Last week I wrote about language, specifically the language of everyday sexism. Because I’m an attorney, language is very important to me. There is a big difference, for example, in “may” and “shall” in a statute. This attention to language naturally spills over into other areas of my work.
I am taking a sales class (which I would highly recommend, by the way), and was working on the brand piece; specifically, determining what my focus is. I explained to the group that I work with gender issues, specifically those related to work. I prefer to work with individuals/groups, as opposed to corporations, although I would be happy to work with groups within organizations. And I'm not excluding work with corporations - it would just have to be the right fit. Finally, I want to do my work through speaking/presenting (whether keynote, lunch and learns, smaller groups, etc.), writing or facilitated discussion groups.
A very productive discussion ensued, but then came the interesting language issues. It was recommended that I either decide whether I wanted to be an “activist” and work with individuals who were “victims" or as a consultant with corporations. There were several things I found interesting about this. First, my studies about gender differences in work note that men typically define success at work in terms of money and power. Women, although obviously wanting to be paid appropriately, tend to focus more on making a difference, working with highly qualified colleagues and developing a quality product/service. It felt like the men in the group were making an implied assumption that working with corporations was a better choice because it would pay better. And although it may be true that it would pay better, what if that's not my primary focus?
Why do I think they were making that assumption? Because of their choice of language. Although Merriam-Webster defines activism as “a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue,” the term activist has, at least for me, a negative connotation. “Vigorous action” suggests to me protesters marching in the street, or handcuffing themselves to trees (really not my style!). And although I know that “women’s issues” can sometimes create controversy, I always wonder why. For example, aren’t better business returns good for everyone? So why is it controversial to recommend that there be more women at the top? Can we all agree that husbands beating or killing their wives is a bad thing? Then why is it controversial to remove a batterer’s weapons when he's been convicted of battering and has had an opportunity to be heard?
And what about that highly-charged word, “victims”? Merriam-Webster offers a number of definitions, but one definition states that a victim is “one that is subjected to oppression, hardship or mistreatment.” Although that certainly describes the experience that many women, myself included, have had in the workplace, I am not ready to label myself a victim. To me, victim suggests that someone has weakened me by taking something from me. But I prefer to live by the philosophy of, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” I am not willing to say that 50% of the population are victims, weakened by the other 50%.
At first, this discussion made me angry. However, that in turn, made me really think about what it was I wanted to accomplish. And this led to my brand statement and my mission.
I help create strong women.
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Friday, July 23, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Diversity
Last month was Black History Month. I have heard some question why there’s Black History Month, but not White History Month. The obvious answer is that typically, the ones who make and record history are the ones who are powerful, famous or educated. Historically speaking, minority populations were usually not those things. Or, in the case of many women, their power or fame was inextricably linked to their husband’s status in the community. And, it’s hard to accomplish much when you cannot vote, own property or even belong to the same clubs as the white males.
Rather than dwell on the injustices to any one group, however, I would prefer to focus on diversity generally. As an employment law attorney, I represented various people in discrimination cases. Discrimination, of course, is all about exclusion, which is the opposite of diversity’s goal of inclusion. There is a lot of talk these days about creating a diverse and inclusive workplace. Often these goals are cloaked in moral values, and may or may not reflect what is actually going on in the workplace. The interesting thing, however, is that having an inclusive and diverse workplace is not just the “right” thing to do – it also makes good business sense. For example, in a study done in 2005, researchers found that “the total and average annual return on the stock of those companies with the highest gender diversity was several percentage points higher than that of the companies with the lowest gender diversity and also had less volatility or risk than those companies with fewer women.”1 These findings were echoed in a number of other studies by various companies, many of which also note that women make most of the purchasing decisions in families, they control substantial assets and investment, and they enhance corporate governance.2
While doing diversity training for the State of Iowa last fall, I talked to my participants about the benefits of having different perspectives. I would ask them questions like, “What is the benefit of having someone with a disability on your team when you are designing a new facility?” or, “What is the benefit of having someone with significant experience (i.e., older) on your team?” In other words, what perspectives do diverse populations bring to the table that will benefit the company and its customers? Interestingly, everybody knew the answers to these questions, yet it is amazing how infrequently diversity is actually cultivated in decision-making.
This applies to marketing as much as any other area of business. I once attended a workshop focused on increasing sales. One of the women, a partner in a home-building company, told of a new “line” of homes they were building that used the phrase “Red Door”. The women in the room immediately visualized a line of luxury homes, because of the Elizabeth Arden brand of salons. The man leading the group did not make that connection (for obvious reasons). In this instance, a woman’s perspective was invaluable regarding the branding and marketing of this product. Along the same lines, would Apple have named their new “gadget” the iPad if it had any women officers? What woman wants to purchase a product that makes them think “feminine hygiene product” (or what man, for that matter)? The blogosphere lit up with jokes and criticisms of the name – many asking whether any women actually worked at Apple.3 Different perspectives can help management avoid blunders when certain terms mean different things to different “target markets,” especially in terms of (slang) words/phrases or products used almost exclusively by one (sometimes very large) group.
A couple years ago, I did some consulting for a group that was launching a new product in the Midwest. When I saw the “draft” video of the proposed television advertising, I was appalled. Apparently only white women (mothers) in their 30s shopped at this particular grocery store. When I noted that there were no males, people of color, older people, etc., I was told that this was just designed to give us a rough idea of the “concept,” and that it would be fixed before the final version was released. It wasn’t. And even if it had been, why not bring in a diverse group for the draft? Companies often underestimate the impact diversity can have on its customers. And although I understand the concept of modifying your marketing so that your target market sees people that “look like them,” in order to encourage them to buy, it perpetuates the division between people who are often more alike than different.
So is Black History Month a good or bad thing? Probably both – and neither. I’m not sure whether it’s effective in encouraging diversity or division. Certainly raising awareness of contributions by various groups, whether along race, gender or other lines can be beneficial. But wouldn’t it be better to integrate this so that it is more inclusive of all groups, in a more mainstreamed way, rather than compartmentalizing various groups?
1. The Face of Corporate Leadership, Toni G. Wolfman, citing Vesela Veleva, Gender Diversity and Financial Performance, Citizens Advisers, 2005. This study is available at www.citizensfunds.com.
2. Id.
3. See http://community.pinkmagazine.com/forums/t/1736.aspx
Rather than dwell on the injustices to any one group, however, I would prefer to focus on diversity generally. As an employment law attorney, I represented various people in discrimination cases. Discrimination, of course, is all about exclusion, which is the opposite of diversity’s goal of inclusion. There is a lot of talk these days about creating a diverse and inclusive workplace. Often these goals are cloaked in moral values, and may or may not reflect what is actually going on in the workplace. The interesting thing, however, is that having an inclusive and diverse workplace is not just the “right” thing to do – it also makes good business sense. For example, in a study done in 2005, researchers found that “the total and average annual return on the stock of those companies with the highest gender diversity was several percentage points higher than that of the companies with the lowest gender diversity and also had less volatility or risk than those companies with fewer women.”1 These findings were echoed in a number of other studies by various companies, many of which also note that women make most of the purchasing decisions in families, they control substantial assets and investment, and they enhance corporate governance.2
While doing diversity training for the State of Iowa last fall, I talked to my participants about the benefits of having different perspectives. I would ask them questions like, “What is the benefit of having someone with a disability on your team when you are designing a new facility?” or, “What is the benefit of having someone with significant experience (i.e., older) on your team?” In other words, what perspectives do diverse populations bring to the table that will benefit the company and its customers? Interestingly, everybody knew the answers to these questions, yet it is amazing how infrequently diversity is actually cultivated in decision-making.
This applies to marketing as much as any other area of business. I once attended a workshop focused on increasing sales. One of the women, a partner in a home-building company, told of a new “line” of homes they were building that used the phrase “Red Door”. The women in the room immediately visualized a line of luxury homes, because of the Elizabeth Arden brand of salons. The man leading the group did not make that connection (for obvious reasons). In this instance, a woman’s perspective was invaluable regarding the branding and marketing of this product. Along the same lines, would Apple have named their new “gadget” the iPad if it had any women officers? What woman wants to purchase a product that makes them think “feminine hygiene product” (or what man, for that matter)? The blogosphere lit up with jokes and criticisms of the name – many asking whether any women actually worked at Apple.3 Different perspectives can help management avoid blunders when certain terms mean different things to different “target markets,” especially in terms of (slang) words/phrases or products used almost exclusively by one (sometimes very large) group.
A couple years ago, I did some consulting for a group that was launching a new product in the Midwest. When I saw the “draft” video of the proposed television advertising, I was appalled. Apparently only white women (mothers) in their 30s shopped at this particular grocery store. When I noted that there were no males, people of color, older people, etc., I was told that this was just designed to give us a rough idea of the “concept,” and that it would be fixed before the final version was released. It wasn’t. And even if it had been, why not bring in a diverse group for the draft? Companies often underestimate the impact diversity can have on its customers. And although I understand the concept of modifying your marketing so that your target market sees people that “look like them,” in order to encourage them to buy, it perpetuates the division between people who are often more alike than different.
So is Black History Month a good or bad thing? Probably both – and neither. I’m not sure whether it’s effective in encouraging diversity or division. Certainly raising awareness of contributions by various groups, whether along race, gender or other lines can be beneficial. But wouldn’t it be better to integrate this so that it is more inclusive of all groups, in a more mainstreamed way, rather than compartmentalizing various groups?
1. The Face of Corporate Leadership, Toni G. Wolfman, citing Vesela Veleva, Gender Diversity and Financial Performance, Citizens Advisers, 2005. This study is available at www.citizensfunds.com.
2. Id.
3. See http://community.pinkmagazine.com/forums/t/1736.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
