying on the old nuclear family model -- she can manage the home!!
The hatred of Hillary Clinton is just one indicator (and a good litmus test) that strongly points to the inherent misogynist and "old school" "guy's club" mentality that is entrenched in American culture -- surprisingly more than in Europe -- that FIFTY years later lives on to the benefit of American Male Culture. Look at DJT and sadly see what is mirrored in our culture.
Women -- sue them, take the money and invest it for your own wealth and teach the rest of us how to do the same. Let's create a new game...
The hatred of Hillary Clinton is just one indicator (and a good litmus test) that strongly points to the inherent misogynist and "old school" "guy's club" mentality that is entrenched in American culture -- surprisingly more than in Europe -- that FIFTY years later lives on to the benefit of American Male Culture. Look at DJT and sadly see what is mirrored in our culture.
Women -- sue them, take the money and invest it for your own wealth and teach the rest of us how to do the same. Let's create a new game...
39
These sorts of statements are part of the problem: "She drew an unwelcome conclusion. 'Women are prey,' she said. 'They can smell it in the water, that women are not going to play the same game. Those men think, "If I kick her, she’s not going to kick back, but the men will. So I’ll go after her." It’s keeping women in their place. I truly believe that.'”
This person is missing the point. A better, far more accurate statement would be: "Those individuals that a particular hunter perceives as weaker, whether true or not, are prey,' she said. 'They can smell it in the water, that the weaker individuals are not going to play the same game. Those hunters think, "If I kick those individuals, they not going to kick back, but the stronger individuals will. So I’ll go after them." It’s fierce, endless competition, winning against such a small group of people. I truly believe that.'”
Think about this for a moment. You want to be CEO, there are five people competing for the position, three individuals who you perceive as very strong competitors, one of which is a woman. You perceive the other two individuals to be much weaker competitors. These are all your subjective determinations, and as such, your assessments may be incorrect.
What is your best course of action: go after the woman who you think is very strong, or go after the other two who your think are weaker? Which makes more sense? Is your goal best served by trying to keep women in their place?
This person is missing the point. A better, far more accurate statement would be: "Those individuals that a particular hunter perceives as weaker, whether true or not, are prey,' she said. 'They can smell it in the water, that the weaker individuals are not going to play the same game. Those hunters think, "If I kick those individuals, they not going to kick back, but the stronger individuals will. So I’ll go after them." It’s fierce, endless competition, winning against such a small group of people. I truly believe that.'”
Think about this for a moment. You want to be CEO, there are five people competing for the position, three individuals who you perceive as very strong competitors, one of which is a woman. You perceive the other two individuals to be much weaker competitors. These are all your subjective determinations, and as such, your assessments may be incorrect.
What is your best course of action: go after the woman who you think is very strong, or go after the other two who your think are weaker? Which makes more sense? Is your goal best served by trying to keep women in their place?
11
I don't understand your point. If the male majority consistently team up against women, the latter will find themselves shut out, regardless of the "subjectivity" of judgements about who is "weaker". This is not about perception; it is about systemic social organisation.
6
"The long path to the top and the loneliness at the top are forcing a reckoning." I'm surprised it's taken us so long to figure it out. Wealth, status, and power are jealous gods.
14
Men are aggressive and competitive. They explain everything, even the obvious. They argue, they look for problems to fix. They say what they think. This is what Darwin decided should be generally normal behavior among men. If you want to work with men, then expect that behavior. If you complain about that behavior, then you are asking to be treated differently. But you don't want to be treated differently...but you do...but you don't...
9
Kevin, I think you nail it up to a point. However, I've seen many Silicon Valley businesses large and small fail because of competition--sales guys competing with each other internally and fighting with other departments, executives fighting at the top. The competitive hierarchal "take no prisoners" model is old school and I think unsustainable. New business models based on collaboration, respect, and support for the best ideas are proving that. Often these have women in leadership roles. And are generally much better environments to work and succeed in.
13
This article highlighted Jan Fields, the ex-president and no. 2 of McDonald's USA. Ms Fields refused to accept overseas assignments when 70% of McDonald's sales come from outside the USA. She was responsible for a catastrophic loss of sales at McDonald's. And, she was fighting with no. 1, her boss. Each of these things would bring about any president's firing regardless of gender. And if someone is fighting with one's boss, it's not the boss who will lose the fight. Jan Fields lost her job because she failed. Not because she was a woman.
16
As the 2016 election demonstrates:
In a culture, whether corporate or political, in which an uninformed self-promoting bully beats a detail oriented, hard working policy wonk who has put in the effort to understand the complexities of the challenges and opportunities we face and to and propose, and be ready to act on, specific solutions, not only does the well-qualified woman not get the job, but the man who does get the job is, by far, not the most qualified man, and thus the company (Country, world) loses (bigly) too.
In a culture, whether corporate or political, in which an uninformed self-promoting bully beats a detail oriented, hard working policy wonk who has put in the effort to understand the complexities of the challenges and opportunities we face and to and propose, and be ready to act on, specific solutions, not only does the well-qualified woman not get the job, but the man who does get the job is, by far, not the most qualified man, and thus the company (Country, world) loses (bigly) too.
38
Yes. But it took a lot to put Trump in office: Here's a partial list of vote suppression and voter disenfranchisement tactics applied by the GOP: 1-Contest and gut key provisions of the Voting Rights Act; 2-Aggressively redistrict and gerrymander districts to limit Democrats winning seats (Operation Red Map); 3-Pass onerous voter ID rules targeting poor, elderly, minority voters; 4-Close tens of thousands of polling sites and reduce poll hours and days; 5-Send voters to the wrong places to vote; 6-Install fewer and broken/non-functioning machines in Democratic-leaning districts; 7-Underfund districts, run out of ballots; 8-Practice outright voter intimidation and vote caging; 9-Shunt voters to provisional ballots without proof they will be counted; 10-Use well-known insecure voting software/machines that can be hacked to flip, lose votes; 11-Purge 1.1+ million mostly African-Americans from voter rolls in GOP-controlled states through "Operation Crosscheck” (Kevin Kobach); 12-Veto measures that would enroll millions when they apply for, renew their drivers license; 13-Legalize methods to prevent votes from being tracked, fail to secure votes, and keep counting methods secret. 14-Use law suits to contest a recount or actual results in court. Yet even with Russian hacking assistance -- Trump still only managed to receive 26% of the total number of eligible votes.
14
Many men actively impede the rise of a woman. True. But, it is not as if women are always supportive of other women either.
Have received misguiding "advice" to become softer, less assertive, less direct...by more women than men.
It is just every person for themselves. Man or woman. Fight however you feel fit. Not every person of your gender is a friend and not every person of the opposite gender is a foe.
Have received misguiding "advice" to become softer, less assertive, less direct...by more women than men.
It is just every person for themselves. Man or woman. Fight however you feel fit. Not every person of your gender is a friend and not every person of the opposite gender is a foe.
17
Dovetailing an earlier comment about many women behaving less respectfully towards female bosses and more HR complaints (as %) against female bosses originating from other female employees, because so few women do rise to the C-suite there definitely seems to be a perception amongst many female executives within the same company who haven't been promoted as high that there was something other than performance and networking involved.
From my own experience, I've had both good and bad female bosses but even the women I perceived as doing the job poorly were just shy of mediocre while I've had some male bosses I could not understand how they were hired, much less promoted.
I prefer to work with a female boss knowing nothing other than her gender because my own perception is that women who are promoted tend towards being above average performers who lift their departments and reward merit/performance results more than the constant networking I only have a certain threshold of enthusiasm towards.
From my own experience, I've had both good and bad female bosses but even the women I perceived as doing the job poorly were just shy of mediocre while I've had some male bosses I could not understand how they were hired, much less promoted.
I prefer to work with a female boss knowing nothing other than her gender because my own perception is that women who are promoted tend towards being above average performers who lift their departments and reward merit/performance results more than the constant networking I only have a certain threshold of enthusiasm towards.
3
Although I'm only 21, this really resonated with me. I'm Latina and have, since early high school, been told that my status as a woman and POC would automatically give me more opportunities and put me at an advantage over my white counterparts. After all, diversity is the new thing and I'm a female minority, right? Not so much. After all, the field I'm pursuing (journalism) has a notable dearth of people of color, so it's very annoying when you hear people like the man mentioned in the article say things about how men are now the unfavored ones. It just doesn't line up with the facts.
47
I'm trying to decide what holds more weight - the exact issue this article describes or, the opposite which also holds true and has the capability to derail "pipelines" just as bad: female vs female. Between a rock and a hard place on some days I'd rather just swim. The exhaustion of it all is not lost.
11
Not mentioned in the article but likely another factor is that women are more reluctant to apply or ask for a promotion even if they are very qualified. Less qualified men don't hesitate. Women want to have 100% of stated requirements while men with 50% or so feel eminently ready. And often the men get the job. Of course they are part of the ruling tribe...that always helps!
19
Couldn't agree more. It's a running joke: women wont apply for a job or a promotion if they are missing one of the desired qualifications. Men apply if they have *at least one qualification*. Advice to women seeking a job or promotion: Get in the ring and don't disqualify yourself. And if you don't get that promotion this time, work with your manager to create a plan to get there next time. Unfortunately you cant any feedback during new job interviews...
3
That is true and I believe its because woman are always required to prove themselves, men are given the benefit of the doubt that they know something.
1
The CEO of WellPoint when they used to drop female policyholders on manufactured pretexts when they developed breast cancer was a woman. The key to corporate advancement is to unleash your inner sociopath. Men know how, women have to figure out how. Knowing full well that you will never be held accountable under the law for any crimes committed. Corporate executives don't go to jail.
13
Sad to say that all of this rings true. But it is still shocking when you run into it on a personal level. You are raised to believe that if you work hard, you'll be rewarded. So it is discouraging to see barely competent men being rewarded and promoted and lauded.
Plus what is not mentioned is that the more competent a women is, the less likely she is to get pushed forward. There is a certain type of woman that men do feel comfortable promoting, and unfortunately, it's like the Sheryl Sandbergs. Competent enough, but not going to outshine the boys, and more than willing to throw other women under the bus.
Plus what is not mentioned is that the more competent a women is, the less likely she is to get pushed forward. There is a certain type of woman that men do feel comfortable promoting, and unfortunately, it's like the Sheryl Sandbergs. Competent enough, but not going to outshine the boys, and more than willing to throw other women under the bus.
18
There is a big piece of the story missing here. Were not these women the subject of these same biases and attacks on the way to the grade C-suite? I am in the grade F-suite as a female project manager of programmer colleagues. After the second day on my job as a novice programmer, they were nice to me the first day, I had nothing but misogynistic behavior from my male colleagues. I learned fast how to protect myself and play politics to ensure my own career climbing. I believe they were attacked just like I was on the second day of starting their careers, and they, too, started to play the game. The difference between us is that these women were a lot smarter than their colleagues and bosses up the ladder. They thrived by outwitting them all. At the top of the corporate hierarchy, their colleagues were just as smart and cunning. They could not outplay any longer. The political game playing field was level. I want female CEOs everywhere. However, this articles has not convinced me of the sudden trauma of being at the top. It has convinced me that women who won the corporate game all throughout their careers are now crying foul when they could not win climbing to the top rung. Where you for us average working women as you were working your way up?
25
Corporations doesn't have a friendly culture. I wonder why anyone with self respect would work for those companies that care about profits and status all the time. There are many successful women who run family restaurants. Who wants to run Mcdonald's and other big fast food giants? For big money, many people would. But look at the bad culture of corporations everywhere. I'm almost happy that many women said no to those toxic workplaces. Only certain types of men are welcomed there as well and they usually aren't gentlemen or real men. The majority of important service jobs are done by women. If we can respect them more, then we may have more women CEOs. We tend to look down on women even though as humans, we were all born from a woman. Unless we change this culture, I wouldn't want to work in places where I'm the only woman. Right now, I'm perfectly happy working in retail with a good mix of male and female coworkers and managers. I didn't want to work with only male engineers, so I quit looking for a job that my degree may come in handy. If I found a company founded by a respectful woman with kindness and compassion, I would apply ASAP. But honestly us women are strong enough that we can say no to any jobs for money and power. We can work for unconditional love instead of money and power politics in corporations.
11
HILLARY CLINTON'S Loss of the election was not due to anything she did about the popular vote, but rather her lack of focus on the 6 swing states that pushed Trump's electoral votes over the top. Still, I think that there is a backstory that few consider. Hillary's first job as a newly minted attorney was to work in secret with the Watergate Committee. Being sworn to secrecy clearly suggests that she was closely involved with the drafting of the articles of impeachment. She was a marked woman when viewed as having participated i getting Nixon out of the White House. So when Bill was elected as President, those who believed that Nixon was wrongly prosecuted had their chance to show Hillary felt when they did to her guy what she had done to theirs. Hillary's secretive Watergate style of drafting the healthcare act was viewed as arrogant, paranoid, and aggressive. So the Clintons' good work on healthcare reform was defeated. During the election, Hillary neglected to focus on the swing states. She also never came out swinging, calling Trump out on his myriad activities of questionable legality. So now we're stuck with a basketful of deplorables. Hillary knew whereof she spoke. For a decent person, it is difficult to challenge a psychopathic liar successfully. When Trump went low, she needed to go tough. Not high. I think Deborah Tannen in her book, You Just Don't Understand, explains how men and women unconsciously communicate in different style. Tannen's got it!
12
It's obvious that women are capable of ANY role in our politics, economy, etc. What seems to not be clear is that men and women do not view assertiveness in the same way. I have had several excellent bosses who were women, but the interpersonal communications is ALWAYS lacking because men and women do not communicate teamwork similarly. From a male perspective -- women eschew teamwork.
Helpful hint: The Opposite Gender Is Crazy.
It's wired into men's brains that physical altercations can and do occur when jockeying for position. Men do not engage women this way because it is socially unacceptable to take any physical stance against a woman. Men often commiserate privately that women OFTEN assert themselves UNFAIRLY. Women VERY LIKELY do not realize they are being unfair! Women cannot be hit in the mouth when they violate protocol, so a SEVERE frustration exists. Men don't upset one another they way women upset men. It has ZERO to do with sexuality, and everything to do with respect.
Newsflash: We engage in teamwork differently.
The problem women experience is REAL, and it is UNFAIR to them. I do not disagree, but the solution is for women to run their own businesses and corporations. Your deliverables will compete with anyone's in the market because you are just as talented as anyone else.
Most of the time we can and do get along, but when it matters, we do not speak one another's protocols.
Helpful hint: The Opposite Gender Is Crazy.
It's wired into men's brains that physical altercations can and do occur when jockeying for position. Men do not engage women this way because it is socially unacceptable to take any physical stance against a woman. Men often commiserate privately that women OFTEN assert themselves UNFAIRLY. Women VERY LIKELY do not realize they are being unfair! Women cannot be hit in the mouth when they violate protocol, so a SEVERE frustration exists. Men don't upset one another they way women upset men. It has ZERO to do with sexuality, and everything to do with respect.
Newsflash: We engage in teamwork differently.
The problem women experience is REAL, and it is UNFAIR to them. I do not disagree, but the solution is for women to run their own businesses and corporations. Your deliverables will compete with anyone's in the market because you are just as talented as anyone else.
Most of the time we can and do get along, but when it matters, we do not speak one another's protocols.
8
There are probably many men who feel that they were passed over for similar reasons of not being the “right type” for a management role.
11
If women are necessary for prosperity, companies that exclude women will fail, and companies that include women will succeed.
As I write this, smart men are tapping talented women, not because they care about diversity, but because they want the best possible work force.
Companies that can afford to play golf and get hammered all day "with the boys" are content with being mediocre, and therefore, do not care about having the best possible workforce. Rather, they prefer to kick it with their buddies, which, is totally acceptable if they are running a private company.
As I write this, smart men are tapping talented women, not because they care about diversity, but because they want the best possible work force.
Companies that can afford to play golf and get hammered all day "with the boys" are content with being mediocre, and therefore, do not care about having the best possible workforce. Rather, they prefer to kick it with their buddies, which, is totally acceptable if they are running a private company.
7
I work in tech and remember many years ago during an annual review I was told people thought I was "aggressive" because I sent follow up emails to peers who didn't provide feedback on time. Sadly even today, being aggressive as a woman is a bad thing. 10 years after this crap happened, I realized my manager was the issue and not me.
26
Interesting that I'm reading this after I instructed my male sales manager to email a women VP to get some information I need. I told him unfortunately I'm not getting anywhere and a man might have more luck. I'm unsure of the science behind this I just know from personal experience that some women don't respond well to other women in business. We'll see if he's more successful.
8
If Dianne Feinstein had run for President, she would likely have been elected. Ditto Elizabeth Warren. That is, if both of them had run or been able to run while they were still young and attractive. Youth counts for a lot when it comes to women because they are judged more harshly, at least initially, on appearance. Most women who are successful politically remain attractive on TV. Men don't have this problem. Witness Donald Trump. He used and uses his beautiful daughter Ivanka as a proxy for youth and beauty, which Donald lost long ago. Dianne Feinstein was once Rodeo Queen in San Francisco. Can you imagine what a political ad that would have made? Unfortunately, Feinstein is simply too old to run now. Democrats were wrong to go to Hillary Clinton in 2016, and they should acknowledge it. Thay ran the wrong candidate. They should have run a woman with a message - almost any real message which appealed to middle income people would have won for Democrats.
12
If Dianne Feinstein had run and been elected president 10-20 years ago, she would have crushed it. The world would be a better place, and she would have paved a solid path for women leaders of the future. I have the utmost respect for her. She makes Ivanka look like a cut-out paper doll.
If Diane Feinstein had run for president she would also have been vilified just like Hillary Clinton and just like Nancy Pelosi is. Nancy Pelosi is smart and a very effective house leader and Republicans have made it a point to vilify and hate her for it. Hillary Clinton was smart and competent. Men and other women just hate that.
1
Some of the finest and most effective attorneys I've known are women. If the client's standard is "who can protect me" then they win. It is not just that.
Some of the finest and most effective attorneys I've known, men and women both, need cover from someone who bring that one bit extra, reassurance to a frightened client.
People who are caught up in problems are not entirely rational, and they react from emotions instead of clear thinking. It takes someone who can sit them down and talk to them. That is a separate skill from doing a good job for them.
Doing the job is not the whole of the thing, when dealing at the top level. Trust, reassurance, calming emotions, those things are even more important to getting the work and keeping the client, and getting the client to agree to what work shows must be done.
I feel the complaints in this article are about those who can do the job not getting the top job, but doing the job is not always the main part of the top job. The top job has people for that.
Look at women who were stars in the top job, like Golda Meir leading Israel in wars of survival. She was certainly competent, but she had something extra. She could sit people down and reassure them, make them get in line. Golda Meir in particular did that in ways that were not typical of a man's way. She was everybody's Grandmother who was always right and reassuring.
At such a personal and emotional level of work, men and women will do the same things in different ways.
Some of the finest and most effective attorneys I've known, men and women both, need cover from someone who bring that one bit extra, reassurance to a frightened client.
People who are caught up in problems are not entirely rational, and they react from emotions instead of clear thinking. It takes someone who can sit them down and talk to them. That is a separate skill from doing a good job for them.
Doing the job is not the whole of the thing, when dealing at the top level. Trust, reassurance, calming emotions, those things are even more important to getting the work and keeping the client, and getting the client to agree to what work shows must be done.
I feel the complaints in this article are about those who can do the job not getting the top job, but doing the job is not always the main part of the top job. The top job has people for that.
Look at women who were stars in the top job, like Golda Meir leading Israel in wars of survival. She was certainly competent, but she had something extra. She could sit people down and reassure them, make them get in line. Golda Meir in particular did that in ways that were not typical of a man's way. She was everybody's Grandmother who was always right and reassuring.
At such a personal and emotional level of work, men and women will do the same things in different ways.
6
Good column, if overdue. However, Chira's unexamined statement: "The challenge for women is how to enter into the intangible but crucial circle of male camaraderie" undercuts her larger discussion. We have been hearing that since the 1980's Dress for Success and learn to play golf era, and, as China states, it hasn't worked.
Why should any of us want businesses or institutions led by hyper-competitive people intent only on their own success? Women should keep resigning until the destructively competitive culture changes. In the meantime, all of us suffer as consumers and shareholders. When we realize it, we will press for change. Brava to the women who speak out!
Why should any of us want businesses or institutions led by hyper-competitive people intent only on their own success? Women should keep resigning until the destructively competitive culture changes. In the meantime, all of us suffer as consumers and shareholders. When we realize it, we will press for change. Brava to the women who speak out!
16
Randomization among those qualified would work as well.
6
Funny that golf seems to be the activity that executive level men are using as their excuse for why women don't "belong" in their cliques. I recall coversations with women friends climbing the corporate ladder in the 90's that "not going out for drinks with the guys" used to be the reason men would give for why women didn't click as well socially with their male executive peers. I guess now that women have shown that they can drink as much as their male counterparts, they have once again moved the bar. Now we have to play a sport that is not only bad for the environment and not great for your health, but is also so time-consuming that it eliminates your precious weekends from kids or other home life that women find important. Clever.
56
Try playing better than your male colleagues and see what happens! Nothing good, believe me!
6
Thank you for this. I hope the hard work of breaking down barriers to entry for women at the highest levels of business continues. As it stands, many businesses are thriving by polluting our environment and making our children and people sick. I can't help but hope that more women at the top would mean more accountability for business, since many corporate men seem to be hell-bent on cutting anything down that stands in their way to success- be it women, other men, or our planet.
6
I'm astounded that the barriers imposed ON women BY women are not mentioned. In my experience, women are at least as threatened by other women as are men. If they're bumping a ceiling themselves, they're darned sure not going to let another woman get past them on that ladder--especially if the aspirant is younger and/or better looking. The "sisterhood" collapses under the weight of competition (again, in what I have experienced and witnessed, both in the corporate sector and in NGOs).
37
Perhaps we can turn around 180* on this: is there a problem with Followership? For every Leader, there must be followers; there's no such thing as a great Leader without them. Maybe men need to become more cognizant of when and how to be good Followers, especially if the Leader they're following is not one of them. Women are, generally, already damn good at that. A great Team Player knows when and how to be both. I propose it's not women who lack some elusive quality of Leadership, it's legions of men lacking good Followership qualities. Time to study that field, boys.
17
Women reacting emotionally to feedback...Men are emotional all the time. Temper tantrums, back talk, defensiveness - guys respond like this routinely to any comment they don't like.
Also, it's a sign that Donald Trump acts like an unbroken farm animal, whining and snorting and defecating his way through the presidency, but most people do not view him as being a representation of Men or Whites. The mainstream consciousness still sees White Men seen as individuals with distinctive personalities, never representatives of a category...until you get away from the mainstream and hear what the rest of humanity is saying, which that White Guys are full of themselves and pretty dumb. The stereotype is true.
Also, it's a sign that Donald Trump acts like an unbroken farm animal, whining and snorting and defecating his way through the presidency, but most people do not view him as being a representation of Men or Whites. The mainstream consciousness still sees White Men seen as individuals with distinctive personalities, never representatives of a category...until you get away from the mainstream and hear what the rest of humanity is saying, which that White Guys are full of themselves and pretty dumb. The stereotype is true.
71
If I say that I'm not dumb, but smart, does that mean I'm full of myself?
I'm not allowed to argue here that I'm not dumb at all, but then Ms. Atkins would say I'm full of myself.
The consciousness of women at Berkeley still sees themselves as individuals with distinctive personalities, never representatives of a category... until you get away from Berkeley and what the rest of humanity is saying, which IS that woman at Berkeley haven't the slightest clue how to interact with men or how most women actually work for a living and actually like men. The stereotype is true.
The consciousness of women at Berkeley still sees themselves as individuals with distinctive personalities, never representatives of a category... until you get away from Berkeley and what the rest of humanity is saying, which IS that woman at Berkeley haven't the slightest clue how to interact with men or how most women actually work for a living and actually like men. The stereotype is true.
This article really resonated for me. I've been in the c-suite for over 20 years in the non profit sector. The dodge ball mentality doesn't really exist here......until a guy from the corporate world crosses over "to give back". Then watch out. It wears you out.
18
The sexism Ms. Chira writes about is all too real and all too repugnant. I want it ended as much as she does.
But within this otherwise salutary article she has delivered yet another volley in her ongoing campaign--which I label propaganda--to persuade others that Hillary Clinton lost the election because of sexism, when nothing could be further from the truth.
For example, CNN exit polls, available at http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls, show that 52% of all women age 45 and over voted for Trump! Don't get me wrong; I consider the man a beast. But Clinton lost for a litany of reasons other than sexism.
Ms. Chira used similar logic in a piece from a month ago in which she decried criticism of Nancy Pelosi as--you guessed it--the result of sexism: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/nancy-pelosi-washingtons-late.... That's right folks, the Democrats lost over 1,000 state and national seats because sexist pigs don't respect Nancy Pelosi.
To this reader, it truly beggars belief that Ms. Chira could legitimately hold such views in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and that the Times could offer them up as worth of our consideration.
But within this otherwise salutary article she has delivered yet another volley in her ongoing campaign--which I label propaganda--to persuade others that Hillary Clinton lost the election because of sexism, when nothing could be further from the truth.
For example, CNN exit polls, available at http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls, show that 52% of all women age 45 and over voted for Trump! Don't get me wrong; I consider the man a beast. But Clinton lost for a litany of reasons other than sexism.
Ms. Chira used similar logic in a piece from a month ago in which she decried criticism of Nancy Pelosi as--you guessed it--the result of sexism: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/nancy-pelosi-washingtons-late.... That's right folks, the Democrats lost over 1,000 state and national seats because sexist pigs don't respect Nancy Pelosi.
To this reader, it truly beggars belief that Ms. Chira could legitimately hold such views in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and that the Times could offer them up as worth of our consideration.
11
At the risk of being redundant -- you might want to read up on the systematic impact of gerrymandering (Operation Redmap), unlimited access to dark money (Citizen's United), the gutting of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act and other systematic voter disenfranchisement and vote suppression tactics; Kevin Kobach's current Commission being the latest initiatives.
5
As a female CEO in the optical engineering sector, much rings true. Many men have a template putting women into boxes:
Mother: stay-at-home mother who raised them
Wife: "good" wife
Daughters: high achiever
Women outside of that narrative throw off the balance men grew up expecting and are accustomed to . . .for now.
Mother: stay-at-home mother who raised them
Wife: "good" wife
Daughters: high achiever
Women outside of that narrative throw off the balance men grew up expecting and are accustomed to . . .for now.
150
Let's not forget another box that high-achieving women are put into, which, described politely, is a woman who has slept her way to the top.
I'm sure there are several nouns that come to mind, but I have heard many high-level women colleagues at my former workplace--a Fortune 500 company--described this way.
I'm sure there are several nouns that come to mind, but I have heard many high-level women colleagues at my former workplace--a Fortune 500 company--described this way.
9
Women would do better in the corporate world if they only had to compete with men and not male sociopaths. Outside the prison yard, that's where they're most likely to be found. For the sake of women - and all of us - something should be done about this.
35
Hillary Clinton is a poor example. She communicated very clearly that voters should choose her purely because she "deserved " to be POTUS. Having a female president is long overdue. Should be someone like Condi Rice. Or Eleanor Roosevelt. Hillary is a joke! Look how bitter and decisive she has been since not winning.
12
As a woman in academic medicine, this article resonates with me. I consider myself a scientist, which means that one should always question and calmly, critically discuss disagreements. When I did this with male PhD scientists, I was treated like one of the boys. When I dared question a male MD scientist, I would be told I "can't accept criticism ", or I was "high strung". Now, later in my career, I am simply ignored and overlooked for leadership roles and advancement.
I'll ask this of men at the top, what good are the ridiculous games? Do they really elicit the best in people? Are those who respond well (with even more impressive aggression, I assume), seriously appropriate for leadership positions?
I have read that there is a relationship with psychopathy and leadership - have we not learned that aggressive, pushy, cut-throat behavior at the top is not necessarily a good thing for the health of the business or country? Does cash always have to be the bottom line? When will we tire of this as a society?
I'll ask this of men at the top, what good are the ridiculous games? Do they really elicit the best in people? Are those who respond well (with even more impressive aggression, I assume), seriously appropriate for leadership positions?
I have read that there is a relationship with psychopathy and leadership - have we not learned that aggressive, pushy, cut-throat behavior at the top is not necessarily a good thing for the health of the business or country? Does cash always have to be the bottom line? When will we tire of this as a society?
44
It's a mistake to constantly refer back to Hillary Clinton as an example of bias against women. She was a bad candidate in both technical and personal ways. I would have voted for a mainstream Democrat over Trump, but I would never vote for Clinton. So, I ended up voting for neither of them.
The truth is, sometimes the woman passed over just doesn't deserve the job, just like a man in similar circumstances.
The truth is, sometimes the woman passed over just doesn't deserve the job, just like a man in similar circumstances.
11
You actually believed there would be no difference between a Clinton presidency and what we have now? And you're not embarrassed to admit this?
1
Absolutely true! And not just for the C-level suite executives.
I work as a software architect in information technology - a role overwhelmingly dominated by men. Recruiting for the prize projects (high visibility, leading edge technology) happens primarily socially - which inherently disadvantages women. I was chatting with a mentor of mine - many years senior to me and a wonderful man - about how to land role in such a project. He mentioned "I don't really do networking, it is more friendship based. Xyz offered me to lead this project because we play golf together & we started talking about it & he asked my interest." I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Of course, not having these projects on your resume will then be the proof why a woman is less suited for big times. It seems like an impossible game to win.
I work as a software architect in information technology - a role overwhelmingly dominated by men. Recruiting for the prize projects (high visibility, leading edge technology) happens primarily socially - which inherently disadvantages women. I was chatting with a mentor of mine - many years senior to me and a wonderful man - about how to land role in such a project. He mentioned "I don't really do networking, it is more friendship based. Xyz offered me to lead this project because we play golf together & we started talking about it & he asked my interest." I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Of course, not having these projects on your resume will then be the proof why a woman is less suited for big times. It seems like an impossible game to win.
33
I whole-heartedly believe this problem will get fixed. I also believe it will take a long time--maybe 50 to 100 more years for true gender parity to be achieved (I'm referring to the U.S.---the rest of the world may be quite different). Over time, in large waves and smaller ripples, women will rise up and demand change, and eventually the change (in men's minds, in culture, in societal structure) will be achieved.
If I were aiming for activism on this topic--I would target large organizations with few or no women on their boards. The boards have to get to at least 40% women--that will signify and result in change.
If I were aiming for activism on this topic--I would target large organizations with few or no women on their boards. The boards have to get to at least 40% women--that will signify and result in change.
4
NO. This is not true. "Now she is a reminder of the limits women continue to confront — in politics and beyond."
Now she is an inspiration to millions of women of all ages, around the world, who are stepping up to take one-half the power to put balance into every system and end the fear/anger/hate/WAR LIES, LIES, LIES model that the boys-only system uses.
Socially Conscious Women sharing power equally with Socially Conscious Men will change the world in a very good way.
NOW is the time!
Now she is an inspiration to millions of women of all ages, around the world, who are stepping up to take one-half the power to put balance into every system and end the fear/anger/hate/WAR LIES, LIES, LIES model that the boys-only system uses.
Socially Conscious Women sharing power equally with Socially Conscious Men will change the world in a very good way.
NOW is the time!
10
As a double minority (African American and Female), I have sensed this very acutely as my professional experiences have always been in male-dominated fields. There's a lot that goes in to the calculation of whether or not someone in senior management deems a candidate to be "like us" or "not like us." Academic pedigree, social norms, language, dress, membership in certain organizations, etc.. Add to that the penalties assessed for being assertive, outspoken, not getting the right feedback... by the time she gets within striking distance of the C-suite, she's already endured wounds from the slings and arrows she's had to take in order to get there, which have likely slowed her ascent. Navigating the senior executive landscape is a minefield, and unfortunately, as long as the decision to anoint the next rung of corporate leadership rests in the hands of men who select primarily based on who is "like us," I am pessimistic if I will see any real change in my professional lifetime.
26
Incredibly satisfying to read this comment (I liked the article very much as well). You hit on a few very salient points, and said them well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts
3
I know a bit of denial persists among many Times readers, but Hillary Clinton struck many as a bad candidate, bordering on the spectacularly bad -- and she still won the popular vote. It remains to be seen what reception any woman other than her, running as a major party candidate, would get in a national election. Would Elizabeth Warren, for example, or Condaleeza Rice, inspire the same disdain Ms. Clinton did?
6
Yes, ingrained sexism keeps men and women from seeing women as leaders.
But - maybe more women opt for a challenging job that pays well, but that also leaves time for family rather than giving up the last hours of their lives to work to be CEO.
Where does that leave women in the long run? I ask myself as someone who is very near the top of my field who could be at the top. But I refuse to give up those last remaining hours that belong to me and my kids. I can do great for my family, my clients and my career at Near The Top. Am I part of the problem by not reaching higher, and thereby missing an opportunity to be a role model?
Perhaps as millennial men value family time more than their parents did, and people realize that cooperation and balanced lives lead to better managed businesses, more women leaders will naturally rise to the top. In the meantime, women, be prepared to raise your voice and lower your octaves, don't back down, take your seat at the table, work hard, and change perceptions. It pays off, whether in the C-Suite or not.
But - maybe more women opt for a challenging job that pays well, but that also leaves time for family rather than giving up the last hours of their lives to work to be CEO.
Where does that leave women in the long run? I ask myself as someone who is very near the top of my field who could be at the top. But I refuse to give up those last remaining hours that belong to me and my kids. I can do great for my family, my clients and my career at Near The Top. Am I part of the problem by not reaching higher, and thereby missing an opportunity to be a role model?
Perhaps as millennial men value family time more than their parents did, and people realize that cooperation and balanced lives lead to better managed businesses, more women leaders will naturally rise to the top. In the meantime, women, be prepared to raise your voice and lower your octaves, don't back down, take your seat at the table, work hard, and change perceptions. It pays off, whether in the C-Suite or not.
13
"But - maybe more women opt for a challenging job that pays well, but that also leaves time for family rather than giving up the last hours of their lives to work to be CEO."
Did it ever occur to you that there are societal factors that influence a woman's decision to do this? And that prevent a man from making this same choice? That's the issue- not whether women actually wind up spending more time with their families.
Did it ever occur to you that there are societal factors that influence a woman's decision to do this? And that prevent a man from making this same choice? That's the issue- not whether women actually wind up spending more time with their families.
6
The women who claim they never felt hampered by sexism until they got near the top show strong powers of denial or a shocking absence of awareness. I guess as long as a woman is making headway in the direction she desires, it is easy to convince yourself it will continue, and those women who complain about sexism are just looking for something to blame for their own inadequacy. Then you are finally frozen out and the scales fall from your eyes. Bias against women is alive and well in all areas and at all levels. The more the job pays, the harder it is for a woman to get it or keep it. And when we do get the job, we are paid less than the men. I've not found any job this does not apply to.
68
Women, please, it is "suffragist," never "suffragette, a term that demeans seriously political women who were arrested, force-fed, and died in the long fight for US women's suffrage. Not debatable. Not cute. Not cool. Raise your consciousness, as millions of women once said.
6
Bossy. Don't tell me what to do.
2
Check out what is happening in Sweden to see how women can succeed, and reach the top, in almost all areas of work life (except finance-- still dominated by men). To all of the Republican men and women reading this article who continue to elect Republican lawmakers, who continue to thwart any significant progress on equitable work/family balance legislation: you are the problem!
20
Being a woman who works in tech and is very familiar with the situation in Sweden (and other Nordic countries), first I'd say I totally agree. It is worlds better there. When I am in Sweden or any other Nordic country, it's like I'm on a gender vacation. It is my happy place. Not only are there fewer issues around women in tech, but I can even do crazy things like go in bars without having guys give me cheap pick up lines and mob me with unwanted attention when I'm with friends. The only times I've had that happen there involved running into American tourists! I see men with their children all over, even staying at home with them while mom works. No one thinks less of them. No one, male or female, questions their masculinity for it. They're proud of the equality they've achieved. It's not perfect, but it is far far better than here.
The problem here is cultural, not political. It's deeper than R vs. D. I have experienced gender discrimination and bias across the spectrum my entire life in every state I've lived in - from progressive men to rednecks. I've heard sexist comments from men AND women. Don't mistake this for a GOP thing. ( Though I will say at least the right wingers tend to just overtly state their sexism so there's no interpretation difficulty) For this to improve, we can't let anyone - men, women, Republicans, Democrats - off the hook so easily.
The problem here is cultural, not political. It's deeper than R vs. D. I have experienced gender discrimination and bias across the spectrum my entire life in every state I've lived in - from progressive men to rednecks. I've heard sexist comments from men AND women. Don't mistake this for a GOP thing. ( Though I will say at least the right wingers tend to just overtly state their sexism so there's no interpretation difficulty) For this to improve, we can't let anyone - men, women, Republicans, Democrats - off the hook so easily.
289
Probably off the point, but there are many of us out here, men and women alike, who not only don't want to become CEOs, but don't even want to be promoted, even if that means more money. If we're happy what we're doing and make enough to Iive, that's enough. I myself turned down a promotion and my son is in the position of possibly doing the same. If more of us did that, there would probably be fewer of us rising to our level of incompetence..
14
Soft discrimination is so rampant I've basically decided to not try to move further up the ranks anymore. I've seen so many other women make the same choice. I've hung with the guys for drinks or golf - even into middle age, and married, I was constantly getting hit on. And by married men themselves. Business travel for conferences was a nightmare of drunk men behaving badly and none of them every getting into trouble for it. In the office, up and coming male competitors undercut the women viciously. They all had stay at home wives, yet when they left early for their kids' baseball they were applauded as "good family men." The women struggled quietly to juggle home and family care, taking up the "2nd shift" when they left work, constantly trying to make sure none of those responsibilities infringed on work lest they be labeled "mommy track." In my case, the ambitious women banded together to give each other support, but with while males at the top, it was futile. No matter how hard we worked and how much promise we showed, we just couldn't change the mindset. Entry level guys who met the notoriously easy "he's a good guy" test were rated as "highly promising" and rode the escalator up. We admired the few women who had made it to the top - they were stellar, but they were isolated and remained largely powerless. I am raising my daughters to be strong and confident to the core, hoping they will be the generation that finally breaks through.
120
This for the editor. Data is a plural noun.
20
That's all you can say about this article? Wow.
6
Some people are sticklers for things like that is all
2
It's actually more complicated than that. Data seems to be well into a shift towards being commonly treated as a mass noun like "blood" or "information". Even the Oxford Dictionary says as much. Do you actually refer to an individual data point from a data set as a datum? Two of those as datums? Do you do so while wearing a monocle and top hat? (I personally think that would be the very best time to do so.)
The issue around data is complicated enough to even have its own wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(word)
I agree with the other commenter. You read the article and all you had to say was that??
The issue around data is complicated enough to even have its own wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(word)
I agree with the other commenter. You read the article and all you had to say was that??
4
"The bleakest perceptions are from minority women; only 29 percent of black women think the best opportunities at their companies go to the most deserving employees, compared with 47 percent of white women."
Why is that? Not solely regarding race but generally speaking; Black women are more aggressive & blunt. We do not accept nonsense, we fight back & will tell you in very direct ways what is wrong.
So if defending yourself, being direct and fighting for your fair share is distasteful in these circles, its no wonder you have such small number of Black women.
Part of this issue rests on that. Why is it that white women do not have these skills but Black women do? Because we've had no choice in developing them in order to be successful in a country that is exceptionally hostile to 2 groups we belong to; racial minorities (Black) and females. We catch more hell than everyone else & have to be twice if not three times as smart, quick, decisive...add whatever other descriptive adjectives that makes for good leadership.
Biases like these take generations to defeat. I find it amusing that folks assume otherwise. If you think that 50-60 years of disgruntled equality for Blacks was enough to "level the field" you have no idea how distorted the field actually is.
White women need to understand the long game on this. When the Millennials are in their elder years then MAYBE views will have changed enough that its considered normal for a woman to be a man's equal in business.
Why is that? Not solely regarding race but generally speaking; Black women are more aggressive & blunt. We do not accept nonsense, we fight back & will tell you in very direct ways what is wrong.
So if defending yourself, being direct and fighting for your fair share is distasteful in these circles, its no wonder you have such small number of Black women.
Part of this issue rests on that. Why is it that white women do not have these skills but Black women do? Because we've had no choice in developing them in order to be successful in a country that is exceptionally hostile to 2 groups we belong to; racial minorities (Black) and females. We catch more hell than everyone else & have to be twice if not three times as smart, quick, decisive...add whatever other descriptive adjectives that makes for good leadership.
Biases like these take generations to defeat. I find it amusing that folks assume otherwise. If you think that 50-60 years of disgruntled equality for Blacks was enough to "level the field" you have no idea how distorted the field actually is.
White women need to understand the long game on this. When the Millennials are in their elder years then MAYBE views will have changed enough that its considered normal for a woman to be a man's equal in business.
206
Thanks for your comment. As a journalist, myself, I was appalled that the article says it is about "women" CEOs without directly stating that it is about WHITE women CEOs and totally leaves out any reference to women of color.
3
PhntsticPeg: I don't get the long game you are talking about, actually, that white women need to understand. Views will shift? How will they shift with confrontation that is aggressive and blunt? How is it working out for black women now? And in the long run? You say that black women have these skills, but they are not apparently working to change the numbers, the access, the achievement, apparently. Hillary had these skills, didn't work for her.
There are different paths and different games; entrepreneurship seems more promising a path, frankly. Does this mean that women will become CEOs of huge corporations? Yes, if they make their businesses into huge corporations.
Frankly, being the CEO of Dupont is a goal I would NEVER aspire to. I hate what that company has done in the world to contribute to the idea we can engineer and chemical our way out of anything.
I think the path to the future is about difference and what that difference provides as value in the world.
There are different paths and different games; entrepreneurship seems more promising a path, frankly. Does this mean that women will become CEOs of huge corporations? Yes, if they make their businesses into huge corporations.
Frankly, being the CEO of Dupont is a goal I would NEVER aspire to. I hate what that company has done in the world to contribute to the idea we can engineer and chemical our way out of anything.
I think the path to the future is about difference and what that difference provides as value in the world.
1
Thank you for your comments. I wonder if you think that some of Black womens' assertiveness comes from the way in which Black men have been so demoralized, so that in the couple and in the family, women are more dominant?
Clinton lost.
Get over it already.
Get over it already.
15
The question is: why did the person who was far more qualified lose to an uninformed self-promoting bully?
18
Lynn: Unfortunately the answer is obvious: because she is a woman. Even now Trump brings up prosecuting Clinton to bring back the energy of his woman hating supporters. Its pretty disgusting the misogyny and sexism is so prevalent in the US.
Maybe there are fewer female CEOs because there are fewer female sociopaths.
179
Thank you, Bruce. I can tell that you are a highly evolved gentleman. And you also serve as a reminder that women should not vilify all men.
Bruce, you made my day. Thanks.
Good call. We can see that those who rise to the top are, for the most part, horrible human beings.
Just to put this in perspective: What the hell is the 'C-suite'?
5
C suite is the host of all C-level employees who are not the CEO - for example ... CFO, CIO, CTO, CMO, COO ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_title#Senior_management
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_title#Senior_management
5
Amen brother.
Take it all and treble it. Then you see something of what blacks face
12
Substitute "Black" for "women" and double (no, triple!) the thinly veiled contempt, add a poisonous and deadly background of injustice and institutional racism, stir in poverty, crappy schools and a hostile criminal justice system; add a huge dollop of entitlement/white privilege and a few teaspoons of right-wing religious bias; toss in an unrelenting media stream of negative portrayals of an entire race of people based on the bad behavior of a few and top the whole thing with the prominence of the loud and proud alt-right and their boy Trump, and you have the recipe for how that much more difficult it is for African-Americans to find success, not just in corporate America but in America period. (Doublele the recipe again if you're LGBT.)
80
Great article! I think we need to change the system so that performance is measured not in terms of how well you can screw over your coworker, but rather in terms of how well you do your job. If we had more objective data about performance, instead of promoting our friends, it would remove some (not all) discrimination. I don't think women should have to stop being women to succeed. The last thing we need to improve the world is for EVERYONE to start acting like an arrogant, entitled jerk, instead of just the men with the most testosterone.
10
What I've found as a women executive is a startling number of men who "support" women in the workplace with a special blend of paternalism that is masked as mentoring.
385
Boy oh boy. You really can't win. If you compete with a woman as you would do with a man, and win, then it's somehow unfair. And if you support and mentor a woman....you're 'paternal'.
2
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
2
Kind of like the assertion in "When Harry Met Sally", that men and women cannot be friends without some element of sexual attraction being involved, only it being mentoring including an element of father raising daughter. We all have brains that evolved from creatures that relied more upon the limbic system that the prefrontal lobes to guide behavior and it makes us tend to act by feelings over reasoning even in executive functioning. The strong emotional experiences have a lot to do with procreation and child rearing so it makes sense that we often react emotionally before we think through things completely. The remedy would be to deliberately recondition people to discipline their decision making to be more rational and less emotional.
I think that the composition of the C-suite should reflect the composition of the workforce which hopefully reflects the composition of the workforce in the area in which the company is located. Then you will see more diversity.
I cannot tell you how many times the person who is paid the most or is seen as a leader, even in driving or making decisions in a meeting is a tall, good-looking white guy. Even the women defer to him, regardless of what his actual skills are. This is a big disadvantage for colored and/or unattractive women.
20
Professional Women code- don't discuss breasr feeding in random meeting...too personal.
7
Now that Lean-In has done the literature survey and population study with McKinsey, have Sheryl Sandberg work with the Broad Institute on that CRISPR gene thing, as far as changing gender personality traits. I believe the Soviets pulled babies from mothers and had the state raise kids to become good party leaders. Look at Putin. Or don't look at Putin. Trump will have Ivanka and Kellyanne Conway spearhead something to that effect, but with a free market-y spin. Or an Apprentice style Child in a Skinner Box reality show to create the best CEO, male or female. Even golf playing MBA getting dodgeball playing CEO bros had mothers. And all those tech boys turned billionaire CEOs? There was like a plan hatched out of Stanford. My god, I'm guessing Mark Zuckerberg"s mom was the one suggesting he get a nice girl to be his COO. You know, given his rambunctiousness as promoted by good mothers when raising a son. OK, this was all silliness.
Two days ago, I contacted a journalist to correct an error on an article he'd published that happens to be in my subject area of expertise (I'm also a journalist).
I identified myself as a subject expert up front and told him I'd written 24 articles on the subject he had reported on. I also knew he hadn't previously reported on the topic, and had no background in it. I explained the policy point, what he'd gotten wrong and why. He wouldn't hear it. He kept talking over me, restating his error with the greatest confidence.
No correction was made.
I'm going to write to his editor as it was a significant error, but it's going to be a waste of my time.
Why do women not reach the top? Well I am at the top on this one. And the guys at the bottom don't care. If they don't want to hear you, they just tune you out. What are women supposed to do then? Keep banging on the door? Break it down?
I identified myself as a subject expert up front and told him I'd written 24 articles on the subject he had reported on. I also knew he hadn't previously reported on the topic, and had no background in it. I explained the policy point, what he'd gotten wrong and why. He wouldn't hear it. He kept talking over me, restating his error with the greatest confidence.
No correction was made.
I'm going to write to his editor as it was a significant error, but it's going to be a waste of my time.
Why do women not reach the top? Well I am at the top on this one. And the guys at the bottom don't care. If they don't want to hear you, they just tune you out. What are women supposed to do then? Keep banging on the door? Break it down?
110
This paper, and its readers, ripped into Mitt Romney for his "binders of women" comment. The guy was trying to hire qualified women in an efficient manner, and you roasted him. Now you're basically suggesting each company have said binder sitting on the HR desk.
18
And all these guys have mothers, wives, daughters, nieces whatever women in their lives who they wouldn't want discriminated against in any setting, but in reality, they play the old boys game, kind of hypocritical?
8
Reply to Susan,
Of the men who do discriminate (who I believe are a minority) many do not have female friends and family who are competing against them, or even competing against other men. Hard driving women are a significant minority. Most women are congregated in the lower escalations of business, or are teachers or something non-competitive.
I worked in business for six years straight out of school. Most of us were trying just to make money to buy a house. It wasn't cut throat competition like the higher levels seem to be. A lot of the young women, including me, eventually left to have kids. Some older women were happy to be mommy tracked.
Of the men who do discriminate (who I believe are a minority) many do not have female friends and family who are competing against them, or even competing against other men. Hard driving women are a significant minority. Most women are congregated in the lower escalations of business, or are teachers or something non-competitive.
I worked in business for six years straight out of school. Most of us were trying just to make money to buy a house. It wasn't cut throat competition like the higher levels seem to be. A lot of the young women, including me, eventually left to have kids. Some older women were happy to be mommy tracked.
3
There is hope. Young men today look on women as equal partners in life, and are repulsed by old school misogyny. I know this sounds terrible... But old people have to die.
7
Which young men are you talking about? The gamers who make vile comments and even rape and death threats against women who dare to infiltrate their private clubs? The bros who couldn't handle an all-woman showing of Wonder Woman? The guys who lose it over the remake of Ghostbusters or the casting of a female Doctor? If you believe misogyny is dead among younger generations, you aren't paying attention.
2
So true: she said... “I used to love the word ‘gravitas.’ I now think it’s male code for ‘not like us’ at the highest levels.”
Also, 'gravitas', an evolved primate dominance ritual frequently used to cloak the underlying buffoon.
Also, 'gravitas', an evolved primate dominance ritual frequently used to cloak the underlying buffoon.
6
Oh, please. Asking the losers why they didn't win is an open invitation for rationalization and spin.
6
And yet you close with Clinton speaking out "acidly." Do you not see the irony? She's speaking out truthfully. Candidly. But you color it toxic. And you wonder why women feel held back.
236
I've fought like a man. It's the ultimate taboo. Oh the shame . . . .
1
Just noticed Hillary's claim of misogyny. This is a disgusting and vile claim. Here is the most unscrupulous politician imaginable, and she is claiming I don't like her because she is a woman. She is a void of scruples. A space so empty not even Schrodinger could find a scruple in her. Give me Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice, and any one of a million other women in the world, and I would have voted for a woman for president. The pitiful fact is, Trump was a better choice than Hillary. That's what she needs to come to terms with.
12
Trump has scruples? Name one.
13
"But she and other women describe a culture in which men sometimes feel hesitant to give women honest but harsh feedback, which can be necessary for them to ascend, because they fear women may react emotionally."
There is some truth to this. If someone reacts poorly and freaks out when given honest criticism, then they'll be left out of the pipeline, passed over and perhaps pushed out. This will happen to men as well as women, and there's nothing wrong with that. The best needs to rise. The problem is the assumption that a woman will react poorly ("emotionally"). Women who have earned it deserve the chance to screw up just as much as men, and pop psychology which suggests that the workplace needs to change in order to meet some unproven "emotional" differences between genders is only enabling gender bias further. You only get a chance to sink or swim if you're thrown into the water in the first place. Men need to throw more men in the water, and not assume they'll all sink.
There is some truth to this. If someone reacts poorly and freaks out when given honest criticism, then they'll be left out of the pipeline, passed over and perhaps pushed out. This will happen to men as well as women, and there's nothing wrong with that. The best needs to rise. The problem is the assumption that a woman will react poorly ("emotionally"). Women who have earned it deserve the chance to screw up just as much as men, and pop psychology which suggests that the workplace needs to change in order to meet some unproven "emotional" differences between genders is only enabling gender bias further. You only get a chance to sink or swim if you're thrown into the water in the first place. Men need to throw more men in the water, and not assume they'll all sink.
3
I meant WOMEN, not men. Throw more women in the water, and assume they'll all not sink. Dang I screwed that up.
How many of these women ever suggested in any company forum that there were unnatural barriers to women advancing in the management ranks, while they rose? Oh no, all one has to do is do one's job. Never acknowledge fowls or hurdles. Grab those boot straps.
Discovery discovery, the game is a bit rigged.
Let them list what they did to help women get a fair chance. Oh, there was no need. They get and got a fair chance.
The assumption or disregard proved false. Tough luck, oh blind ones.
A Male
Discovery discovery, the game is a bit rigged.
Let them list what they did to help women get a fair chance. Oh, there was no need. They get and got a fair chance.
The assumption or disregard proved false. Tough luck, oh blind ones.
A Male
3
there are so many
What does any of this whining have to do with women who stand behind a cash register all day, run to the kitchen with your order, clean somebody else's house or take care of somebody else's children? Lets see, there are perhaps 30,000 senior executives in the Fortune 1000 (@ 30 per). There are at least THIRTY MILLION women who would love to collapse in exhaustion when the get home from work at the end of the day but they can't because they don't have maids and nannies and chauffeurs to do for them. Some of them are maids, nannies and chauffeurs. The "C" suite is not aspirational for 90 % of all women-- survival, putting food on the table for their families, keeping the car running, protecting all that is dearest to them and growing old surrounded by grandchildren is what they aspire to. I don't care about the ambitious and predatory men in the "C" suites, who "make their number" by shipping American jobs to China. Why am I supposed to care about ambitious predatory women who do the same thing, only "better?"
11
Hey, you say these women are predatory? How is that, because they are making good money? If women had more of that, more power, more money, more appreciation y'all wouldn't be the ones at the bottom working your tails off. Yes, I am also one who has to work crummy jobs with no maid.
1
Agreed. Carly Fiorina, case in point.
1
A large part of humanity - male & female - want a leader to be fearsome and intimidating. It's the 'serfdom' deal: I'll till your soil and be loyal, if you, my lord, will protect me against all the marauding vikings and other fearsome leaders out there in the world ... be it the corporate or the political world. Sometimes they want the lord to have a civilized veneer (talk softly and carry a big stick), sometimes they want the lord to be crass and thuggish (Trump). Not many women ... for whatever reason ... fit the bill.
5
Personally, one can read this article and come to some conclusions about gender(s), and I have for many years have said that the biggest weakness women have is that they are raised to "be female" (so the ugly truth is, in part, look to your own parents if you want to place blame, but yes, society is to blame too - very complex), but...
what I see is a world - Business - that is to blame. It is not men per se, although one might make that claim since Men in general created the beast, but rather, how the "game is played." Don't kill the rats; just get rid of the stupid maze.
As a man, I would not participate in such a "corporate environment" because I do see it as aggressive, if not violent, and too much quid pro quo stuff that is borderline immoral if not illegal (oh, don't deny it; "everyone does it"). (And in fact, one of the reasons I left the culinary world was that the requirements of me as Chef was to play games, with the public, owners, and others. I do not play games; it is a waste of my time, is inefficient, and rather idiotic.)
"Business" is a mentality and an environment that needs to be razed because if anything promotes the archaic chest-beating-macho-male ideal, it is one in which stabbing others in the back is not only part of the game, but a Good Move.
Vile.
(And yes, I generalize greatly; not all businesses are run in such a fashion, but most of the old behemoths just need killing, so to speak.)
what I see is a world - Business - that is to blame. It is not men per se, although one might make that claim since Men in general created the beast, but rather, how the "game is played." Don't kill the rats; just get rid of the stupid maze.
As a man, I would not participate in such a "corporate environment" because I do see it as aggressive, if not violent, and too much quid pro quo stuff that is borderline immoral if not illegal (oh, don't deny it; "everyone does it"). (And in fact, one of the reasons I left the culinary world was that the requirements of me as Chef was to play games, with the public, owners, and others. I do not play games; it is a waste of my time, is inefficient, and rather idiotic.)
"Business" is a mentality and an environment that needs to be razed because if anything promotes the archaic chest-beating-macho-male ideal, it is one in which stabbing others in the back is not only part of the game, but a Good Move.
Vile.
(And yes, I generalize greatly; not all businesses are run in such a fashion, but most of the old behemoths just need killing, so to speak.)
10
I worked in a place where a (married) division leader had an affair with a married subordinate, who was murdered by her husband when he found out about the affair. The division leader was promoted shortly afterward. I seriously doubt that would have happened if he was a woman or a minority.
20
The model I like (although not her politics), is Margaret Thatcher. The British legislature is rough and tumble and she was an expert. The US Congress, though, is the very definition of an old boys club. We need a Thatcher-type to teach them a few things....
3
"Why don’t more women get that No. 1 job?"
For the same reason now, that some people win the Powerball Lottery and others don't. It used to be different here, but right now I'm seeing increasing numbers of women all over the place getting jobs they haven't earned, just like men.
For the same reason now, that some people win the Powerball Lottery and others don't. It used to be different here, but right now I'm seeing increasing numbers of women all over the place getting jobs they haven't earned, just like men.
4
I had two aunts who became public agency C.E.O.'s while black mothers and wives. One felt that her gender was the most significant impediment to their rise. While the other felt that her color was the major barrier. Both believed that color plus gender were doubly bedeviling factors by American historical bigotry and misogyny.
8
Too many women allow themselves to be sidelined just as they scale the last peak to the CEO's office.
They think they have finally made it and will finally be recognized and don't realize that very stringent challenges, back-stabbing and underhanded attacks are being set up for them right now.
As women begin the reach the top levels of their organizations, they need to be armed and ready for the biggest fight of their lives. It looks like the end of an arduous journey lasting 10, 20, or even 30 or 40 years, but it is not. It's the beginning of a major challenge, enormous affronts to their dignity and a range of unethical, unpredictable back-stabbing.
Women need to be forewarned and forearmed. Then they will succeed with flying colours. Do not be demeaned by whatever flying cr_p they have planned for you. Shower, dry off and carry on!!!
They think they have finally made it and will finally be recognized and don't realize that very stringent challenges, back-stabbing and underhanded attacks are being set up for them right now.
As women begin the reach the top levels of their organizations, they need to be armed and ready for the biggest fight of their lives. It looks like the end of an arduous journey lasting 10, 20, or even 30 or 40 years, but it is not. It's the beginning of a major challenge, enormous affronts to their dignity and a range of unethical, unpredictable back-stabbing.
Women need to be forewarned and forearmed. Then they will succeed with flying colours. Do not be demeaned by whatever flying cr_p they have planned for you. Shower, dry off and carry on!!!
6
The very fact that men let 'the little ladies' out of the kitchen and asked them to raise their kids and clean their houses and allowed them to take care of themselves shows how utterly short-sighted men can be.
Men brought this on themselves.
Thank the good lord for that and for all the women we love.
Men brought this on themselves.
Thank the good lord for that and for all the women we love.
1
I am bemused by the comments that express surprise that merit and hard work are not enough. Sociopaths get repeatedly promoted because they are focused and don't need to worry about a conscience or that pesky "performance" thing. Competence is its own reward -- and is irrelevant when discussing promotions.
Many of us in Corporate America -- male, female, other -- stop when we reach peers that are all more sociopathic than we are. For me, it was middle management, a couple of steps short of the C-Cuites. After a 35 year career, it does not surprise me that the majority of sociopaths that make it to the top are men!
Many of us in Corporate America -- male, female, other -- stop when we reach peers that are all more sociopathic than we are. For me, it was middle management, a couple of steps short of the C-Cuites. After a 35 year career, it does not surprise me that the majority of sociopaths that make it to the top are men!
17
I think this is really the point. People want to believe its about metrics, but its not. Its about who do people want to work with:
"He’s tall and good looking and hangs around the right circles."
The people that make it to the top seem to be the honest individuals who realize fairness does not matter.
"He’s tall and good looking and hangs around the right circles."
The people that make it to the top seem to be the honest individuals who realize fairness does not matter.
1
My daughter read and was inspired by Sandberg's "Lean In" and, as a direct consequence of that book, made a case for, and was granted, VP status and, more recently Senior Vice President status. With Sandberg as COO at Facebook, I wonder how her own company is doing when it comes to mentoring and promoting women to the C-suite.
1
Women who are disappointed with the number of female CEOs are welcome to correct the problem by founding their own successful companies. And women who prefer sour grapes can re-read this essay.
3
Absolutely accurate and on point
2
You could interview 20 men who were number 2 and passed over, and they would each have some excuse. This is just another example of the Times pushing the political narrative that gender discrimination is rampant.
6
Do you have a substantive rebuttal to the points in the article or not?
7
This is a great article in general but the parallels with Ms Clinton are misplaced. There were plenty of good reasons not to vote for Clinton that had nothing whatsoever to do with her being a woman. Framing Clinton's defeat in gender terms does a disservice to the many women who hit glass ceilings even though their honesty and integrity is undoubtable.
Or do you want to argue that black executives face no more glass ceilings, as evidenced by Obama's election win? Or that women in Germany face no more glass ceilings since Ms Merkel came to power?
Time to move on from Ms Clinton, she is a footnote in history. She was her own worst enemy throughout the campaign.
Get. Over. It. Please?
Or do you want to argue that black executives face no more glass ceilings, as evidenced by Obama's election win? Or that women in Germany face no more glass ceilings since Ms Merkel came to power?
Time to move on from Ms Clinton, she is a footnote in history. She was her own worst enemy throughout the campaign.
Get. Over. It. Please?
4
Clinton was not a focus in this article but an example of bias in politics as well as business. Yes, she had, after an entire political life breaking barriers and getting hammered for it, become so defensive as to be 'unlikeable', 'remote', 'unauthentic'. So instead of someone who actually spent her entire life enacting her ideal of doing as much good every day as possible for as many as possible, someone experienced and uber-competent we have this atrocity of an administration. Get over it? That's stupid. I want revenge.
6
From a purely selfish standpoint, why would a woman want to be a CEO? You work long hours and are always on call, in return for money you don't need. If you're smart enough to be CEO, you're also smart enough to earn $100,000 per year or more while working a 40-hour week, more than enough to live comfortably. If you're that smart and presentable, odds are you can also marry a man who earns $200,000 per year or more, and not have to work at all. A man has one major incentive, to improve his standing in the marriage market, and a man also can't afford to lose out in the work competition, because it will destroy his social identity. Women are competing with people (men) who can't afford to lose, in a contest they have no reason to want to win all the way up to that level. So of course there are fewer women CEO's. and this is even before the impact of taking out time for child-bearing.
16
Where I live 100k barely covers private schools and mortgage... CEO level pay is in the MILLIONS.
A few years of that and you don't need a man earning $200k and can be very well off anyway.
A few years of that and you don't need a man earning $200k and can be very well off anyway.
8
I agree Amanda, absolutely!! People tell me I was smart enough to make it in business and I'm like "I was smart enough to leave!"
3
What about men who have no interest in getting married? And why can't a man marry a woman who makes $200,000 a year and not work at all?
Which century are you from?
Which century are you from?
I don't understand why HRC is thrown into a discussion about women CEOs? She did win the popular vote despite being extremely unlikable. HRC lost the Board vote because she took some Board members for granted.
Is the concern over women not occupying what the NYT thinks is enough CEO positions at huge corporations and thus concern for the individual women affected, or the NYT thinking corporate culture will change if corporations are led by women? If the former, we are talking about fewer than a few thousand women. If the latter, I would be curious about whether a female CEO changes corporate culture or whether the fact the Board elected a female to the CEO position is simply reflective of the Board being more progressive.
Is the concern over women not occupying what the NYT thinks is enough CEO positions at huge corporations and thus concern for the individual women affected, or the NYT thinking corporate culture will change if corporations are led by women? If the former, we are talking about fewer than a few thousand women. If the latter, I would be curious about whether a female CEO changes corporate culture or whether the fact the Board elected a female to the CEO position is simply reflective of the Board being more progressive.
5
Feminists only want the up-side for women.
But if we're going to have quotas for women CEOs, then we should also have quotas for women garbage collectors, power line workers, infantry grunts, coal miners and sewage pipe cleaners.
Over 90% of all work place deaths continue to be men. Women won't take the risky jobs. They choose non-dangerous jobs. If you want to eliminate the glass ceiling first show that you are prepared to eliminate the glass floor that keeps men second class citizens in the ghetto of dirty, dangerous, life-threatening jobs.
But if we're going to have quotas for women CEOs, then we should also have quotas for women garbage collectors, power line workers, infantry grunts, coal miners and sewage pipe cleaners.
Over 90% of all work place deaths continue to be men. Women won't take the risky jobs. They choose non-dangerous jobs. If you want to eliminate the glass ceiling first show that you are prepared to eliminate the glass floor that keeps men second class citizens in the ghetto of dirty, dangerous, life-threatening jobs.
6
I agree with you Frank. Sometimes I look at the jobs men are doing and I feel like I am literally blessed not to be expected to have to do that kind of work.
3
The most dangerous positions women take are those of girlfriend or wife.
8
Me as well. Men are amazing, there's no doubt about that. Their blood sweat and tears makes the world go around. However society is evolving. It's evolving so fast, everything is changing, and all these issues are coming up and they are not non-issues and they are not going to go away
1
"... many senior women in business are concluding that the barriers are more deeply rooted and persistent than they wanted to believe ..."
Some of those barriers are men who are extremely capable, hyper-competitive, and monomaniacally focused. Odd this article completely left that out.
Here's a question: fewer than 2% of women are car mechanics. Clearly this is a crisis; why no NYT articles?
Some of those barriers are men who are extremely capable, hyper-competitive, and monomaniacally focused. Odd this article completely left that out.
Here's a question: fewer than 2% of women are car mechanics. Clearly this is a crisis; why no NYT articles?
6
Maybe fact check the statement re: only woman to lead top 10 business school. Alison Blake was dean of Ross (University of Michigan) and that's certainly in the 10 ten circles depending upon ranking.
"data predicts that half or more of the women who earn an M.B.A. this year will drop out of the full-time work force within a decade . . . ."
This same article states that it is "not the pipeline."
It is the pipeline.
The article hides the fact that most of the 50% of the women who drop out do so to take care of their children. If you were an extremely bright woman, married to an extremely bright man, who would you want to take care of your children? A hired nanny with an IQ of 102? Don't you think your children will learn more and become smarter if either you or your husband raise the children personally?
Then the choice--who gives up their job? Husband or wife? I see some men at home here in MA, with their wives in high paying jobs. But more often the husband makes more, or they just decide the wife will stay home (maybe she actually wants to).
So, it is the pipeline--women are, for the most part, taking themselves out of consideration for child care.
By the way, the reason HIllary did not get the top job had nothing to do with being a woman. If she had said she would do her best to clean up the aftermath of Obama, I would have voted for her in a second, and so would the other people who voted for Trump.
This same article states that it is "not the pipeline."
It is the pipeline.
The article hides the fact that most of the 50% of the women who drop out do so to take care of their children. If you were an extremely bright woman, married to an extremely bright man, who would you want to take care of your children? A hired nanny with an IQ of 102? Don't you think your children will learn more and become smarter if either you or your husband raise the children personally?
Then the choice--who gives up their job? Husband or wife? I see some men at home here in MA, with their wives in high paying jobs. But more often the husband makes more, or they just decide the wife will stay home (maybe she actually wants to).
So, it is the pipeline--women are, for the most part, taking themselves out of consideration for child care.
By the way, the reason HIllary did not get the top job had nothing to do with being a woman. If she had said she would do her best to clean up the aftermath of Obama, I would have voted for her in a second, and so would the other people who voted for Trump.
8
I agree that, although there were men and women who said they just couldn't vote for a woman, those numbers were too small. I'm surprised that more do not acknowledge the fact that Sanders and even that Putin puppet Stein took her down. The vote in Detroit was, in fact, rigged and the recount stopped.
2
Hillary Clinton LOST the white female vote. No woman will ever win the white house unless she can get her own peer group to vote for her.
9
Considering the deserved low esteem that CEOs are held by most Americans, perhaps no one should aspire to be one.
2
If you're going to bring up the Hillary analogy, let us never forget that 53% of white women voted for Donald Trump.
274
Your point is well made. One of the issues I have spoken and written about during the last 10 years is how women internalize existing gender frameworks and become each other's worst enemies. According to the 2017 Workplace Bullying Institute Survey, 20% of bullying incidents are women perpetrators are women targets, posing a tremendous challenge to ambitious women who are often taken out of the running early by other women. Female administrative assistants, junior level women and female peers may not have the power to lift another woman up, but they wield tremendous power to block the career paths of other women. A 2014 Gallup Study found that female respondents favored a male boss to a female, 39% to 25%, compared to male respondents preferred a male boss by a margin of 26% to 14%. While I appreciate articles like this, too often they ignore the elephant in the living room: We women can be our own worst enemies.
4
Right, because of a few facts this article missed. One, women hold back other women. Two, women aren't socialized to compete like men do, so we hold ourselves back. When women don't believe we can do it, why should men?
1
Which is depressing as hello
2
David Brooks recent column on Pierre Bourdieu, French sociologist extraordinaire, elicits a dialectic about different forms of "capital" at play in social forums. while it is discouraging to accept, it is likely in my estimation that there is a gender specific "capital" whose presence will require more than 30 to 60 years to be neutralized by female specific capital.
2
Hi Dan, any chance you have the link to said column?
Although the article does not specifically target the big law environment, most of what you said applies as well. Highly competitive, historically (and currently) dominated by white men.
In addition to all the problems you point out, I believe that there are other factors that play as well: for instance, the competencies in which women tend to excel (empathy, cooperation, etc.) make us more prone to embrace others' point of view and try to make the most of diverse teams. Men, on the other side, tend to excel on pure competitiveness. As Dina Dublon says, since we are still the minority, it is us that are adjusting to them and not the other way around.
Finally, the article also focus on the US, but having worked in Europe and Latin America as well, I would say the problems are more or less the same everywhere.
In addition to all the problems you point out, I believe that there are other factors that play as well: for instance, the competencies in which women tend to excel (empathy, cooperation, etc.) make us more prone to embrace others' point of view and try to make the most of diverse teams. Men, on the other side, tend to excel on pure competitiveness. As Dina Dublon says, since we are still the minority, it is us that are adjusting to them and not the other way around.
Finally, the article also focus on the US, but having worked in Europe and Latin America as well, I would say the problems are more or less the same everywhere.
9
Sexist comment. Don't you see? " I believe that there are other factors that play as well: for instance, the competencies in which women tend to excel (empathy, cooperation, etc.) make us more prone to embrace others' point of view and try to make the most of diverse teams. Men, on the other side, tend to excel on pure competitiveness."
You are promoting your bias.
You are promoting your bias.
The content of this article is right on target and corresponds with my experience. After attending a women's high school (which later had to close after the local men's high school refused joint programs saying they would never have girls and then the day after my school closed publicly announced it would go co-ed), I entered an Ivy League university the first year that it went co-ed. While many of the men welcomed us, many had a kind of both mulish and enflamed resentment that I had rarely perceived before. The guys who welcomed us tended to be the public school guys who themselves were newcomers. Those who resented us tended to be the privileged private-school guys. Throughout my career I experienced a similar kind of anger and exclusion and a willingness of the excluders to band together to keep a woman / women out, including or even especially among those men publicly professing liberal values. Men are used to controlling and the first group that they control is women. It is a control that many men will do everything possible to maintain.
24
So true. It's the subtle discrimination that is so intractable. But I think your argument was weakened by leading with Hillary Clinton. (There were too many reasons she didn't win. I'm not sure being a woman was the deciding one). In addition, omitted was the pervasive and just as harmful behavior of baby boomer women not supporting one another, not wanting to be associated with the "weaker prey". More pie for one, meant less for another. That its so much less so for the Taylor Swift generation gives me hope.
8
Much of what is said here resonates with me, having spent years as an Officer of a Fortune 100 company.I believe it is also true that when women do get to the top, it is often in troubled companies, current examples include IBM and Avon.
But some nuance is necessary. First, this is a US centric view and consistent with our overly macho culture amongst developed nations, wit the obsession with aggressive team sports and preponderance of sports metaphors in the business lexicon.Second, women in the workplace do themselves a disservice by contributing to an environment where men, particularly white men need to be on guard in case "hostile environment"type accusations surface against them.Finally, and perhaps more controversially, a minority of very able women undermine themselves through provocative dress or other uses of their femininity to their own detriment when the time comes to be taken seriously and assessed on business related criteria alone.Finally, using Clinton as an example serves no one well given how deeply flawed she is as a person, it would be akin to having Leona Helmsley be the benchmark for women in business.
But some nuance is necessary. First, this is a US centric view and consistent with our overly macho culture amongst developed nations, wit the obsession with aggressive team sports and preponderance of sports metaphors in the business lexicon.Second, women in the workplace do themselves a disservice by contributing to an environment where men, particularly white men need to be on guard in case "hostile environment"type accusations surface against them.Finally, and perhaps more controversially, a minority of very able women undermine themselves through provocative dress or other uses of their femininity to their own detriment when the time comes to be taken seriously and assessed on business related criteria alone.Finally, using Clinton as an example serves no one well given how deeply flawed she is as a person, it would be akin to having Leona Helmsley be the benchmark for women in business.
12
Hillary Clinton is certainly a bad example to bring into this otherwise excellent article. Her trajectory could better be cited as the example of the trailing spouse in a power couple hired into academia. She was elected to nothing prior to being First Lady of Arkansas and the United States. How many female CEOs were married to a former CEO of the same company?
8
I liked your post up until the part about Clinton. Hillary is flawed? Then what do you say about Trump? He's highly defective - at best. She would have made a good, maybe very good president. Plus she won the election.
2
But she did have experience in elected positions when she ran for president (unlike her opponent), and I do feel that her just being the spouse of a former president was held against her, while Trump being born into wealth gave people the impression that he must be smart instead of just lucky. Success is typically a combination of luck and intelligence. If you are a woman, people assume luck had more to do with it.
3
As the executive director of an executive development program at a historically male Ivy League college, I encountered misogyny, sexism, and passive aggressiveness. It was so emotionally draining that I made a career change and started my own consulting business. As a consultant, my clients valued the very skills which my male colleagues in academia had so resented. I concluded that it was because by the time the client contacted me they had acknowledged that they needed assistance, whereas, my former colleagues could not acknowledge nor accept input from a woman without feeling emasculated in some profound way.
57
Thank you for this article. A few years ago, Jill Abramson was hired with much fanfare as the first female executive editor at this publication. She was fired over two years after that, reportedly for demanding the same pay as her male predecessors. In the meantime, newsrooms across the country remain mostly white, and the voices of women - particularly minority women - are scarcely solicited in the public dialogue on Trump. So I think bias is often most pernicious where it is least suspected - in liberal sectors of society that co-opt the rhetoric and banners of equality and empowerment but don't hire women or minorities, don't promote them to the highest levels, or make things unsustainable once they're anointed. We have a president who mobilizes his base around explicit contempt for large swaths of humanity. But we also have a media industry that remains averse to meaningful integration.
236
Shocked, shocked, that the NYT didn't "pick" this on point analysis. I am still outraged by Jill Abramson's firing--textbook example of what this article is about.
I'm in middle management, Fortune 500 - recently went through a large acquisition. When I met my new boss, he shook the hands of the men and then hugged me. Then went on to say he's "not a touchy, feely" sort of people manager. He also explained how my peer had the unfortunate situation of losing his higher title in the reorganization - when the same had occurred for me. Everything in business is different for women.
86
Amen. Its astonishing how misogyny is entrenched in the corporate world. I agree totally with this article. I have realized now at almost the end of my career that while I may have been let in the front door I was never allowed to climb the steps and never would have been. I come from the generation after the women who were forced to resign if they were pregnant or married.
32
Women are seen as danger signals by men these days .
The way you speak to a man , if you talk the same way to women , it would get interpreted in various
ways depending on the mood of the women . And men are apprehensive and generally not comfortable
even in interacting with women in the natural way men are used to interacting with other men.
Hence the diffidence which is something REAL.
Why not women set up an organization where only women will be recruited and employed , with maximum , a sprinkling of men and see how it goes ?
At least as a matter of deliberate social experiment with permission from govt.
authorities concerned , if need be.
why women are not even trying it ?
Or, do they want the blessing of men even to do that ?
The way you speak to a man , if you talk the same way to women , it would get interpreted in various
ways depending on the mood of the women . And men are apprehensive and generally not comfortable
even in interacting with women in the natural way men are used to interacting with other men.
Hence the diffidence which is something REAL.
Why not women set up an organization where only women will be recruited and employed , with maximum , a sprinkling of men and see how it goes ?
At least as a matter of deliberate social experiment with permission from govt.
authorities concerned , if need be.
why women are not even trying it ?
Or, do they want the blessing of men even to do that ?
3
Oh, the poor guys! They feel uncomfortable! Poor Babies! My heart bleeds for them.
They need to get out of the way and let business proceed.
By the way, Zeitgeist, there are plenty of women-owned corporations around and for the most part they are very successful. Did you know that companies with women CEO's are more financially successful, on average, then those headed by men? Believe me, women do not need government assistance to prove that they are capable and masterful.
What they DO need is that the laws of our country be upheld in every case of gender-discrimination, especially in the C-Suite, and they need people with your attitude to go away.
They need to get out of the way and let business proceed.
By the way, Zeitgeist, there are plenty of women-owned corporations around and for the most part they are very successful. Did you know that companies with women CEO's are more financially successful, on average, then those headed by men? Believe me, women do not need government assistance to prove that they are capable and masterful.
What they DO need is that the laws of our country be upheld in every case of gender-discrimination, especially in the C-Suite, and they need people with your attitude to go away.
3
I think the rise of the MBA as management level entry criteria is a big factor in this.
In the 1980's, back when an MBA was significantly harder to achieve and there were fewer MBA holders in the workplace, there was a big push to standardize employee review processes for more objectivity and transparency in the process.
Now I've found complete abandonment of a fair evaluation of staff which likely is because that has no positive direct effect on the quarters margins and a return the old boys way of going business.
If the extra knowledge and education an MBA holder is truly valuable, how can it be that experienced, capable, talented and interested people are ignored simply because of gender or race (and race can be included in the discussion)?
Our offices are overrun with MBAs these days - it makes sense to push for teaching better handling of people and ability in Business school because it is very clear they are not doing it properly now.
In the 1980's, back when an MBA was significantly harder to achieve and there were fewer MBA holders in the workplace, there was a big push to standardize employee review processes for more objectivity and transparency in the process.
Now I've found complete abandonment of a fair evaluation of staff which likely is because that has no positive direct effect on the quarters margins and a return the old boys way of going business.
If the extra knowledge and education an MBA holder is truly valuable, how can it be that experienced, capable, talented and interested people are ignored simply because of gender or race (and race can be included in the discussion)?
Our offices are overrun with MBAs these days - it makes sense to push for teaching better handling of people and ability in Business school because it is very clear they are not doing it properly now.
5
I read in Lean In about the Queen Bee attitude that was dominant back in the 1970s when women were new to the workforce, and one woman felt she could only succeed at the expense of the other women in the same company. I think some women have changed their minds from this Queen Bee theory but some women have not. Look at all of the women who did not see that their own social and professional progress could be improved by electing Hillary Clinton. They just do not see that a rising tide of women raises all individual women along with it. Women can be biased against their female bosses and female leaders in the same ways that male employees and male CEOs can be biased against female executives. I work in the traditionally feminine-field of education, and I experience the other side of the stick, which is reduced wages for equivalent types of work. Teachers are routinely underpaid relative to the amount of schooling they have, and this reduced pay for teachers is tied to the pink ghetto where once a field becomes female-dominated, the field becomes paid less.
23
"The regulatory approach of the Food and Drug Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office has driven up the costs of generic drugs."
Umm, sort of an odd way to put it. The regulations on drugs made marketing generics possible, but the profit margin being small compared to nongeneric, not many manufacturers were interested, and soon there were so few that competition vanished, leaving the few left free to charge what the market would bear, not just a reasonable profit.
It's all about the profit-first-profit-last orientation of the bottom-line dog-eat-dog business sector, intent mainly upon fattening a few wallets.
Umm, sort of an odd way to put it. The regulations on drugs made marketing generics possible, but the profit margin being small compared to nongeneric, not many manufacturers were interested, and soon there were so few that competition vanished, leaving the few left free to charge what the market would bear, not just a reasonable profit.
It's all about the profit-first-profit-last orientation of the bottom-line dog-eat-dog business sector, intent mainly upon fattening a few wallets.
1
The above comment of mine was intended for Vance's piece on healthcare and somehow ended up here by accident. Sorry.
There are many things to say about the Clintons but one thing I always thought HRC got utterly wrong in this regard: she went on and on, publicly, about glass ceilings, being the first female, and biases against women. This emphasizes dealing from a position of weakness and not strength, asking for some special affirmative action at the voting booth for being female. In all professional situations, it's always about the work, and you impress your cohorts by your agility and skill, most certainly not by repeatedly bringing up irrelevancies. Can you imagine Angela Merkel and Theresa May banging on and on about being women? Or the black candidate for CEO in a silicon valley company insisting he get the job because he's a persecuted minority? You do have to know how to play the game, regardless of facts on the ground, and within institutional cultures most women learn this intuitively.
32
This is something that I often here as well - as a woman in business. "We can't give women positions of leadership just because they're women" or "grant minorities special favors or unfair advantages". This fails to acknowledge that being a woman or minority or any kind of "other" among a sea of same brings incredible value. Studies show that diversity is a competitive business advantage and therefore should absolutely be part of decision-making (and yes, the promoting of oneself!). It also fails to acknowledge that the playing field IS not level. Studies after studies after studies prove that evaluation of the value of the "work", "agility and skill" is NOT gender or race-blind. Promoting diversity - proactively and unapologetic-ally - is the only way to level a field that favors a dingle demographic.
One last thought - HRC polled exceptionally well on job performance as an elected official. So there's that ....
One last thought - HRC polled exceptionally well on job performance as an elected official. So there's that ....
19
Your comment is problematic for multiple reasons. First, you characterize gender discrimination as an "irrelevancy." Troubling. Second, you characterized men's discrimination against women as a weakness of women. Troubling again. Third, you attempt to pretend that success in the corporate world is defined entirely based on a person's objective skill. We all know that's not true.
Yes, I can imagine Merkel "banging on" about being a woman. Because real leaders acknowledge discrimination and inequality and do something about it. Lord knows men spend enough time "banging on" about the fact that you're men.
Your choice of language says more about YOUR sexist attitudes than it does any fault on the part of women.
Yes, I can imagine Merkel "banging on" about being a woman. Because real leaders acknowledge discrimination and inequality and do something about it. Lord knows men spend enough time "banging on" about the fact that you're men.
Your choice of language says more about YOUR sexist attitudes than it does any fault on the part of women.
8
"A presenter asked a group of men and women whether anyone had expertise in breast-feeding." This could be the definitive example of a loaded question. What high-achieving woman would ever even want to admit to breast-feeding, let alone claim expertise in it?
The anecdote recounted illustrates the utter stupidity that men in both high and low places so often express without negative consequences (and if you doubt it, just look to the White House). But the only thing it says about women is that every woman in that group was smart enough to keep her mouth shut.
The anecdote recounted illustrates the utter stupidity that men in both high and low places so often express without negative consequences (and if you doubt it, just look to the White House). But the only thing it says about women is that every woman in that group was smart enough to keep her mouth shut.
725
I had to wonder why that question was asked. Unless it was a class for breastfeeding. It seems a way to single out half the audience as what? Better at domestic tasks?
2
I'm sorry Carla, but I have to disagree. I think after having a good laugh at the stupidity of the guy who lifted his hand, if indeed he was serious, there might have been at least one "experienced" women present, who could have looked the idiot in the eye and set him straight about a couple of facts of life. At the risk of sounding like a foolish male who doesn't realize that he should abhor such behavior, I'd really like to know why ANY woman would be ashamed to "even want to admit to breast-feeding?"
2
Who said the presenter was a man?
So therefore, in order to be a CEO, people need to be "jealous", "competitive", "unapologetic", resistant to change, "intimidating" "bossy" "aggressive" and see life as a 24/7 game of dodge ball? And we're supposed to aspire to being like these people?
52
Fact is that its true.At the top its so lonely even for men and its more so for the women.We can say natural for XY Chromosomes to gang together with other XY chromosomes a camaraderie that is instinctive.
But is the situation better where women are already occupying number one spot?Are other women in the organization feel any better ? Or do woemn also credit the men in the organization than the women?Do the women feel comfortable with the credits,assignments,praise that they get ?
A more comprehensive study need be conducted to let the truth of the situation out.Women are jealous of other women and would rather favor men over women for no apparent reason, when the chips are down . Why so ?
Men can and is expected to let down women but women when they let down another woman she takes it bitterly because women are expected to be supportive of other women and hence when woman is perceived as letting down another woman then its taken to be unpardonable sin .
RHC case should not be mixed up with normal cases of women because of the complicated political overtones and undertones in RHC's case . Its not simple straight forward women vs men issue though she tries to make it appear so to offer lame excuses for her defeat.She was destined to lose because people were fed up of establishment and wanted ChANGE . She represented establishment and therefore had no chance .Trump was a rank outsider , not even a politician and thats the type of radical CHANGE that people wanted.
But is the situation better where women are already occupying number one spot?Are other women in the organization feel any better ? Or do woemn also credit the men in the organization than the women?Do the women feel comfortable with the credits,assignments,praise that they get ?
A more comprehensive study need be conducted to let the truth of the situation out.Women are jealous of other women and would rather favor men over women for no apparent reason, when the chips are down . Why so ?
Men can and is expected to let down women but women when they let down another woman she takes it bitterly because women are expected to be supportive of other women and hence when woman is perceived as letting down another woman then its taken to be unpardonable sin .
RHC case should not be mixed up with normal cases of women because of the complicated political overtones and undertones in RHC's case . Its not simple straight forward women vs men issue though she tries to make it appear so to offer lame excuses for her defeat.She was destined to lose because people were fed up of establishment and wanted ChANGE . She represented establishment and therefore had no chance .Trump was a rank outsider , not even a politician and thats the type of radical CHANGE that people wanted.
8
“She suggests withholding bonuses if leaders do not promote enough women or minorities and increasing bonuses if they do.”
That is exactly the reasoning that gave the nomination to Hillary in the first place. It was ‘their turn’. Thanks to that reasoning we now have Donald Trump as president.
Seems Hillary’s first and foremost message was the same as Chira’s, misogyny to blame for income disparity and her not becoming president.
Losers, man or woman, find excuses; winners say I won’t know till I try. I bet that’s the attitude of the 6% of Fortune 500 women CEO’s.
That is exactly the reasoning that gave the nomination to Hillary in the first place. It was ‘their turn’. Thanks to that reasoning we now have Donald Trump as president.
Seems Hillary’s first and foremost message was the same as Chira’s, misogyny to blame for income disparity and her not becoming president.
Losers, man or woman, find excuses; winners say I won’t know till I try. I bet that’s the attitude of the 6% of Fortune 500 women CEO’s.
15
No, we have DT for president because of a) angry white men and b) the electoral college. And yet, you blame women.
4
In our current largely unregulated capitalism, only the most psychopathic can make it to the top. If you're not willing to be a psychopath, don't even try to go there. If we had well-regulated capitalism, with punishment for those who endanger civil society, instead of outsize rewards, we would see more women running more civilized companies. Right now, anyone who has made it to the top echelons of a corporation ought literally to have their head examined, as by and large they pose a grave danger to democracy, civil society and the rule of law.
26
That's especially true when you look at the big salaries pulled down every year. The monies and perks have reached obscene levels.
I'm a man, and I voted for Clinton because she would have done a much better job. I have two daughters, and I don't want anyone to restrict their choices in succeeding in any way that they want to succeed.
It's natural for women to want it all: financial power, titles, and to create new human beings, something that men cannot do.
The problem is that sexual dimorphism (physical, mental, emotional) exists. We would not be here if it didn't. Every person is different, but generally and sometimes in specific ways, women and men are different, and that is the way it is. Vive la difference!
This is the big problem: when women see a disparity between men and women, e.g., there are more men than women CEOs, or there are more men than women who are software engineers, women are quick to claim victimhood and say it's the fault of the men and that therefore the men have to do something different. Being women, they have huge power in more subtle ways than men, so they usually get their way.
But, what I see is people making free choices. Fewer women than men choose to be software engineers, for example. It's nobody's fault, it's just individual people choosing differently.
I don't see an easy solution to this problem, but I do wish that women (generally) would stop crying "victim" and setting up the men generally as the bad people.
It's natural for women to want it all: financial power, titles, and to create new human beings, something that men cannot do.
The problem is that sexual dimorphism (physical, mental, emotional) exists. We would not be here if it didn't. Every person is different, but generally and sometimes in specific ways, women and men are different, and that is the way it is. Vive la difference!
This is the big problem: when women see a disparity between men and women, e.g., there are more men than women CEOs, or there are more men than women who are software engineers, women are quick to claim victimhood and say it's the fault of the men and that therefore the men have to do something different. Being women, they have huge power in more subtle ways than men, so they usually get their way.
But, what I see is people making free choices. Fewer women than men choose to be software engineers, for example. It's nobody's fault, it's just individual people choosing differently.
I don't see an easy solution to this problem, but I do wish that women (generally) would stop crying "victim" and setting up the men generally as the bad people.
21
I both agree and disagree with you. I do agree that there are real, inherent differences between men and women that should not be ignored. But I think you missed what this article was saying - it's not a pipeline problem. Most people understand that a woman's career will have stops and starts if she chooses to have a family, and that many women deliberately seek out types of jobs that will be conducive to family planning (aka NOT corporate America). But this article is saying that those few women who do make the same free choices as men are facing other barriers.
One thing mentioned that specifically resonates is the lack of confidence women experience, and how other people (namely men) negatively view women who exhibit confidence or are more assertive. I don't believe this is an inherent trait difference between men and women, but rather societal conditioning. There are plenty of studies that show young girls who are originally interested in math and science being discouraged and losing confidence during puberty. Society expects boys to be aggressive, and girls to be nice. I think that these subliminal messages play a big part in how we act and perceive women in leadership and the corporate world.
Lastly, I don't think that acknowledging the real historical and cultural barriers that women have traditionally faced is claiming victimhood. I personally have never seen myself as a victim, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to what others have experienced.
One thing mentioned that specifically resonates is the lack of confidence women experience, and how other people (namely men) negatively view women who exhibit confidence or are more assertive. I don't believe this is an inherent trait difference between men and women, but rather societal conditioning. There are plenty of studies that show young girls who are originally interested in math and science being discouraged and losing confidence during puberty. Society expects boys to be aggressive, and girls to be nice. I think that these subliminal messages play a big part in how we act and perceive women in leadership and the corporate world.
Lastly, I don't think that acknowledging the real historical and cultural barriers that women have traditionally faced is claiming victimhood. I personally have never seen myself as a victim, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to what others have experienced.
5
"But, what I see is people making free choices. Fewer women than men choose to be software engineers, for example. It's nobody's fault, it's just individual people choosing differently."
This is where you're wrong. You assume without showing that all choices are "free choices" and that little things like societal factors and discrimination don't influence those choices. Did it ever occur to you that fewer women might choose to be software engineers because of the entrenched sexism in the profession? Come on. Or that a woman leaves her position on partner track at a law firm because the male managing partner propositions her over and over again? Is that her free choice? This is just weak thinking on your part.
And yet you feel free to lecture women on their logical reasoning.
This is where you're wrong. You assume without showing that all choices are "free choices" and that little things like societal factors and discrimination don't influence those choices. Did it ever occur to you that fewer women might choose to be software engineers because of the entrenched sexism in the profession? Come on. Or that a woman leaves her position on partner track at a law firm because the male managing partner propositions her over and over again? Is that her free choice? This is just weak thinking on your part.
And yet you feel free to lecture women on their logical reasoning.
3
"Being women, they have huge power in more subtle ways than men, so they usually get their way."
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think you understand the concept of power and who has it and doesn't.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think you understand the concept of power and who has it and doesn't.
5
The reasons that women are not making it as top executives, or even executives, are legion. Here are a few I've heard, or have had applied to me. 1) Might leave anytime on maternity leave, undependable 2) Tries to include themselves in conversations, interrupts others 3) Speaks out in meetings, pushy. 4) Difficulties with a few male employees who don't want to work for a woman, ineffective manager. 5) Discussing any of issues with their management, not a team player.
Affirmative Action covers some of overt and egregious discriminations, but doesn't do much for the most difficult, the covert discriminations that are most insidious and damaging over time.
Affirmative Action covers some of overt and egregious discriminations, but doesn't do much for the most difficult, the covert discriminations that are most insidious and damaging over time.
436
Does the maternity leave insanity stop after you turn 40?
Businesses don't care what your race or gender are any more than professional sports teams do. They only care if you can win.
8
Flaw in your reasoning: whether you are a man or a woman is something that 'businesses' consider when assessing whether you can win.
Logical reasoning 101, people!!
Logical reasoning 101, people!!
1
If professional sports teams had never cared about race, Satchel Paige would have been a major league star. Jackie Robinson's tenure on the Dodgers would have been smooth and easy. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge a similar resistance to integrating women into venues traditionally dominated by men?
Some years ago, when running a division with great results for the largest apparel corporation in the US at the time, I noticed the heads of the other divisions (all male) were VP's. Noting my division's growth, and knowing VP's were reward for what they produced, I went to my boss and told him I'd like to be included in the "club."
His answer: We need you here to be creative. Creative people don't get to run the business, or become VP's. I pointe out that I was, in fact, running the business extremely well.
Shortly thereafter, Ieft and started my own business, following a path of creative bliss and business success ever since. I never once looked back, except to view from a happy distance the misery, bloody warfare and casualties in that corporation, and its eventual demise.
Entrepreneurship is the way to go, not only for women. It is for anyone who wants to escape the corporate meat grinder and industrial time clock in favor of pursuing their core gifts and passion, and contribute to a world desperately in need of help and leadership.
Digital technologies and the new frontier of Exponential Online Business have provided the perfect environment for anyone with a talent, a message, a vision, and a wish to make a difference--in any field or industry.
The opportunities are limitless. Give up the crutch of the paycheck, ditch the nihilism of the corporate machine, and look out on the global vistas of exponential business.
SaneWorld.io
His answer: We need you here to be creative. Creative people don't get to run the business, or become VP's. I pointe out that I was, in fact, running the business extremely well.
Shortly thereafter, Ieft and started my own business, following a path of creative bliss and business success ever since. I never once looked back, except to view from a happy distance the misery, bloody warfare and casualties in that corporation, and its eventual demise.
Entrepreneurship is the way to go, not only for women. It is for anyone who wants to escape the corporate meat grinder and industrial time clock in favor of pursuing their core gifts and passion, and contribute to a world desperately in need of help and leadership.
Digital technologies and the new frontier of Exponential Online Business have provided the perfect environment for anyone with a talent, a message, a vision, and a wish to make a difference--in any field or industry.
The opportunities are limitless. Give up the crutch of the paycheck, ditch the nihilism of the corporate machine, and look out on the global vistas of exponential business.
SaneWorld.io
474
Thanks for your comment. This is an interesting issue that I didn't have room for in this article, but I agree that there several women have chosen the entrepreneurial path, where they feel they have more autonomy and control. Thanks for reading.
3
Thanks, Susan, for this excellent piece. Yes, it would be terrific to read your follow-up on the rise of entrepreneurship among women. The timing has never been more opportune, nor the potential greater. I'd love to see you do a series on this topic for The Times, and eventually a book. There are so many layers here to explore.
1
Pauline,
This is the answer for women. Well said. Reading the responses of trying to get along in the boys' club made me nauseous as a former secretary to these types.
Believe the best way for smart and talented women is to get off the corporate treadmill completely and create their own destiny outside of the patriarchal corporate world.
This is the answer for women. Well said. Reading the responses of trying to get along in the boys' club made me nauseous as a former secretary to these types.
Believe the best way for smart and talented women is to get off the corporate treadmill completely and create their own destiny outside of the patriarchal corporate world.
Mostly the same old information that brings up transgressions. American culture is competitive yet insecure.
4
I think we will fail as long as the only way for women to get to the top is to behave like men. The question is how to FORCE organizations - including businesses - to make the top of the company as comfortable for women as it is for men.
It would probably require huge pressure - boycotts, legal interventions, women banding together to make demands instead of requests.
Without such pressure it won't happen because the best women don't want to behave like men and the men will never let women in. Whether genetic or cultural, who knows - and frankly, who cares. The fact is, the world needs women (the female stereotype) at the top: People who lift all boats, put the greater good ahead of me me me, and rise by hard work and merit vs the current male stereotype - winning, greed, self-promotion, and unethical behavior as often as not.
Are women willing to fight such a transformative battle? I am not at all sure they even know they need to?
It would probably require huge pressure - boycotts, legal interventions, women banding together to make demands instead of requests.
Without such pressure it won't happen because the best women don't want to behave like men and the men will never let women in. Whether genetic or cultural, who knows - and frankly, who cares. The fact is, the world needs women (the female stereotype) at the top: People who lift all boats, put the greater good ahead of me me me, and rise by hard work and merit vs the current male stereotype - winning, greed, self-promotion, and unethical behavior as often as not.
Are women willing to fight such a transformative battle? I am not at all sure they even know they need to?
7
It was Christmas time in the mid-90s when this now retired secretary was asked to go to Saks and purchase as a gift some handkerchieves for a C.E.O. who was alone during the holiday. The irony of this gesture of good will was not lost, and I found myself looking instead at a small collection of Russian bobolinks on another floor. A small owl caught my fancy and was forwarded to the powerful business woman, honoring her wisdom.
"Well, at least We don't have Hillary' is the lament one hears in this neck-of-the-woods which I call the Land of Narnia in desolate winter. This from the male denizens and Mr. Badger, who did not vote, is the loudest in this lamentable refrain. None of us have met Mrs. Clinton, nor would we be able to understand that she is not 'The Enemy'.
We voted instead for 'Santa Claus', who promised us treats, and we are receiving coal lumps instead. When a gentle woman, looking slightly distraught, stopped and told me that she voted for Trump because she could not do 'otherwise', I remembered Silence is Golden, while she added that he thinks he is 'God'.
Misogyny? A temperamental friend, a brilliant engineer, let me hear about it all the way from Maryland. But then I had warned her awhile back that it was still a Man's World, but neither of us expected this in the Birth of our Nation.
"Well, at least We don't have Hillary' is the lament one hears in this neck-of-the-woods which I call the Land of Narnia in desolate winter. This from the male denizens and Mr. Badger, who did not vote, is the loudest in this lamentable refrain. None of us have met Mrs. Clinton, nor would we be able to understand that she is not 'The Enemy'.
We voted instead for 'Santa Claus', who promised us treats, and we are receiving coal lumps instead. When a gentle woman, looking slightly distraught, stopped and told me that she voted for Trump because she could not do 'otherwise', I remembered Silence is Golden, while she added that he thinks he is 'God'.
Misogyny? A temperamental friend, a brilliant engineer, let me hear about it all the way from Maryland. But then I had warned her awhile back that it was still a Man's World, but neither of us expected this in the Birth of our Nation.
11
"But she and other women describe a culture in which men sometimes feel hesitant to give women honest but harsh feedback, which can be necessary for them to ascend, because they fear women may react emotionally."
I hate to be the one to say it but this is a major fear for men in modern workplaces. Men can lose their job for a bad joke that a woman takes the wrong way if a complaint lands on the HR desk.
I hate to be the one to say it but this is a major fear for men in modern workplaces. Men can lose their job for a bad joke that a woman takes the wrong way if a complaint lands on the HR desk.
12
And rightly so.
What in the world does a bad joke have to do with feedback? Why are you cracking jokes while having performance improvement discussions? You should be able to give direct, clear and concise feedback to both men and women, without having to cushion your feedback in insecure wisecracks. Why is your instinct to link reactions to bad jokes (and to what you are implying, you actually mean offensive jokes--which, rightly, should be reported to HR) to "emotional reactions" when the actual paragraph is alluding to the misconception that women who receive harsh feedback will break down in tears?
The paragraph you quoted has literally nothing to do with your response, which says a lot about your response.
The paragraph you quoted has literally nothing to do with your response, which says a lot about your response.
3
Yes, Jason, men need to change their behavior to fit into a diverse work environment, just like women and minorities have always done.
3
Hillary Clinton is the most experienced and best-prepared woman ever to run for president, probably the most highly qualified and experienced woman politician ever in our history. She is a highly intelligent, articulate and caring individual. Who did we get? The least-qualified, know-nothing, self-absorbed male candidate. I think this says a lot about the deeply lodged misogyny in our society.
274
I'm glad to know I'm not alone in Columbus, OH in thinking that as well! We are now moving our country backwards instead of forward because of the deep-seated misogyny and sexism embedded in our culture.
6
My ex-husband was a partner and in leadership with a global firm. He rose quickly because of his success...but once he rose into C leadership the politics became ruthless. A warrior mentality seemed to take place to rise to the very few top positions. Some of the top leaders left because of the backstabbing and quiet murders of their reputations. I am sure women don't see this coming, as he didn't either. The ones with the most testosterone seemed to be most successful... just like on TV Think BILLIONS. Ruthless. Where I work now there are only white men as leaders. Women are not allowed to be alone with men at all. There is no way to personally get to know leadership, as a woman, and develop a relationship with the guys who are a club, at the top.
11
Good comment Lynn. I wasn't in a global firm nor am I am man but based on my decades in the work force, your comments are (tragically, painfully) spot-on.
I'd leave Mrs. Clinton out of it. She was her own worst enemy, and never put forth a vision that was authentic for leading the country. Of course, if she were Herbert Hoover or James Buchanan we'd probably go easier on her ....
10
Instead we get a bombastic TV reality show salesman who promised everything while lying through his teeth and is Making America Third-Rate Again. Yet millions of Trump supporters go along with the con because he is a white male and they want to believe that is what will make American great. To them, women should be subservient and secondary and domesticated, and not be capable of reaching their full potential. Sad.
4
Women don't WANT to play the "game"; they want to get things done well. And it is the men who lack genuine confidence; insecurity lies at the heart of all male undermining of women. Women should start their own businesses and leave the boys to play with themselves.
32
Looking at the amount of (lack of) comments makes it quite apparent that women as a group really are not suited for a top position in any company as very few either need or want to achieve success at such a high standard.
Maybe later...
Maybe later...
I will continue to await the article about female executives in which which women who've reported to them are interviewed. I've run into some women pretty vocal about their distaste for female bosses.
2
There are plenty, even more comments that could be made about the distaste for male bosses. Jerks come in all gender sizes.
3
Reading this article, I can agree it's a shame that more women are not at and near the top, but at the same time... Isn't that a credit to them? The way the male execs are depicted (and I bet, accuractely), they're malicious, irresponsible, corrupt people. So regardless of the background, I have to save bravo to any woman or man who _doesn't_ want to play that game in the end.
I could segue to a general indictment of a system in which the most venal are the most rewarded. But this article has already made that sale.
I could segue to a general indictment of a system in which the most venal are the most rewarded. But this article has already made that sale.
2
Although I'm a huge fan of Ms. Chira's writing, I find articles like this maddening. Asking the top tier of female talent why they didn't get the job is about as useful as getting advice from Ms. Sheryl Sandberg about leaning in - yes people love the book - but in order to lean in somebody with decision making authority has to actually care that you do. And therein lies the real problem. These women have the limited perspective of being at the top - so by definition their perspective and experiences along the way are so different than most professional women. I know many professional women striving to get to the top of their company or profession. But - as soon as that first baby comes your stock goes plummeting. Suddenly you go from the fun, "available" co-worker to that dowdy "mom" speeding toward becoming that "repulsive" Clinton-esque type. Unless your stock is already sky high when a woman has her first child, she will immediately find herself passed over for promotions, judged by a mom-standard - which means any minute out of the office is scrutinized and dismissed as divided loyalties between career and family. Nevermind that men are rarely viewed with the same suspicion - whether it's golf or drinks -that's on the approved "networking" use of time. What I can say is I know many ambitious, professional women desperate to be the #2, let alone the #1 - but the old boys club that is still firmly entrenched will never permit that to happen.
10
1. Please let failed candidate Clinton fade into
oblivion; if you don't, you're ensuring Donald Trump's reelection in 2020.
2. Why was there no mention of biological differences between men and women? Obviously testosterone, or lack thereof, makes women much less aggressive and competitive than men. The same chemical responsible for men committing a disproportionately high rate of crime also makes them competitive. Evolution has shaped one gender to go out and fight for supremacy, and the other one to nurture: no amount of socialization can overcome these basic differences shaped over millions of years. The sooner the Left stops denying science on this matter, the better.
3. Ironically, insisting that gender diversity will make businesses stronger is a tacit acknowledgment of the point above. If men are required to come up with products and services for men, and women are required to come up with products and services for women, then there is an implied difference in cogniition between the genders. Again, it would behoove the Left to openly acknowledge this fact, else they join the ranks of science deniers.
oblivion; if you don't, you're ensuring Donald Trump's reelection in 2020.
2. Why was there no mention of biological differences between men and women? Obviously testosterone, or lack thereof, makes women much less aggressive and competitive than men. The same chemical responsible for men committing a disproportionately high rate of crime also makes them competitive. Evolution has shaped one gender to go out and fight for supremacy, and the other one to nurture: no amount of socialization can overcome these basic differences shaped over millions of years. The sooner the Left stops denying science on this matter, the better.
3. Ironically, insisting that gender diversity will make businesses stronger is a tacit acknowledgment of the point above. If men are required to come up with products and services for men, and women are required to come up with products and services for women, then there is an implied difference in cogniition between the genders. Again, it would behoove the Left to openly acknowledge this fact, else they join the ranks of science deniers.
3
Amazing how patriarchal many of these comments are. It's probably why we don't see many Republican congresswomen in the House or Senate. We see politicians in other countries rise to prime minister or president yet in the US we seem to have to justify why women are biologically or psychologically not able to lead or manage.
Funny how Trump keeps bringing up Clinton when his failures are brought to light. Seems that Trump can't let go of Clinton; he wants to remind his supporters why they voted for him (i.e. misogyny) instead of the more qualified candidate. But hey, the swamp got drained and we got Mexico to pay for the wall and the ACA was repealed and replaced right? Still waiting for leadership from the White House instead of corruption and ineptitude. Too bad we couldn't fire the CEO before the probationary period was up.
Funny how Trump keeps bringing up Clinton when his failures are brought to light. Seems that Trump can't let go of Clinton; he wants to remind his supporters why they voted for him (i.e. misogyny) instead of the more qualified candidate. But hey, the swamp got drained and we got Mexico to pay for the wall and the ACA was repealed and replaced right? Still waiting for leadership from the White House instead of corruption and ineptitude. Too bad we couldn't fire the CEO before the probationary period was up.
3
I have done two studies on this prompted by an EU Directive which would mandate the representation of women on boards, described as 'A Toad We have to Swallow' by one German EU Parliament member, but still not law. The truth is that despite all our hard work women are treated badly in ways that we don't have the language to describe, because it is often not overt or shocking, but just an endless attrition from all sorts of places. It just seems easier to sideline a woman or dislike her or betray her. Who would have thought that a former First Lady and Senator could have been treated so disrespectfully in a supposedly civilized society?
37
Corporate structures are built in such a way that only a certain type of person can rise to the top. You must be a salesman, a self-promoter, very politically aware, and willing to sacrifice others for your career, both co-workers and family. You must have an abundant ego and an iron-clad belief in your own greatness. Almost no women meet this description, but it is important to remember that most men do not as well. The enemy here is not everyone with a Y chromosome, but rather a select group of (mostly) men who have the serious character and moral flaws needed to succeed in American business.
The real problem isn't women vs. men. The problem is one of corporate governance. Executives are so over-paid, decision-making power is so over-focused at the top, and popular perception is so influenced by CEO hero-worship, that the people who run American business are executives who are good at nothing other than Machiavellian greasy-pole climbing. The point is to get to the top, not to run the business well. That few women possess the moral and character deficiencies necessary to reach the top is to their credit. Those that make it to the top will eventually find themselves full of Macbethian anger, paranoia, and self-loathing. Does Trump look happy to you?
The real problem isn't women vs. men. The problem is one of corporate governance. Executives are so over-paid, decision-making power is so over-focused at the top, and popular perception is so influenced by CEO hero-worship, that the people who run American business are executives who are good at nothing other than Machiavellian greasy-pole climbing. The point is to get to the top, not to run the business well. That few women possess the moral and character deficiencies necessary to reach the top is to their credit. Those that make it to the top will eventually find themselves full of Macbethian anger, paranoia, and self-loathing. Does Trump look happy to you?
35
I am sad to report that the discrimination outlined in this article works both ways. In my highly selective and competitive professional federal government environment, some women who are in positions of power (and there are many, and rightfully so) discriminate against men and keep us from rising to the top because we are white males. These women have struggled to rise to the top and once there, do everything in their power to ensure that females rising through the ranks are advanced before men.
The organization is worse off because of this policy, which rewards gender over competence, maturity and experience.
NYT readers may be amused to learn that the white male executives who are peers to these women in senior management are terrified to say anything, lest they be slammed with an EEO complaint.
Being a white male may be advantageous in the private sector, but not in the USG. Unless you happen to be a friend of our "president."
The organization is worse off because of this policy, which rewards gender over competence, maturity and experience.
NYT readers may be amused to learn that the white male executives who are peers to these women in senior management are terrified to say anything, lest they be slammed with an EEO complaint.
Being a white male may be advantageous in the private sector, but not in the USG. Unless you happen to be a friend of our "president."
1
Let's bottom line it here. There are two things to watch out for.
Ugly sexual harassment/discrimination has been outlawed and largely wiped out post 1980. However one should always be watchful because it rears its ugly head frequently as evidenced by the FOX News scandal.
Equally as damaging is the notion since I am a woman and a protected class, I demand 50% of all the top jobs in the country whether I am qualified for them or not.
Hillary took the latter position and help give us the demagogue Trump.
Ugly sexual harassment/discrimination has been outlawed and largely wiped out post 1980. However one should always be watchful because it rears its ugly head frequently as evidenced by the FOX News scandal.
Equally as damaging is the notion since I am a woman and a protected class, I demand 50% of all the top jobs in the country whether I am qualified for them or not.
Hillary took the latter position and help give us the demagogue Trump.
2
Many years ago I worked at a famous corporation known for its cutthroat office culture. There were a total of three women in higher positions - everyone else was a man (white men, to be exact). I was groomed to rise but as I looked around it became abundantly clear that women were there mostly because we worked ten times harder than men for 1/3 less money. The men would go on three-hour lunches while the women sat at their desks slaving away to "prove" their worthiness. Rather than becoming an overworked, underpaid tool, I left.
If American women want a seat at the table, they need to abandon these male-corporate structures and create their own companies. From what I saw, if women left, many corporations would end up in serious financial trouble because men left to their own devices rarely think about the effects of their actions on society (or even their own companies).
An interesting side-note: the only bank that didn't go belly-up in Iceland after the financial crisis was a bank run by women. American women should follow their nordic sisters and stop acting like corporate tools of (white) male privilege. It would take little for American women to create companies which out performed the towers of dysfunction created by (white) men. Stop wasting time worrying about whether you are "liked" or being too "aggressive". Better to start your own ventures and leave the (white) men to their golf games and cannibalism.
If American women want a seat at the table, they need to abandon these male-corporate structures and create their own companies. From what I saw, if women left, many corporations would end up in serious financial trouble because men left to their own devices rarely think about the effects of their actions on society (or even their own companies).
An interesting side-note: the only bank that didn't go belly-up in Iceland after the financial crisis was a bank run by women. American women should follow their nordic sisters and stop acting like corporate tools of (white) male privilege. It would take little for American women to create companies which out performed the towers of dysfunction created by (white) men. Stop wasting time worrying about whether you are "liked" or being too "aggressive". Better to start your own ventures and leave the (white) men to their golf games and cannibalism.
72
Yes, yes, yes!! Why are there not more majority-female investment banks, tech companies, entertainment companies, etc.? The intent behind these female-driven companies need not be hostile or anti-man. Rather, they could be filled with highly motivated, super smart women dedicated to helping other women, until there comes a time when women at the top are not perceived as a threat.
1
The problem with starting your own company is that like most men most women are not of that personality type, further because of the female bias the women who are of that type will find it much more difficult because needed financing is nearly all controlled by men. The bias 's can not be avoided. Its a fight everywhere.
Honestly, I find many women just as bad - the only time I filed an ethic complaint with my company was due to an abusive boss, who was a women - many aren't interested in promoting women. Pretty sad. Until all come together, then we'll never make it to where we want to be in the workplace.
1
Lord, grant me the confidence of the dude who claimed he was a breastfeeding "expert" after watching his wife do it for three months.
Thank you for an EXCELLENT, IMPORTANT, thoughtful and well-reported article.
Thank you for an EXCELLENT, IMPORTANT, thoughtful and well-reported article.
17
A perfect example of the "fake it until you make it" mentality we see these days. What a laugh!
...grant me the confidence of the dude who claimed he was a breastfeeding "expert" after watching his wife do it for three months...
--------- i would've raised my hand, too, and i never had a wife who was breastfeeding . . .
--------- i would've raised my hand, too, and i never had a wife who was breastfeeding . . .
1
The top is still a good ole boy society. There's a lot of men in executive positions that are far from innovative. They make it to the top merely because they are the best politician.
1
This is a fascinating article and I enjoyed all of the insight from the interviews. I understand the thesis is that subtle biases and implicit gender expectations plays a role in women not making it to the very top, but I also wish that larger structural issues had been addressed more in full. The fact that women still are expected to do the majority of housework and childcare, coupled with the US's atrocious dearth of affordable child care and paid maternity/paternity leave plays a huge role in so many women just dropping out of the workforce or staying in a position that may be lower-paying but gives more flexibility.
That being said, expectations can be crushing. My husband works a well-paying blue collar job and I am a teacher with a masters degree who makes more than him after taxes. Although I had to work incredibly hard to get my current position, the overwhelming expectation of people in my community is that I will have babies and stay home while my husband works. Questions at parties to him are "How's work?" and "When are you having kids?" to me. Once my husband (who is lovely and very supportive of my career and education) mentioned that he cooked dinner that evening, and everyone was telling me how lucky I was that my husband both worked and cooked sometimes. I was infuriated--I work, cook, and clean everyday; where is my medal? But that is just expected.
That being said, expectations can be crushing. My husband works a well-paying blue collar job and I am a teacher with a masters degree who makes more than him after taxes. Although I had to work incredibly hard to get my current position, the overwhelming expectation of people in my community is that I will have babies and stay home while my husband works. Questions at parties to him are "How's work?" and "When are you having kids?" to me. Once my husband (who is lovely and very supportive of my career and education) mentioned that he cooked dinner that evening, and everyone was telling me how lucky I was that my husband both worked and cooked sometimes. I was infuriated--I work, cook, and clean everyday; where is my medal? But that is just expected.
73
This is exactly what I have observed in both industry and academia. You think you are going to be promoted based on metrics, but in the end the top jobs go to those who are socially closest to male leaders. You are locked out of opportunities to be part of their circle because the male leaders may not feel comfortable socializing with you. Also, the wives of the male department heads/CEOs/presidents are more likely to view you with suspicion and exclude you from social events that they organize.
Another problem I faced was aggressive, behind-the-scenes lobbying against me by at least one male colleague, who felt threatened by my measured success. It was shocking to me to find out that this was going on. The person was unapologetic about using his membership in the same gender, ethnic, and religious class as our institution head to seek his own promotion at my expense.
I do know how to drink, schmooze and play sports with the guys. Interestingly my ability to do this has been helped by my willingness to jump on a plane for business: When you are traveling there are no wives around limiting access to the boss.
On the other hand, I am aware that there are also males that are not from the same elite social groups (e.g. minorities) and they often have the same problems as the women.
Another problem I faced was aggressive, behind-the-scenes lobbying against me by at least one male colleague, who felt threatened by my measured success. It was shocking to me to find out that this was going on. The person was unapologetic about using his membership in the same gender, ethnic, and religious class as our institution head to seek his own promotion at my expense.
I do know how to drink, schmooze and play sports with the guys. Interestingly my ability to do this has been helped by my willingness to jump on a plane for business: When you are traveling there are no wives around limiting access to the boss.
On the other hand, I am aware that there are also males that are not from the same elite social groups (e.g. minorities) and they often have the same problems as the women.
524
Interesting perspective on the role of wives limiting socialization and therefore access to male upper management. That plus fear of harassment related accusations creates another dynamic that females must navigate. An irony of women protecting their assets (income source) and the rightful protection from harassment creating limitations for upwardly striving women.
There's an interesting subtext hiding in this conversation about women CEOs. Boards of directors pick CEOs, and the notion that anyone besides them can tell them who they should or should not pick is a sea change. They pick who they pick for their reasons, and the rest of us can live with it whether we like it or not. Now people are suggesting that perhaps we should impose some rules on them, or at least influence them to do something else. This is new.
Their resistance might be based on principle as much as sexism. I can only speculate because I've never been near that level of decision making.
Their resistance might be based on principle as much as sexism. I can only speculate because I've never been near that level of decision making.
2
In dropping out, you just get so tired of proving you deserve to be in the room. A man at the same level is assured that he belongs in the conference room; he has to prove his incompetence. For women, it's that first look of surprise that she said something meaningful--every meeting -- that wears you down.
And, standing your ground, being forceful--while expected of men, is often startling and resented in women.
WRT Hillary, every time she walked into the room she had to prove she knew what she was talking about. The legacy in her campaign was of voluminous papers, studies, plans that encompassed deep consideration of national problems (but were not pithy, witty or insultingly entertaining as Trump's know-nothingness was.)
Trump, on the other hand, parlayed his inherited wealth and bombast into a facade of successful businessman. Yes, he is successful, but not in the way we wish our nation to be: using bankruptcies, law suits and stiffing contractors. It's hard to see a woman winning with Trump's campaign tactics: she would be so belligerently "in everyone's face" and going against every gender stereotype that the outrage from both allies and foes would kill the campaign early on.
And, standing your ground, being forceful--while expected of men, is often startling and resented in women.
WRT Hillary, every time she walked into the room she had to prove she knew what she was talking about. The legacy in her campaign was of voluminous papers, studies, plans that encompassed deep consideration of national problems (but were not pithy, witty or insultingly entertaining as Trump's know-nothingness was.)
Trump, on the other hand, parlayed his inherited wealth and bombast into a facade of successful businessman. Yes, he is successful, but not in the way we wish our nation to be: using bankruptcies, law suits and stiffing contractors. It's hard to see a woman winning with Trump's campaign tactics: she would be so belligerently "in everyone's face" and going against every gender stereotype that the outrage from both allies and foes would kill the campaign early on.
44
Follow the money: Trump's acclaimed success is likely highly leveraged with loans and debts. His son-in-law also appears to be leveraged with debts and anxious to secure more money from Russian banks and Middle East businessmen. Trump's Qatar blockage may have been timed to put pressure on the Quatar billionaire Kushner had tapped for a loan--who turned him down.
I recall having to talk over men when I was interrupted in boardroom meetings. I felt I had an advantage, being from New York where speaking up is in the DNA, over the men in California who were taken aback by what they called my "strong voice."
Women in the corporate world cannot be afraid to use their strong voices. Our current senator, Kamela Harris, is a wonderful role model. Men might resent her, but she's getting the job done. Speaking up is not a gender specific privilege, but a human right for all.
Women in the corporate world cannot be afraid to use their strong voices. Our current senator, Kamela Harris, is a wonderful role model. Men might resent her, but she's getting the job done. Speaking up is not a gender specific privilege, but a human right for all.
12
As in life, I'm not sure why the answer has to be that women should act more like men. Why is the corporate world allowed to be an amoral world of self-advancement at any price (dodgeball)? Companies need to figure out that ultimately this mindset of individual self-promotion is harming their growth, not helping.
12
To the women who want the #1 job, I say rise higher in the Education Sector. Get higher degrees, and have the goal of finishing School completely (there are 52 Grades). It takes more than bonus restrictions for change. Usually, it has to be Top/Down. Higher Education works all the time. A powerful advantage that helps the person rise even higher than the Fortune 500. Go higher, there is room at The Top Level! I know.
1
Ah yes, excel in the "helping profession" of education rather than in the world of business. I entered college in the early 60s and was told by my physician father that I shouldn't pursue a career in medicine because I was taking up a "man's place." I felt that my only option was to go into education or nursing. I lasted five years in the classroom and didn't like it. Almost by accident, I ended up in the very competitive world of healthcare fundraising for the next 35 years, but sometimes wondered how I would have fared in the business world.
3
Christine--- "helping profession?"--- The Top Level of the Higher Education Sector, is also the Top Level of the BusinessWorld. The most educated, are the most powerful in the BusinessWorld. My Graduate Education: JD, Masters, Ph.D, Post Doctorate. Also, IQ Testing is involved as Grades are completed. The Top Jobs require education achievement. There is no "rather than". The Private Sector leads, and the Top Job in the BusinessWorld is above these Fortune 500 CEO jobs, also the government job of USA Presidency. I don't think you should have listened to your Father. I didn't listen to my Parents. Star Professors were my role models. Anyway, it is never too late.... but, you can wait until some changes are made to The Curriculum. (smile).
1
This article resonates with me. I couldn't agree more with its findings. I work in a government office where diversity is supposedly a consideration but is gamed by the male boys club. How the men manipulate it is to push a few of us women to just high enough to fill the "professional " category. Box checked. Then marginalize us and promise us a career of no growth. Door closed. The only option is to move on. Cycle continues. Hard to see how to end this. No matter your talent, abilities, hard work, this appears to be the end game. A sad commentary in 2017. I work in a STEM field and honestly wouldn't recommend a female to enter these male dominated industries unless they give women a champion to help them navigate through. Wish I had one.....
431
Last year I attended an event at the OCC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, in DC. I was stunned to see that there were so many senior women between the ages of 50 and 65 in this government agency.
There would never be that many middle-aged women in a regular private company. Why? Because government agencies just can't run you off because you're middle-aged.
In the private business, they run women off after they are no longer young and pliable. They don't fire you, per se. They have no interest in what you can offer because you remind them of their wives or their mothers. No matter how much you smile and make every pronouncement positive, no matter how smart and well-maintained you are, you're out. If you try to change jobs, you have no chance of being hired.
There is rampant age discrimination in American business -- both in the hiring process and in the involvement of women over 50 in the workforce. It's soul crushing.
And yet all we hear is how the middle-aged coal miners have gotten a raw deal and we need to do everything we can to help them. If you want to get stuff done, I strongly suggest hiring older women. We get it done.
~
There would never be that many middle-aged women in a regular private company. Why? Because government agencies just can't run you off because you're middle-aged.
In the private business, they run women off after they are no longer young and pliable. They don't fire you, per se. They have no interest in what you can offer because you remind them of their wives or their mothers. No matter how much you smile and make every pronouncement positive, no matter how smart and well-maintained you are, you're out. If you try to change jobs, you have no chance of being hired.
There is rampant age discrimination in American business -- both in the hiring process and in the involvement of women over 50 in the workforce. It's soul crushing.
And yet all we hear is how the middle-aged coal miners have gotten a raw deal and we need to do everything we can to help them. If you want to get stuff done, I strongly suggest hiring older women. We get it done.
~
I did volunteer work for the Democratic party last fall & the misogyny and viscious remarks hurled our way at the fall festivals and family events were stomach-turning. HRC was hands-down the smartest, strongest, most experienced candidate. But the women-haters were out in force to have their pretend 'target practice' at our posters and plant fear at many events. It was an eye-opener after years of military service with women & minorities in leadership positions and yes, a few times, Hillary sharing the tarmac with us, logging her thousands of miles as SECSTATE, tirelessly working. I scarcely recognized my own country last fall and even now find it difficult to believe that this 'unfit for duty' male now heads this nation. So this fight will move forward and yes, we shall persist and prevail.
55
I grew up with the "go girl" attitude. But why do people want this? Are women in the executive suite happy? It doesn't look like any fun. Does it really matter whether some car executive is male or female?
Watching my daughter, and thinking back on my own teenage years, I feel like teachers, parents and schools routinely lie to girls and obscure the truth. It's always "you can do anything." Really? Probably not. You're dealt your cards and you play them as best you can. I wanted, as a teen, to have a secure, safe and enjoyable life -- and I want that for my daughter. That doesn't mean I have a duty to strike a blow for women's equality at the cost of constant struggle.
I think men do like women, on the whole, and want women to do well. But I also think on an individual level men are highly motivated to out compete women. I think they feel "unmanned" if a woman does better than them. Yes, that can make it hard for very ambitious women. Although this is not a pressing problem for 99% of women, who are mostly teachers, assistants, waitresses, housewives, and so on.
Some of Chira's points are also entirely misdirection. Maybe executive women don't feel confident in their breast feeding expertise because they didn't do it for very long compared to other women. I can tell you I feel like an expert in it but I did it for three years! Also, Hilary Clinton's loss shouldn't be constantly taken for evidence of misogyny. She's simply not a very likeable person.
Watching my daughter, and thinking back on my own teenage years, I feel like teachers, parents and schools routinely lie to girls and obscure the truth. It's always "you can do anything." Really? Probably not. You're dealt your cards and you play them as best you can. I wanted, as a teen, to have a secure, safe and enjoyable life -- and I want that for my daughter. That doesn't mean I have a duty to strike a blow for women's equality at the cost of constant struggle.
I think men do like women, on the whole, and want women to do well. But I also think on an individual level men are highly motivated to out compete women. I think they feel "unmanned" if a woman does better than them. Yes, that can make it hard for very ambitious women. Although this is not a pressing problem for 99% of women, who are mostly teachers, assistants, waitresses, housewives, and so on.
Some of Chira's points are also entirely misdirection. Maybe executive women don't feel confident in their breast feeding expertise because they didn't do it for very long compared to other women. I can tell you I feel like an expert in it but I did it for three years! Also, Hilary Clinton's loss shouldn't be constantly taken for evidence of misogyny. She's simply not a very likeable person.
7
"She's simply not a very likeable person."
Why not? No one has provided a satisfactory answer to this question.
Is DT likeable?
Why not? No one has provided a satisfactory answer to this question.
Is DT likeable?
3
Hey C's Daughter,
DT is not likeable either. If I were American I would have voted for Hilary hands down. But I despised her, and I don't usually have that kind of reaction to people. I really objected to the way she treated Monica Lewinsky. I understand a man having an affair -- but both Clintons really threw Monica under the bus, and she was a young, vulnerable woman! I remember it so clearly.
On that note, I've also read that generally speaking being in politics a long time before running can actually hinder a candidate because all candidates have to weather scandals and time just gives people more reasons to dislike them. I think what happened with Hilary is that she gave a lot of people a reason to stay home.
DT is not likeable either. If I were American I would have voted for Hilary hands down. But I despised her, and I don't usually have that kind of reaction to people. I really objected to the way she treated Monica Lewinsky. I understand a man having an affair -- but both Clintons really threw Monica under the bus, and she was a young, vulnerable woman! I remember it so clearly.
On that note, I've also read that generally speaking being in politics a long time before running can actually hinder a candidate because all candidates have to weather scandals and time just gives people more reasons to dislike them. I think what happened with Hilary is that she gave a lot of people a reason to stay home.
1
I find her very likable. It rankles me to no end to hear people constantly repeat that she's "unlikable" and they can't really put their finger on why (hint hint it's gender bias).
They think this woman is unlikable in contrast to that unhinged man who literally admitted to sexually assaulting women and routinely says racist and bigoted things. But oh no, Hillary is "shrill" and her husband had an affair. What a despicable, detestable, nasty woman.
They think this woman is unlikable in contrast to that unhinged man who literally admitted to sexually assaulting women and routinely says racist and bigoted things. But oh no, Hillary is "shrill" and her husband had an affair. What a despicable, detestable, nasty woman.
2
And let's not forget the number of women who voted for Trump, or against Hilary!
Plenty of women have internalized the misogynist attitudes of so many men. And this includes the hatred of women who don't, for whatever reason, have children.
Plenty of women have internalized the misogynist attitudes of so many men. And this includes the hatred of women who don't, for whatever reason, have children.
8
It is completely false that this is mostly a problem at the top. I've always been the only woman in the many software development groups I've worked in and isolation, belittlement, hostility, and worse, towards women are commonplace at all levels.
The women who experience it only towards the top have both been lucky and probably fit the extra requirements for women better in certain ways: wearing makeup, being attractive, being married. All of those are things without which you reap even greater levels of hostility from men.
These issues apply at ALL levels.
The women who experience it only towards the top have both been lucky and probably fit the extra requirements for women better in certain ways: wearing makeup, being attractive, being married. All of those are things without which you reap even greater levels of hostility from men.
These issues apply at ALL levels.
1064
I actually disagree on the attractiveness, makeup and marriage part. In my experience in finance, these things can all work against you. If you are attractive and well dressed, you're perceived as likely stupid because how common are beautiful and smart women? I actually had a mentor prep people in a team before I joined that "she isn't what she looks like, don't judge - she's actually super smart". Same deal with makeup...you don't want to look high maintenance or too pretty. Marriage means "oh now she's going to have a baby, better not promote her". I've seen this play out time and time again.
96
I agree with the first part of your statement. I have my B.S. in Computer Science and, like you, have always been the target of harassment from my male colleagues. I disagree that their teflon shield against workplace sexism has anything to do with the reasons you mention. They were harassed and knew how to play the game like both of us had to. They were simply better at winning at the game... smarter and more cunning than you and me. They excelled quickly because of that alone They met their match at the top and could not outplay any longer. They finally lost. It hurts to lose and now the author is jumping on the I was a victim of sexism bankwagon. Something has to be done? Give me a break.
I think some of the answer is right in your post. If the candidate pool is narrow to start it makes it harder. The race to the top needs to be corrected at the start not the end.
Why is the push constantly to have more gender equality and diversity rather than simply better lives for all employees? Would it make more difference to our world if employers were encouraged to hire permanent employees rather than contract workers? Encouraged to take better care of their employees?
Why the focus on very successful women? Helping regular people achieve secure livelihoods seems a better goal than worrying about the most privileged people self-actualizing their highest ambitions. Will having more women CEOs change anything about our world? Women don't seem so different than men that they would create a better world.
Why the focus on very successful women? Helping regular people achieve secure livelihoods seems a better goal than worrying about the most privileged people self-actualizing their highest ambitions. Will having more women CEOs change anything about our world? Women don't seem so different than men that they would create a better world.
9
I work in a university where 6 of the 10 the top earners are men in sports who haven't won anything to brag about in the past decade. they are kept there by a male president and board of trustees made up of, primarily, other men. the two top female earners have learned to mind their business and not draw attention to sexism in the workplace, despite their statements to the contrary. (we have some spectacular wins in at least one women's sport and many academic areas, but those successes are not reflected in high wages) i hope it is a generational thing, but as this article and other evidence shows, this sort of deep sexism gets reproduced in the next generation, and women at the top are part of the problem. but they did not generate the problem. men did and continue to do.
13
Do men's sports bring in more money? It is about money.
1
I think this goes beyond just men reacting to powerful women but women's reaction to them as well. Let's not forget how many women voted for Trump. I'd like to know the author's thoughts on this because until we need to understand this in order to move forward for women.
My feeling is that there is already a subtle understanding that women are here to serve, be helpful, cheerful and supportive and anyone who challenges that is punished and judged.
My feeling is that there is already a subtle understanding that women are here to serve, be helpful, cheerful and supportive and anyone who challenges that is punished and judged.
26
Dear God. Leave Trump out of it. It's clear to those who voted for him that most have no clue about Trump's supporters.
3
I suspect that anyone who isn't a member of the king's (or queen's) inner court is here to serve. If the barrier were to disappear tomorrow and women were to make up 50% of the CEOs, the rest of us wouldn't notice a bit of difference, regardless of whether we were men or women.
3
For all the progress we've made, women are still treated as guests in a man's world. The more enlightened men treat us as welcome guests, but guests nevertheless. The presumption is that the way men play the game is the way the game is supposed to be played. That's the fundamental fact captured in this piece.
62
Ding ding ding! You nailed it. The question is about sex in this round, but in the larger context, it's about who decides how the game is played. Once that camel gets its nose under the tent, their power is diluted and others have a voice in these critical decisions. They're not going to surrender that without a fight.
The owner of the company gets to decide how the game is played. Women can agree to play by the rules or go start their own game and implement whatever rules they would like. Let the market decide which game and which set of rules should predominate.
Susan Chira’s excellent piece is timely and insightful.
Misogyny became far more visible, aggressive and acceptable during Trump’s campaign. Since his win, my friends and I have had many discussions about the entrenchment of it in society. Why are women are held down by almost every world culture? Why is our power and potential power so feared?
Yesterday, the Times published an excellent Op-Ed piece by Thomas B. Edsall called “How Fear of Falling Explains the Love of Trump.” Reading it helped me understand the anger and resentment uneducated men have toward Hillary, which led to their horrifying calls for her imprisonment and death during the Trump campaign.
After reading Ms. Chira’s article, I wondered if the fear experienced by men lower on the employment ladder also explains the reluctance of men at the top to provide more leadership opportunities to their female peers. As long as they keep women down, they cannot be outshined, outnumbered or fired.
This is a link to Mr. Edsall’s article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/opinion/how-fear-of-falling-explains-...
Misogyny became far more visible, aggressive and acceptable during Trump’s campaign. Since his win, my friends and I have had many discussions about the entrenchment of it in society. Why are women are held down by almost every world culture? Why is our power and potential power so feared?
Yesterday, the Times published an excellent Op-Ed piece by Thomas B. Edsall called “How Fear of Falling Explains the Love of Trump.” Reading it helped me understand the anger and resentment uneducated men have toward Hillary, which led to their horrifying calls for her imprisonment and death during the Trump campaign.
After reading Ms. Chira’s article, I wondered if the fear experienced by men lower on the employment ladder also explains the reluctance of men at the top to provide more leadership opportunities to their female peers. As long as they keep women down, they cannot be outshined, outnumbered or fired.
This is a link to Mr. Edsall’s article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/opinion/how-fear-of-falling-explains-...
26
The Edsall article is outstanding.
Identity seems to be the key. If we get our identity from being better than or top in a pecking order, there has to be someone we stand on. Ladders and lines are metaphors.
No cutting in line. Going up and not down the ladder.
In a competitive worldview. Eliminating groups from being competitive makes sense. This may be the reason some want to eliminate public education, health care, etc. Remove people who will compete with me or my children.
Identity seems to be the key. If we get our identity from being better than or top in a pecking order, there has to be someone we stand on. Ladders and lines are metaphors.
No cutting in line. Going up and not down the ladder.
In a competitive worldview. Eliminating groups from being competitive makes sense. This may be the reason some want to eliminate public education, health care, etc. Remove people who will compete with me or my children.
2
As a woman who is a scientist and CEO, I learned that it is crucial to think like a man. When men compete with men, in general, the alpha male delegates responsibilities to his competitors who then support the alpha male and vice versa, forming a pyramid. When women compete with women, in general, the rule is "winner take all," no pyramid, no support from above or below. When women compete with men in a man's game, women must learn to play by men's rules if women want to win in that game.
14
I have had male and female bosses. I haven't noticed women having better ideas than men. The most successful of the women are hard edged and don't listen to anyone but more highly placed men, probably smart. Many men are the same. The most insightful of the men were not born in America.
5
Behind this article is the assumption that being a CEO is, at least nominally, a good thing. But the current structure of CEO pay and of the market means that if you care about equality, or justice, or roughly equal pay for equal work, you really don't want to be a CEO. If you're a feminist, being a CEO ought to be a bad match, since feminism isn't (I don't think) about adding to income inequality, firing breadwinners or moving jobs overseas.
10
Feminism is about equal opportunity and the fact that so few women's are CEOs points to the lack of that. Perhaps the corporate structure increases the income inequality because so few women are leading. Regardless of the morality of becoming a CEO, we must hold fast to the belief that no one should be discriminated and put down by a single class of people (white men) to do so.
6
Sanjana Says:
I would say, in reality, feminism is less about equality of opportunity and more about equality of ability. By ability, I don't mean professional competence (ex., technical skills). They clearly have that. I mean the skills necessary to compete with men for the top spots. I believe if they don't have these skills yet, they are more than capable of developing them.
They just have to figure out that last frontier. It's an entirely different game. They must be driven to win. It takes a certain type of person. To expect the environment to change to accommodate different personality types is unrealistic, in my view.
They're so close.
I would say, in reality, feminism is less about equality of opportunity and more about equality of ability. By ability, I don't mean professional competence (ex., technical skills). They clearly have that. I mean the skills necessary to compete with men for the top spots. I believe if they don't have these skills yet, they are more than capable of developing them.
They just have to figure out that last frontier. It's an entirely different game. They must be driven to win. It takes a certain type of person. To expect the environment to change to accommodate different personality types is unrealistic, in my view.
They're so close.
2
Give the current atmosphere, anyone who aspires to that level of play and has egalitarian aspirations would have to hide it. I suspect that candidates are vetted as they climb the ladder, and any perceived disloyalty to the class above you gets you stopped cold - man or woman. Women or men who don't support the current income inequality would have to either hide it or spin it as a business proposition: if we level the field, it will increase our bottom line. That position would be a long shot at best, decreasing the already long odds of becoming CEO.
1
"Most women are not socialized to be unapologetically competitive."
I know many women, and some men, who are self-employed and prefer to be in a non-competitive, collaborative environment: Peers aren't seen as threats but as colleagues who will send you work even as you send them work, exchange insights with you, and partner with you so there's more for everyone. Recently, a man I helped out when his business was in a lull came to me to say he was doing very well and wanted to let me know what was working for him; he asked how I was doing and whether he could help me out. That's the norm in my work. Strange though it may seem, there are people who have a collaborative, cocreative mindset, for whom "competition" is a rare afterthought. What if more people in business thought that way?
I know many women, and some men, who are self-employed and prefer to be in a non-competitive, collaborative environment: Peers aren't seen as threats but as colleagues who will send you work even as you send them work, exchange insights with you, and partner with you so there's more for everyone. Recently, a man I helped out when his business was in a lull came to me to say he was doing very well and wanted to let me know what was working for him; he asked how I was doing and whether he could help me out. That's the norm in my work. Strange though it may seem, there are people who have a collaborative, cocreative mindset, for whom "competition" is a rare afterthought. What if more people in business thought that way?
89
This is the model of the future and is needed for sustainability.
This article makes many good points but to start and end the article with Hillary Clinton is unfortunate. Not because she failed to get the highest position in the land, and perhaps the world, but because the issues leading to her defeat were complex and the stronger reasons were that she was not a good or right candidate. Any woman failing to advance does not make gender the key or only issue. The institutional biases are real and the path up may be difficult. Why not frame the article with the insights of a female success?
20
In what way does vanquishing your primary opponent by 4 million votes, and winning the popular vote by 3 million votes in the general election, and getting more votes than any white man ever, add up to not being a good or strong candidate?
You have just perfectly illustrated the premise of this piece. Women have to do twice as much to be considered half as good. And even then, we're not "likeable."
You have just perfectly illustrated the premise of this piece. Women have to do twice as much to be considered half as good. And even then, we're not "likeable."
281
Lisa:
Getting more votes in California and New York is a losing strategy. She should have gone to those places in the great "in-between" and didn't. Her strategy failed. She failed.
She is also quite morally challenged to be held up as a feminist icon. Ironically, in her pursuit of Bill's victims (she did, after all, create a "War Room"), she was every bit as male as the worst of them.
Getting more votes in California and New York is a losing strategy. She should have gone to those places in the great "in-between" and didn't. Her strategy failed. She failed.
She is also quite morally challenged to be held up as a feminist icon. Ironically, in her pursuit of Bill's victims (she did, after all, create a "War Room"), she was every bit as male as the worst of them.
5
You forgot Russian interference with our election.
7
For over thirty years, I worked at a company that aggressively promoted women and minorities - in fact, for over a decade the CEO was a minority female, and currently a significant number of the senior vice-presidents and general mangers are women. Although I have not kept detailed records, I would estimate that approximately 65 to 75 percent of these women were clearly deserving of promotion, extremely competent and very successful; however, the other 25 percent were promoted primarily to satisfy affirmative action "goals" were not qualified, performed poorly, and as a result, eventually had to be "moved aside." In almost all of these latter cases, the women who were promoted were significantly less qualified than male candidates for these upper level management positions; consequently, the careers of many of these men were either cut short or essentially ruined. I believe that we should aggressively seek out the most qualified individuals for upper level management positions regardless of their gender.
10
But how many men, over the history of our society, have been promoted over women simply because they're part of the boys' club, and were not qualified and performed poorly? I'd have to say far more than your 25% example. The point of this article is that too many qualified women are at an institutional disadvantage in the highest ranks because of their gender. It's very easy to say that we should seek out the most qualified individuals--but as pointed out in the article, equally (or more) competent women are often viewed as less qualified than their male counterparts. The issue goes deeper than I think you'd like to believe.
45
I've repeatedly heard these arguments, but I worked in companies that had Federal contracts, and the pressure to promote women was unrelenting, and the members of the old boys's club were forced to accept affirmative action "goals." I understand your statement that women are often viewed as less qualified, and that may be true, but a significant number of the promoted women "adopted" stereotyped aggressive male behavior pattern mistakenly believing that if you want to move up you have to be really tough and sometimes nasty.
There is always a percentage of people who are elevated higher than they ought to be because of nepotism and the like.
1
Thanks to Susan Chira and the NYT for this article. There are so many elements of inherent bias in 'the system' that inhibit women and minorities from reaching the top, that the authors could spend a lifetime identifying them. Probably most telling is Mrs. Clinton's comment at the end of the story about Donald Trump. We all have so many stories at every level in our careers of someone stopping or trying to stop our ascent and those efforts come from friends and family, 'supportive' colleagues at work, workplace policies that backfire, 'cultural norms', and more. My parents raised me to believe that with education and hard work, I could do whatever I wanted. Too bad nobody but me was listening.
31
A thoughtful analysis -- thank you! We men are used to using our traditional means of achieving promotion: including self-promotion, ambition, talent, and golf, to say nothing of maneuvering, sucking up, and then more golf. Women threaten the tradition as well as our 'manliness' -- and our ability (or our lust) to be Numero Uno. And I also believe that one of the biggest obstacles to women as CEOs is that primal need for a man not to be reporting to a woman, when at all possible. (See marriage as = to workplace.)
I applaud any and all efforts to upend that centuries-long 'tradition.' As a male in elementary education, now retired, I experienced just the most minor amount of what women must endure in the corporate world. But even then -- I was male and achieved administrator status more rapidly, I'm sure, because I was a 'guy.' I like to think I helped a few women also achieve their goals in advancing. But I could have done more. Men simply have to own up to their social-cultural status, face the kind of facts presented in this article, and get over their dodge-ball fetish and locker-room bonding as the gateway to major advancement.
I applaud any and all efforts to upend that centuries-long 'tradition.' As a male in elementary education, now retired, I experienced just the most minor amount of what women must endure in the corporate world. But even then -- I was male and achieved administrator status more rapidly, I'm sure, because I was a 'guy.' I like to think I helped a few women also achieve their goals in advancing. But I could have done more. Men simply have to own up to their social-cultural status, face the kind of facts presented in this article, and get over their dodge-ball fetish and locker-room bonding as the gateway to major advancement.
621
Not too late dude. I'm sure a lot of female educators would appreciate the support. Go for it.
The upper management in our local college is 90% "white" female and humanities faculties are 70% "white" female despite them making up 25% of the adult population. After talking to 2 people who work there, it seems the problems they face are not that different than the ones mentioned in the article.
1
I think you're right track to call out masculinit(ies). But there's nothing "primal" (i.e., natural) about it. Masculinity varies greatly across time and place. Thus, it can be changed. We need more attention on what men are doing and how they are constructing their sense of "being a man" and less on "why women aren't more confident." How are men--as they work to "be men"--creating environments that devalue and harm women. Why are women not as confident as men? Because we're undercut, underpaid, silenced, overlooked, held to high standards. . . of course that would result in less (relative) confidence. Any human being living under those conditions would react that way. It's not about men and women, per se (naturally), but about our experiences and expectations in this social world.
I've worked for a company whose female CEO ruled through fear and intimidation -- just like a man. A male colleague of mine was so fearful of being stuck in the elevator with her at a conference that he took 18 flights of stairs. "If you go into her office, don't sit down," recommended a colleague. "Answer he question and get the Hell out while you can!"
I've had female CFO clients who rose to CEO. Female CFO clients who swore like a sailor. I've had good and bad female bosses; just like I've had good and bad male bosses.
At the highest levels of organizations, the rule of large numbers does not apply. There are simply too many variables that determine who occupies the corner office to attribute success or failure to the single variable of sex.
I've had female CFO clients who rose to CEO. Female CFO clients who swore like a sailor. I've had good and bad female bosses; just like I've had good and bad male bosses.
At the highest levels of organizations, the rule of large numbers does not apply. There are simply too many variables that determine who occupies the corner office to attribute success or failure to the single variable of sex.
17
In a system built on inequality, I find it hard to feel sympathy for anyone in a position of power who is treated unfairly, no matter how obvious and egregious the bias.
5
Where are the examples of women taking a crappy company and making it great? Yahoo? General Motors? IBM? Not in my opinion. I think women are more maternal and should stay home and take care of the kids while the man goes to work in the cut-throat business world. Why would any woman want to get into that mess? It's not very much fun and leads to tons of stress. My advice? Be thankful for your little unimportant job and enjoy life.
4
"I think women are more maternal and should stay home and take care of the kids while the man goes to work in the cut-throat business world. Why would any woman want to get into that mess? It's not very much fun and leads to tons of stress. My advice? Be thankful for your little unimportant job and enjoy life."
Wait, I'm sorry, the other men commenting here are telling me that sexism is over and no longer plays a role in little things like hiring decisions or elections.
Hmm. I'd like to direct them to your comment.
Wait, I'm sorry, the other men commenting here are telling me that sexism is over and no longer plays a role in little things like hiring decisions or elections.
Hmm. I'd like to direct them to your comment.
4
Wow--Ayecaramba, your comment illustrates the misogynist attitudes still (unfortunately) rampant in our world. Your dismissive perspective shows why we need this article. I would suggest you read up on gender discrimination, but you won't even consider my advice, will you? After all, I am a woman. Sadly, several comments from men on this thread reek of male defensiveness and hostility. If someone wants a job, they should be able to go after it, no matter their gender. Female bosses can be just as good, or just as bad, as men.
1
Not an enlightening comment.
Those companies were in danger of failing before the women got those jobs.
Under whose leadership did the companies lose market share in the first place?
Under your premise the last one holding the bag is the one most at fault?
Grow up.
Those companies were in danger of failing before the women got those jobs.
Under whose leadership did the companies lose market share in the first place?
Under your premise the last one holding the bag is the one most at fault?
Grow up.
2
Agree that this is an enormously complex problem, and that sexism and the boys club plays a big part.
Having worked at several big corporations and seen the "boys club" in action (although not in the C-Suite levels), I can also add that there is a deep distrust of women in senior positions because there was a significant group of them who really weren't qualified or competent but achieved and kept those positions based on affirmative action.
True story: I was once hired into a group where, unsolicited, the senior executive I interviewed with openly admitted that my female boss was completely incompetent but that I could safely ignore her (and I can say confidently after working there - yes, she was totally incompetent). They subsequently hired a man to run the department, and she, disgruntled that she didn't get the job, started to openly undercut him constantly. He fired her without checking with his superior (the guy I had interviewed with who told me she was incompetent), and his superior was furious with him because she was the most senior female manager in the area and this made the stats look bad.
I think policies that help women get into the "boys club" are important, but I think they can backfire too. There's kind of an unspoken code among men when they start to work with a female manager - they all try to figure out if she's one of the good ones (which do exist), or part of the dead weight who are kept around to prop up statistics. That's why this is so hard.
Having worked at several big corporations and seen the "boys club" in action (although not in the C-Suite levels), I can also add that there is a deep distrust of women in senior positions because there was a significant group of them who really weren't qualified or competent but achieved and kept those positions based on affirmative action.
True story: I was once hired into a group where, unsolicited, the senior executive I interviewed with openly admitted that my female boss was completely incompetent but that I could safely ignore her (and I can say confidently after working there - yes, she was totally incompetent). They subsequently hired a man to run the department, and she, disgruntled that she didn't get the job, started to openly undercut him constantly. He fired her without checking with his superior (the guy I had interviewed with who told me she was incompetent), and his superior was furious with him because she was the most senior female manager in the area and this made the stats look bad.
I think policies that help women get into the "boys club" are important, but I think they can backfire too. There's kind of an unspoken code among men when they start to work with a female manager - they all try to figure out if she's one of the good ones (which do exist), or part of the dead weight who are kept around to prop up statistics. That's why this is so hard.
26
The problem with what you're saying, though, Kevin, is that "dead weight" managers and executives always exist. Rather than "affirmative action" or as I call it, honest efforts to increase diversity, men get promoted simply off of friendliness with the boss, still rather than actual ability to perform. There are, I'd wager, significantly more men who are dead weight, bad bosses- obviously because there are more male bosses.
The difference here is that- as you make crystal clear in your concluding comments- women face far more scrutiny over whether or not they're capable. Men are given the benefit of the doubt, until or even beyond the point where they make clear that they aren't right for the job. Women are scrutinized. There is no benefit of the doubt given. And thus, as the article says, they have to perform at twice the level- and make no mistakes- to be offered even close parity in recognition, awards, even respect by men like you.
Women (for that matter, minorities) are not asking to be diversity hires, we're asking to be treated the same. And you have made quite clear that you are one of the many men who remains resistant to that.
The difference here is that- as you make crystal clear in your concluding comments- women face far more scrutiny over whether or not they're capable. Men are given the benefit of the doubt, until or even beyond the point where they make clear that they aren't right for the job. Women are scrutinized. There is no benefit of the doubt given. And thus, as the article says, they have to perform at twice the level- and make no mistakes- to be offered even close parity in recognition, awards, even respect by men like you.
Women (for that matter, minorities) are not asking to be diversity hires, we're asking to be treated the same. And you have made quite clear that you are one of the many men who remains resistant to that.
190
Many incompetent men rise through the ranks too. I would argue that it's much easier for an incompetent man to be promoted than an incompetent woman.
90
I think in a way you have highlighted one of the points of this article. You are judging all female managers based on your experience with one when in reality all managers, regardless of gender, may by competent or incompetent. Personally, I've had more incompetent male managers than female managers in field where representation is fairly evenly split but I don't judge prematurely. To paraphrase Madeleine Albright: There seems to be a lot of space in this world for mediocre men, but not for mediocre women.
649
What was described in this article also happens to men who "don't play the game or hang in the right circles." It is about competition, not ability, and that is the culture that has to change. I believe I should be promoted for my ability and not my skill at competing-that is why I won't ever be promoted.
63
Let's acknowledge that there are very few males who rise to that level. At that stage, it's a very tough game. The Olympics of corporate America, where the Gold Medal is earned. Gender is just one of several traits that affects performance and determines the outcome.
The entire scene is unappealing to me, not as a woman but as a person, but to those who choose it, they need to figure out how to excel in it. Their choice.
The entire scene is unappealing to me, not as a woman but as a person, but to those who choose it, they need to figure out how to excel in it. Their choice.
1
Life and business is competition. You re in the wrong business is the reason you wont be promoted.
1
This is what my husband says. In business, lots of times, being an arrogant jerk is rewarded. If you are a nice, kind of quiet, supremely competent male, you are looked over, too. They flat out told my husband he was "too nice" to manage people.
Me? No interest whatsoever in managing anyone other than myself.
Me? No interest whatsoever in managing anyone other than myself.
While much in this article is reasonable and believable, the fact remains that setting "quotas" to move women upward is fraught with problems not the least of which is experience and qualifications being overlooked. Elevating a women to CEO positions without the credentials, experiences and support of the workforce is a costly proposition especially when the Board fails to objectively assess their performance along the route to the top and worse yet overlooks failure to perform at the top. A good example would be Ursula Burns at Xerox who lead the company to near collapse during her time as CEO. She followed Anne Mulcahy who did a good job in leading the company. The difference was that Ursula was accelerated through the ranks without demonstrating success in her jobs. Quotas are a generally poor source of qualified candidates for higher level positions without having an objective performance check in place.
11
Yes, no kidding. That's why women are all so annoyed that men have been elevated simply because they're men for so long.
Despite what so many of you appear to think, picking employees and leaders just because they're men is a poor source of qualified candidates. But please continue to only raise that alarm bell if someone says you should try to hire more women.
Despite what so many of you appear to think, picking employees and leaders just because they're men is a poor source of qualified candidates. But please continue to only raise that alarm bell if someone says you should try to hire more women.
12
What about this article led you to conclude there is a "quota" system in play here? Read the article--this is about highly qualified women who have ascended the ladder with the same levels of success as their male colleagues but nevertheless do not make it to the CEO position. Your assumptions that such women are quota beneficiaries is simply wrong.
3
Why ON EARTH do you think a quota system automatically means that women without the objective experience and qualifications are being promoted?
It is completely feasible that a quota system results in a more equal number of male and female employees, but that the female employees are objectively qualified. You just assume otherwise because you're sexist- you assume, without showing, that an objectively equally qualified woman WOULD get the position in the absence of a quota system. For 1 trillion reasons, many of which are outlined in this article, that's not true.
Hence, the quota system allows a more egalitarian advancement of qualified women. Not unqualified women.
It is completely feasible that a quota system results in a more equal number of male and female employees, but that the female employees are objectively qualified. You just assume otherwise because you're sexist- you assume, without showing, that an objectively equally qualified woman WOULD get the position in the absence of a quota system. For 1 trillion reasons, many of which are outlined in this article, that's not true.
Hence, the quota system allows a more egalitarian advancement of qualified women. Not unqualified women.
8
The problem is obviously complex. I go back to the fact that 53% of white women voted for D. J. Trump. If Hillary had received even 50%, she would be President today. For women to achieve real equality, views will have to change among men and women.
117
@KB
The majority of non-college educated white women voted for Trump. Not so for college-educated white women, where the majority went for Clinton.
And had women of all races been the only voters, Clinton would have won.
As it was, with all voters (female & male), Clinton won the popular vote over Trump, despite Trump's Soviet Russia assistance.
The majority of non-college educated white women voted for Trump. Not so for college-educated white women, where the majority went for Clinton.
And had women of all races been the only voters, Clinton would have won.
As it was, with all voters (female & male), Clinton won the popular vote over Trump, despite Trump's Soviet Russia assistance.
54
Thank you. Of course you are correct. I supported Hillary with money and my vote (I live in LA!). Nonetheless, some of the attitudes that lead 53% of white women to select Trump are societal. While the article stresses the views of men towards women in authority, I believe the reality is more complicated and also includes how women view other women.
9
So the views of non-college educated white women are worth less than those of college-educated white women? I'm not sure that's what you wanted to say. In this topic, there's an overlay of social and economic class. For members of the coastal meritocracy, the question of women as CEOs isn't important as just a women's equality issue; it also is important as a test of the idea of meritocracy itself, that we rise in society based on merit. I read the votes of non-college educated white women as an indicator that the liberal elite courted by HRC has become blind to the suffering of working people of all races, women as well as men. (I knocked doors for HRC in a small, dying mill town in PA, where two black women told me they were voting for Trump.) The liberal response seems to be to seek out increasingly fine-tuned ways for disadvantaged groups to climb the ladder (see: charter schools, transgender bathrooms, and - here - CEO jobs for women). We seem to have forgotten that the meritocracy is a very recent invention, that politics once aimed to give all classes a dignified life.
10
I've been in the workplace for decades. I have observed over and over that white male professionals are rarely held accountable in the workplace, even for serious missteps that would have derailed the careers of women and many minority men or even resulted in termination. They are allowed, even encouraged, to take risks; they are protected if the risky choice doesn't pay off; and they often don't suffer professional consequences even if that choice was ill-considered, poorly planned and executed, and does harm to the organization. They are disproportionately rewarded and praised if a risky choice does pay off. And it often paid off because female colleagues worked hard to make that happen, and then are denied credit for its success.
I have seen male colleagues form teams and cliques to support each other's advancement, knowingly at the expense of capable female colleagues by undermining them. Sometimes that includes spreading rumors and lies about the women. Even when that activity is revealed, there is rarely a negative consequence for the "players" -- and it often pays off. So why not give it a shot?
It takes a very wise, insightful, ethical and seasoned manager to prevent this kind of professional sabotage. Not many CEOs rise to that level, though some do. You can shrug and say "that's office politics", but every organization suffers when actual talent and merit are suppressed.
I have seen male colleagues form teams and cliques to support each other's advancement, knowingly at the expense of capable female colleagues by undermining them. Sometimes that includes spreading rumors and lies about the women. Even when that activity is revealed, there is rarely a negative consequence for the "players" -- and it often pays off. So why not give it a shot?
It takes a very wise, insightful, ethical and seasoned manager to prevent this kind of professional sabotage. Not many CEOs rise to that level, though some do. You can shrug and say "that's office politics", but every organization suffers when actual talent and merit are suppressed.
387
It sounds like you are describing Donald Trump in this comment.
1
We act as though the dominant male corporate culture is a successful one. Perhaps it has to fail before we can see that its norms and values are part of the problem. Excluding women almost guarantees that it will not be questioned.
198
I have no doubt that both overt and subtle gender discrimination exists but unfortunately none of the individual examples in this article provide even the slightest hint of it. Jan Fields at McDonald's rose to #2, disagreed with her boss about strategy, pursued a strategy a "bold" strategy (her word) in the company's largest market that led to lower profit but thinks her failure to take her boss's job was because she was a woman.
The anonymous executive told a story of being "outmaneuvered" (the author's word) during a corporate reorganization, unhappy that a man she said she helped promote openly disagreed with her, and otherwise completely devoid of any suggestion of discrimination because she is a woman.
The mentions of Hillary Clinton's failures are gratuitous and also do nothing to bolster the author's argument.
Surely more can and should be done but the tired suggestion of mandated quotas will do nothing to improve the standing of women as equals. Rather it will do exactly the opposite.
The anonymous executive told a story of being "outmaneuvered" (the author's word) during a corporate reorganization, unhappy that a man she said she helped promote openly disagreed with her, and otherwise completely devoid of any suggestion of discrimination because she is a woman.
The mentions of Hillary Clinton's failures are gratuitous and also do nothing to bolster the author's argument.
Surely more can and should be done but the tired suggestion of mandated quotas will do nothing to improve the standing of women as equals. Rather it will do exactly the opposite.
36
The present bias towards white males who share a common culture and behavioral norm undermines respect for men in top management. The pool of available candidates is regulated by a system that sanctions arrogance and sabotage. How is that better - or really any different from a quota in the end? To think out of the box you might have to see the box first.
Great article. I think the same concept may apply to all workplaces, too, and the field of work in general. There is this whole concept of women being dropper-outers and many women swear not to until things get in their way and then the temptation to find other ways to live apart from work and find happiness prevail. It's like breaking up from an unhappy marriage, I think.
2
Start your own company. More return on your efforts and a higher learning curve. That is not to say someone cannot take it away from you if you succeed to a level where it might be bought. And find a savvy woman banker to help you along the way.
99
In this political and economic climate? Small businesses are nearly impossible to start and maintain.
1
Totally agree--best way to keep the men from taking things away from you is to own it.
1
So your solution is that women should leave corporate America to white guys and their bias, and start over.
1
The implication here seems to be that it's the men who see women as "bossy" "intimidating" etc, however women do a pretty good job of assigning those characteristics to other women, perhaps even more so. It could be that to rise to the Number 1 slot engenders alienation from the sisterhood, a far more frightening prospect than "intimidating" men along the way. Besides, what feminist worth her salt wouldn't want to "boss" and "intimidate" men? It's rather ironic that this seems to be a concern, rather than wearing it as a badge of pride, as a lot of men would do. The very nature of these concerns is what holds women back. It's not solely the responsibility of men to "allow" women to "succeed."
24
And this is why the C suite is short on XXers. Feminists worth their salt don't want to be dominatrices; that's a male fantasy. People are jerks, and the jerkiest rise to the top in unregulated capitalism. Once we as a society stop deciding to screw each other over at every turn, you'll see more women, in better functioning companies. The rule of law; what a beautiful thing.
45
At first action of jerkiness, woman is automatically referred to as a "bitch," especially by other women.
(I tried to post a comment at the top with a HUGE typo, and I can't fix it!!! NYT, what do I do?)
(I tried to post a comment at the top with a HUGE typo, and I can't fix it!!! NYT, what do I do?)
1
In life and in work, men often develop an intimacy with each other that seems to have, as one of its, essential features, the exclusion of women.
Watching this over the years, I realized that this is not a hostile act. It isn't about misogyny. It seems to be about something that developed over the hundreds of years that men hunted and women foraged and the thousands in which humans waged war and men were the soldiers: the need for unconditional physical and psychological support from male buddies. Often self-sacrificial. To understand this has increased my respect for men.
That said, that men have not adapted to changed circumstances now and continue to exclude women in the workplace I have come to see as I see any other prejudice: a matter for the evolution of men's spiritual lives because prejudice is a spiritual disease.
I worked for a Dow 100 company and saw that spiritual evolution in some men and then how they threw themselves into the business of mentoring, enabling and protecting women in the upward climb. But this was rare.
Watching this over the years, I realized that this is not a hostile act. It isn't about misogyny. It seems to be about something that developed over the hundreds of years that men hunted and women foraged and the thousands in which humans waged war and men were the soldiers: the need for unconditional physical and psychological support from male buddies. Often self-sacrificial. To understand this has increased my respect for men.
That said, that men have not adapted to changed circumstances now and continue to exclude women in the workplace I have come to see as I see any other prejudice: a matter for the evolution of men's spiritual lives because prejudice is a spiritual disease.
I worked for a Dow 100 company and saw that spiritual evolution in some men and then how they threw themselves into the business of mentoring, enabling and protecting women in the upward climb. But this was rare.
77
Some of this male bonding thing seems to come from a primal urge or ancient genetic source. If one older male gets a herd (harem) of women, the rest of the males just have each other. Whether it involved real sex or just a need for bonding when a female mate is not an option, there is an evolutionary reason we have these phenomena. I think there are reasons for same sex attraction (sexual or deep friendship) that fit with the pull our dna exerts on us, not just to procreate, but to protect ourselves emotionally so the potential to pro-create is always there.
All men have mothers. Mothers are the most influential people in a male's prepubescent life. Apparently the mothers are doing a lousy job of training their sons.
1
Also, the fact that women are the gender that bears children is used as an excuse to not promote them. My husband, a senior manager at a large corporation, has told me that behind closed doors his male counterparts have used the fact that a woman is of childbearing age as a sole reason to not promote her. "What if she gets pregnant?" is the doubting question they often pose.
No one ever questions a mans fitness for leadership based on the possibility that he might become a father.
No one ever questions a mans fitness for leadership based on the possibility that he might become a father.
425
Honestly, it s a reasonable question to ask.
8
What if he is offered and takes a better job?
7
Why would that be? Don't men become parents too? Why isn't that then considered a potential risk?
I'll tell you why: because women are still expected to do the bulk of the childrearing, in effect working two jobs, while men just walk in and ask what's for dinner.
I'll tell you why: because women are still expected to do the bulk of the childrearing, in effect working two jobs, while men just walk in and ask what's for dinner.
4
I was looked upon as one of the most effective, imaginative and supportive people in my government planning office. One day, my boss called me in for a discussion about a promotion to management. 'They' really liked the way I worked, he said, but they weren't sure I could 'think like a man.' I told him I didn't want to think like a man, and walked out of the meeting.
552
Wow, lots of "recommends," but I think walking out of the meeting served neither you nor other women well. Why could the comment--as maddening as it was--not have been a place to start a discussion and an opening for you to continue to demonstrate your capabilities whether or not you "thought like a man," thus working on making any such distinction irrelevant. Instead you chose to react in a snit which most likely only told your boss that he was right in his doubts about you.
7
What an opportunity you missed. Your boss is discussing a promotion with you. Instead of addressing the issue put forth by your boss about what "they" said, (always the infamous they, which might have included women "), I think that your storming off was proof that you weren't ready for that promotion.
6
Lawsuit! We have to hold them accountable for anything to change.
2
Quotas work to solve this kind of problem. They help to bring into an environment classes of people that otherwise would not work together. And the experiences quotas and their results engender eventually help to change societal norms.
39
Great, a quota of psychopaths of each gender for the C suite. I think we need to regulate capitalism in more ways than just quotas by gender.
1
A new generation is coming. One wonders whether males raised today (I believe they're raised differently) will change the dynamic at the top. And will females raised with those males be less accepting of not getting what they want.
It sounds like women are very close. Just one or two more breakthroughs required. Of course, they have to want it badly enough to crash through them. Persistence vs. reflection, sharper elbows. The last big fighting match. I have every confidence in them.
It sounds like women are very close. Just one or two more breakthroughs required. Of course, they have to want it badly enough to crash through them. Persistence vs. reflection, sharper elbows. The last big fighting match. I have every confidence in them.
20
Two new generations have already moved into the work world and nothing has changed. If anything the situation is worse. They are following the lead of their male mentors.
1
Yes - a new generation is coming - with a difference approach to gender....this is what will change the dynamic.
1
Younger men today use the same undermining competitive strategies against women to get ahead. They don't do so because they believe women are less capable -- they do it because IT WORKS in most hierarchical, male-dominated workplaces. Until we raise all men to elevate their moral compasses above "win at all costs, by means fair or foul", this will never end. It can only be contained by outstanding leadership at the top of those organizations, who value merit more than office politics.
7
The mention of golf by one of the executives struck me. My boss has been encouraging me to learn to play golf so I can join him and the other administrators at my work, who are all male. I have no interest at all in golf as a sport and would rather spend my time on sports and outdoor activities that I actually enjoy. But no, golf is the way work relationships are made, and it's a boys' club. Fortunately this is not make or break for my career, but I imagine there are plenty of other women who have been left out in the cold if they didn't happen to play golf.
194
No disrespected intended by if you are declining an invite to join a club I guess there is something to consider? I also don't like golf, or sailing for that matter, but know that if I did it would probably make my life easier. As a man I see it a classist, not sexists. (Were I grew up we played hockey and fotball, not golf). Best of luck to you, breaking barriers is hard work, and unfortunately for both of us, I think even harder if you also don't have the 'social' aspect down. One more point, most of my friends learn golf because it is the thing to do - better return on effort than posting good numbers yet again..
6
If it's what your group does, do it. In same days there might have been a softball team, or some other bonding activity that is done for "fun," but is really key for understanding others and building relationships. If you were at a lower level where this was simply an infringement on your time, and had nothing to do with interpersonal alliances, you could forget it. But you've been alerted as its role in your milieu, and invited. At least you weren't given the cold shoulder. And it is really a fascinating experience in dealing with your own skills, focus under pressure, and the ability to handle - with grace or without- the continual humiliations that golf can deal out. It can provide the opportunity to strut your stuff, too, without saying a word.
8
My husband didn't like golf either. He grew up in a working class Polish family and his dad was a night watchman in a factory. They did not play golf nor belong to a golf club.
These things are STATUS MARKERS in our society. Golf is a very expensive sport, that require specialized equipment and access to golf courses. Not too many golf courses in the ghetto or farm country.
When my husband got a job at a Fortune 500 corporation, I realized he was being left out of golf outings -- so I bought him clubs and some lessons. He'll never be a good player, but he can play along with the other guys now.
At least golf is ATTAINABLE -- used clubs can be purchased -- but in some circles, the sport is SAILING. Good luck buying your own sailboat and joining the yacht club!
But seriously: these things are done to EXCLUDE people of BOTH genders and based on CLASS -- if you do not golf, it sends a clear message to the entire corporate staff that "you're not of their class".
I have some wealthy friends; all their children have grown up playing golf (and skiing!) and the reason was not "love of those sports" -- it was to groom them for the futures hanging out with the wealthy upper classes and top corporate suite.
NOTE: golf is not a gender based sport. It is entirely possible for women to play, and plenty of equipment/clothing gear to women players.
These things are STATUS MARKERS in our society. Golf is a very expensive sport, that require specialized equipment and access to golf courses. Not too many golf courses in the ghetto or farm country.
When my husband got a job at a Fortune 500 corporation, I realized he was being left out of golf outings -- so I bought him clubs and some lessons. He'll never be a good player, but he can play along with the other guys now.
At least golf is ATTAINABLE -- used clubs can be purchased -- but in some circles, the sport is SAILING. Good luck buying your own sailboat and joining the yacht club!
But seriously: these things are done to EXCLUDE people of BOTH genders and based on CLASS -- if you do not golf, it sends a clear message to the entire corporate staff that "you're not of their class".
I have some wealthy friends; all their children have grown up playing golf (and skiing!) and the reason was not "love of those sports" -- it was to groom them for the futures hanging out with the wealthy upper classes and top corporate suite.
NOTE: golf is not a gender based sport. It is entirely possible for women to play, and plenty of equipment/clothing gear to women players.
7
Thank you Susan Chris and thanks to the NYTimes for putting her on this beat. Keep it up.
104
This is an outstanding article. I've worked in business, government and education through the course of my career.
Women make outstanding bosses. Women are more mission oriented, communicate more effectively, more empathetic and, overall, better leaders.
It seems that today's generation of young, talented workers are demanding more life-work balance, and the opportunity to be creative and flexible in how they approach their work hours. The women I've worked for had better tools to effectively lead a less-traditional workforce.
Study after study has shown that if women do well, a society does well. Success in the quest for parity in pay and opportunity for women isn't just a success for women -- we all win.
Women make outstanding bosses. Women are more mission oriented, communicate more effectively, more empathetic and, overall, better leaders.
It seems that today's generation of young, talented workers are demanding more life-work balance, and the opportunity to be creative and flexible in how they approach their work hours. The women I've worked for had better tools to effectively lead a less-traditional workforce.
Study after study has shown that if women do well, a society does well. Success in the quest for parity in pay and opportunity for women isn't just a success for women -- we all win.
484
Why is it that in our society it's okay to say things like "women are generally better leaders" but it's NOT okay to say things like "men are generally more creative"? This is a huge double standard. I'm not arguing for either one of these things being true or false, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy.
11
Thank you for deciding, based entirely on your individual perspective, that I am less mission-oriented, communicate less effectively, am less empathetic, and overall, a poorer leader than my female peers based entirely on the fact that I am male.
The other 97+ of you who clicked recommend are not helping the cause.
Here's a good question: Did the Sulzberger family ever consider grooming one of their daughters to take over as publisher?
The other 97+ of you who clicked recommend are not helping the cause.
Here's a good question: Did the Sulzberger family ever consider grooming one of their daughters to take over as publisher?
3
Worst boss I ever had was a woman, but there were many men bosses I've had who gave her a run for her money for the title. I've had terrible bosses. Alcoholic, scheming, self-centered, stupid and/or ignorant, sexual harassers, you name it. The only good boss is one who hasn't sought that role out.
3
So true. Most women, even the most driven and accomplished, hit this realization much earlier in their careers. The few women I've met in the C-suite go out of their way to make people feel comfortable. They are completely constrained by power and constantly have to defend it. Men in the C-suite on the other hand can throw temper tantrums, can little regard for the comfort of people below them. Not all men certainly, but that behavior is allowed, the lack of competence is allowed. Their power gives them freedom.
As a woman, who at one point bought into the hard-work myth, reading about this reality breaks my heart. I'm all about empowering individual women, but at the end of the day it's dangerous to do so without understanding the level of bias built into the existing system (and how little you can, as an individual, do about it). Telling women they can be whatever they want if they work hard and believe in themselves doesn't help anyone, because it's not true. It wrongly places the burden on women when it should be on organizations. Hard work and confidence are certainly good human values to instill in people, but that alone does not prepare women for the vicious bias that will almost certainly hit them at some point.
As a woman, who at one point bought into the hard-work myth, reading about this reality breaks my heart. I'm all about empowering individual women, but at the end of the day it's dangerous to do so without understanding the level of bias built into the existing system (and how little you can, as an individual, do about it). Telling women they can be whatever they want if they work hard and believe in themselves doesn't help anyone, because it's not true. It wrongly places the burden on women when it should be on organizations. Hard work and confidence are certainly good human values to instill in people, but that alone does not prepare women for the vicious bias that will almost certainly hit them at some point.
630
How does she manage to succeed, I used to wonder, when she shouts and yells, this tiny woman, surrounded by all these powerful male tycoons. She wears them down. Exhausting, but she is successful, one of the most powerful publishing figures in America.
Florence Nightingale, as portrayed by Lytton Stracey, nearly brought down the British Government. Several prominent male politicians retired home to die.
Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in America, but we are on the right track if we work like a horse, look like a woman and think like a man. This according to an elderly and powerful matriarch in another country far away.
Florence Nightingale, as portrayed by Lytton Stracey, nearly brought down the British Government. Several prominent male politicians retired home to die.
Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in America, but we are on the right track if we work like a horse, look like a woman and think like a man. This according to an elderly and powerful matriarch in another country far away.
The African-American experience is so eerily similar to women's experience in the workforce. Reading your remarks about systematic oppression, and how it squelches people's desire to fight once they realize what they are up against, reverberated on a deep psychological level for me. Thank you for sharing!
2
Especially if they end up working for corporations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film)