Is It Really the End of Men?

In the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic, Hanna Rosin poses a provocative questions – “What if equality isn't the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?” To support this, she provides several statements, among them:

• Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in history
• Most managers are now women; and
• For every two men that get a college degree, three women will do the same.
  

Despite the title, the article is not about male-bashing. Rather, Rosin posits that the skills necessary to succeed in the post-industrial society are skills that have typically been associated with women. She notes that, “[a]s thinking and communicating have come to eclipse physical strength and stamina as the keys to economic success, those societies that take advantage of the talents of all their adults, not just half of them, have pulled away from the rest.” (emphasis added).

This willingness to include women, resulting in improved financial indicators and better governance, has been confirmed in other studies (See prior posts). And while noting that there is still a dearth of women at the very top, Rosin notes that this, too, may be changing. In fact, according to a recent report in Bloomberg news, women who head the nation's largest companies are earning substantially more than their male counterparts. And Joel Garreau, author of Edge City, observes that suburban office parks became popular because companies looking for the “best educated, most conscientious, most stable workers” found the best candidates in “underemployed females living in middle-class communities on the fringe of the old urban areas.”

So what does all this mean? Is it the beginning of the end for men? Well, probably not, but on the other hand, changes in leadership, the workforce and work environments will require men to adapt. Women have been forced to adapt to men’s work and career paths for years. Sometimes this has been a matter of survival (their own, or that of their children), and sometimes it’s been simply so they could have better jobs. If they wanted the jobs that paid better or were perhaps more interesting, they had to play by the rules already in place.
Men, on the other hand, have traditionally shied away from what has been deemed “women’s work,” and have had no real incentive to “adapt” to the lower paying careers.

Women are moving up (the corporate ladder), they are moving in (to elected positions) and moving on (owning their own businesses when they are denied positions, promotions or are flat out ignored). In an introduction to Enlightened Power: How Women Are Transforming the Practice of Leadership, David Gergen writes, “[w]omen are knocking on the door of leadership at the very moment when their talents are especially well matched with the requirements of the day.” Further, traditional “command and control” leadership, which tends to be more male-based, is being replaced by more collaborative, transformational leadership, which utilizes skills typically attributed to women.

Although I do not believe it’s the end of men, I do believe it’s the beginning of the end of excluding women. Women are no longer willing to stand by while male-dominated firms of financial “gurus” push us into another Great Recession. Women no longer want to hear men tell them that instead of taking guns away from abusers, women should take a self-defense class instead. Women no longer want male-run oil companies to drill for oil without adequate safeguards in place to either prevent or stop environmentally crippling oil spills.
Women want accountability, responsibility and collaboration, whether in the corporate office or on Capitol Hill.

And speaking of Capitol Hill, women have recently been elected to public office in record numbers. Women who have been mercilessly attacked (think Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton) and women with no party backing (Elaine Marshall). Republicans and Democrats, those with and without experience. Organizations like The White House Project, The New Agenda and the 50/50 in 2020 project are focused on getting more women elected to public office.

So run, women, run (for public office).

Lead, women, lead (in the corporate world).

Create, solve, stand up, speak out and make your life count.

It’s time.

Retraction or Clarification?

There are first times for everything, I guess. Today is the first time I’ve had to post a – well, not a retraction, exactly. The person did and said exactly what I said he did and said; but it is possible I misinterpreted his words and actions.

Let me explain.

Last week, I posted a segment talking about the different responses between men and women to my business. I work on the problem of getting professional women back into the workforce after they have stepped out (for whatever reason), as well as getting more women into leadership roles. I also work with companies to tap this incredible pool of talent by making work paths more amenable to how women work. I don’t simply suggest they do this because it’s the “right” thing to do, but also because it makes great business sense. I noted in my previous post that women intuitively “got it,” but men – well, not that they didn’t understand it intellectually, but rather they didn’t have the "experiential" understanding, because they likely had not ever been in many of those situations. I wrote that, while talking to men about my business, “[a] third [man] said he felt “emaciated” and suddenly had to take a phone call!” That was true - he did say that, and he did abruptly take a phone call and leave.

However, last night, my husband ran into this same man, who told him that he “loved” my business, thought it was a great idea and that it would really do well. He told my husband specific things that he liked about it, and was, according to my husband, quite sincere. So I’m not sure whether I completely misinterpreted his words and actions, whether he left and thought about what I was saying and changed his mind/opinion, or some combination of the two. In any event, if it’s the first, I apologize. If it’s the second, then I get an “atta girl”!

It does tell me, though, that women and men, are beginning to talk about the topic, recognize both the problems and the opportunities, and trying to figure out solutions. That's a win-win for everyone.

Do Businesses STILL Not Get It?

While writing the previous posts, I had conversations with various people about information contained in the post, as well as the work I do generally around women’s issues (especially work-related and leadership issues). The gender differences were quite interesting. Women, as you might expect, “got” the struggles women face in the workplace. They understood how difficult managing work and home could be, and the different priorities women may have in seeking the best work position/environment. They were, by and large, appalled at the statistics, whether they spoke to pay disparity, exclusion at the upper levels of leadership or career “drop-out.”

One woman (CEO of a large, well-established non-profit) told me that she knew her male counterpart was paid more, with a smaller territory. I introduced myself to a woman at a local coffee shop who is a sales representative for a major pharmaceutical company. As soon as I told her what I did, she could hardly contain her anger, raging at the company that always chose rich sports figures for their “motivational” speakers. She verbalized something I’ve always said – when there are women in your audience, you may want to lose the sports analogies (football and baseball, in particular). Not because women “can’t understand” those analogies, or don’t like sports, but because we’re not “allowed” to play some of those sports at the professional level. A third woman spoke of being bullied by the men on her committee when she wouldn’t “toe the party line,” and instead demanded accountability.

Men, on the other hand, did not seem concerned about the challenges women face, and didn’t really seem bothered by the statistics. One man suggested that rather than focusing on getting more women into executive positions, I talk about succession planning generally (which is a very different thing, and sucked the very life out of the passion I felt for the project). Another asked what the “value proposition” was (a good question, I’m sure, but one which the women I spoke with intuitively understood). A third said he felt “emaciated” and suddenly had to take a phone call!

The interesting thing about this was that all of these men are men I like and respect. They are intelligent and sensitive to diversity issues. Keep in mind, too, that I was not advocating women “taking over” and running men out on a rail. I was merely pointing out that women are grossly underrepresented in top positions, despite having the credentials and abilities necessary to succeed in these positions. That having more women on boards and in the executive suite improves financial indicators, such as the ever-important return on equity of companies. That collaborative leadership styles (common in women leaders) has proven to be extraordinarily effective. That a balance of men and women was best for most organizations.

I have always been passionate about women’s issues, whether being shocked by reports of Bosnian rape camps, outraged at being fired because I was pregnant, or dismayed by a recent Catalyst video (dismayed because it spoke of a truth that feels, at times, overwhelming). And please don’t talk to me about the progress women have made. Yes, we have made some progress, but not nearly enough. Despite all the statistics demonstrating why it’s a good business idea to have more women on boards and in executive level positions, companies still refuse to hire/promote women. Not all companies, and not all the time, but often enough that more than 70% of the top 1,500 companies in the U.S. have no women on the senior leadership team. (Holding Women Back, Troubling Discoveries – And Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed, citing Dezso & Ross, 2008)

Despite all the statistics talking about the power women are beginning to wield as consumers and holders of both intellectual and financial wealth, businesses still routinely do not take our opinions into account when developing or marketing products.

Does that make sense to anyone?

The Paradox

On September 16, 2001, and again on August 14, 2005, Wiley Miller, the cartoonist who creates Non Sequitur, produced a strip for the Sunday paper that was, unfortunately, funny. I say unfortunately, because the gist of the strip is that the boss (a white male) is incredibly impressed with a report written by one of his middle managers. He says, “Give this guy a raise and a promotion before we lose him!!” However, when the man to whom he is speaking informs him that the report was written by a woman, his eyes bug out, and he revises his position, deciding that rather than the report being “forceful and straightforward,” it instead “comes off as rather bitchy.” And instead of a promotion and raise, the woman is fired, using the “standard excuse of [the] economic downturn.”

The comic is both funny and discouraging. It is funny, because like all good humor, it contains at least a grain (if not more) of truth. It is discouraging for that same reason.

Ann Howard, Ph.D. and Richard Wellins, Ph.D, both of Development Dimensions International, conducted a study in 2008. The results of that study were presented in a report entitled Holding Women Back: Troubling Discoveries – and Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed.

Following are some of their findings:

• Women’s representation in executive-level positions was half that in first-level management
• More than 70% of the top 1,500 U.S. firms have no women on the senior leadership team (Dezsö & Ross, 2008)
• In all major global regions, women were more likely than men to fall off the management ladder before reaching the top
• Among executives, 50% more men than women are [considered] high-potentials.
  

These statistics are appalling standing on their own, but when looked at in conjunction with the benefits of having women in executive and/or board positions, they are absolutely baffling.

• A 1998 study of S&P 500 companies found that companies with the most women and minority directors had shareholder returns that were 21 percent higher than those of companies with all white male boards.
• In January 2004, Catalyst reported a link between greater gender diversity among the corporate officers of 353 companies in the Fortune 500 and better financial performance by those companies over the period 1996–2000, measured by both return on equity and total return to shareholders.
• Based on their research, the authors found that the presence of women on boards has a practical as well as a symbolic effect: it changes the functioning and deliberative style of the board in clear and consistent ways that are linked to good governance, which in turn improves organizational performance over the long term.
• “In addition, the authors noted that boards with two or more women directors, and even boards with only one women director, regularly reviewed non-financial performance measures such as customer satisfaction and employee satisfactions significantly more than did all-male boards.
  
  (Toni G. Wolfman, The Face of Corporate Leadership).
  
  So what gives? How can the results of having women at the top be so overwhelmingly positive, yet companies are still largely devoid of women at those upper levels? Why aren’t companies clamoring for, and actively recruiting these women? Or are they, and women are simply not taking advantage of these opportunities? Or is it a little of both, or something else entirely?
  
  We’ll look at the possible answers to these questions shortly.