« Dr. Olga Ladyzhenskaya | Main | Margaret Heffernan »
January 27, 2004
Where Are the Women?
Where Are the Women? In this month's Fast Company there is another article on women in upper management and their refusal to give up their lives in favor of 24 hour commitment to the corporation. In spite of the somewhat positive spin that are occasionally put on these articles, I agree with Margaret Heffernan that there is a women-hostile subtext. I have started finding these stories tiresome, stories that Heffernan, the "outspoken former CEO" of the CMGI company iCast calls
Heffernan says the hordes of women refusing to play the career-advancement game aren't doing so because they can't hack it, but because they've lost faith in the institutions they've worked for and are tired of cultures driven by hairy-chested notions of how companies must function. Instead, they are founding businesses where they can use their experience in an environment they can better control. "They leave to create companies where they don't have to be the change agents, where they can start from scratch without the fights, without the baggage, and without the brawls," she says
And elsewhere in the article, this intriguing tidbit, which seems to me would make a much more interesting and less hackneyed story:
Is this also happening in upper management? I'd be interested to see if it is true, as noted in The Opt-Out Revolution article I linked to a while back, that the workplace is changing because women have been insisting on greater balance between work and family. I'd especially like to hear from the men on this one. Agree? Disagree?
Posted by Caterina Fake at 04:02 PM in Organizations | Permalink
Comments
It's not just family that makes you leave. I am a senior executive at a large financial services company. After working a minimum of twelve to fourteen hours a day for three years, suffering every time I wanted to take a vacation, and becoming a stressed, snappy, belligerent shadow of my former self, I decided to take a step back. I am currently working two days a week, and plan to spend the next six months working no more than three days. I don't have children, but I do have a strong belief that when I spend my weekends grumpy and stressed about work, work has become too important. I don't need to earn megabucks, and I certainly don't need the status if the result is that I enjoy absolutely nothing about my life.
Posted by: erin at Jan 28, 2004 8:39:26 AM
I thought it was common knowledge among coders that after a certain number of hours, working more hours doesn't add to (and may subtract from) productivity.
I don't see why this is any less true of anybody else, frankly.
Posted by: Dorothea Salo at Jan 28, 2004 11:13:40 AM
I thought it was common knowledge among coders that after a certain number of hours, working more hours doesn't add to (and may subtract from) productivity.
I don't see why this is any less true of anybody else, frankly.
Posted by: Dorothea Salo at Jan 28, 2004 11:17:03 AM
Dorothea, I was thinking the same thing as I read the statistics about how men work more hours than women. I thought, "huh, I doubt they're getting a whole lot more done."
Posted by: megnut at Jan 28, 2004 3:58:36 PM
There is a piece in this month's Psychology Today on, ahem, "the new trophy wife," which speaks to a small portion of what you were discussing, Caterina--mostly a certain male perspective. The article, which is only about three years' late in my estimation, gawks at how men could be willing to seek peer-earners (they don't even have a word for women 'outperforming' their hetero partners' salaries). The interesting part of the article is more the quietly defensive attitude of the men, who insist on defending their part in the family unit. The whole piece is written from a rather peculiar, very male perspective. Just a thought while this discussion ensues.
Posted by: Jeff at Jan 29, 2004 4:19:59 AM
Reading the first bit I immeadiately thought of my husband, who is in a high level corporate tech job. The past five years he has literally worked 24/7 because if he didn't, his company, teammates and boss would think he "couldn't cut it" and wasn't "devoted." At 28, he wants more of a life, freedom and a more regular schedule - especially since he's salaried and doesn't make overtime.
I don't think this is a women vrs men thing, like it mentioned near the end. I think a lot of men want the same thing but the difference, I think, is that men aren't supposed to want the same thing. They're supposed to be OK with climbing the ladder, working all the time, devoting themselves to a company that doesn't offer them any loyalty or security. I think that's the difference right there.
Posted by: Alex at Jan 29, 2004 1:38:49 PM
Thanks for pointing this out Caterina, I was particularly heartened to see Heffernan's comments. And I agree Alex, I think this discussion should really be framed in a less gendered way: Why does the corporate structure demand this kind of unhealthy lifestyle of its employees? I don't honestly believe that people are proportionately more productive given that kind of schedule, and even if they are it isn't a sustainable model. The frightening part of it of course, which these articles never get at, is that while women who "Opt-Out" or simply leave to pursue less insane career paths may be making wise choices, it does still leave many of the positions of power in our society largely in the hands of men.
Posted by: Emira at Jan 29, 2004 2:16:11 PM
As the husband that Alex mentions, I can testify that women are changing the workplace, because if it wasn't for my wife kicking my ass to give me some perspective, I'd still be working 24/7 for my company simply because that's what I'm supposed to do. As men, we are raised to base most of our self-esteem on how productive we are in the workplace, on how much money we can make, on the glory of surmounting impossible obstacles to achieve great things... funny thing is, 6 months later, I don't even remember what I was doing, I just remember that it was all I did. And nobody else remembers either, except my wife remembers that I wasn't there for her.
Posted by: dten at Jan 29, 2004 2:16:28 PM
Further to this discussion there is an article about a soon to be published book: "Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office 101" in today's Vancouver Sun, you can see it here until Canada.com takes it down: http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=cd5560ae-1a8c-4df6-9779-71881fe00fc0
The book itself seems to be of the "Power Suit" theory to women in business, but the fact that this sort of dialogue along with the Opt-Out discourse continues to be the only real representation of women's voices in business is infuriating.
Posted by: Emira at Jan 29, 2004 5:31:09 PM
What I find funny in a sad kind of way is that success in today's business environment is so much based on creativity. No matter how you look at it, it's a question of being able to spot trends, fill niches and outsmart the competition.
And sure, the best way to be creative is to work 70-80 hrs. per week, never spend any time outside the box - literally speaking - don't spend any time with non-work-related individuals, like friends and family, in short, never expose yourself to anything that might conceivably stir the creative juices. As a manager it must be my job to keep my staff at their desks at all times, since it's proven that people cannot think outside of fabric covered boxes, right?
I'm not sure this is a gender thing, although there seems to be an awful lot of middle-aged white guys that seem guilty of these thought processes.
Posted by: Toti at Jan 30, 2004 9:51:31 AM
"Well-behaved women seldom make history." Good observation. Neither do well-behaved men. And a caveat. Better to make positive rather than negative history.
The reason people leave upper management jobs, as well as below upper middle management jobs, is not per se a gender related issue, but rather a leader vs. ruler issue.
Humans are generalized animals, there are no genetically engineered born leaders, and most certainly not such rulers.
While humans can abide, appreciate and follow the advice and direction of another person who has gained knowledge beyond theirs in a particular field, their tendency is not to tolerate any person using such advanced knowledge as a means of subjugating them to his or her will, in which case they will tend to rebel.
It is statisticaly inevitable, in a world of multiple institutions, familial, social, economic and political, populated by over six billion people, that many of these institutions be headed by people who consider themselves rulers, rather than leaders, and conduct themselves as such.
When people advance to a position in the hierarcy of such an institution to the point they are confronted by a "ruler" instead of a "leader", they will tend to rebel, regardless of their gender.
A gender bias does rear its ugly head in those cultures which promote the erroneous and unconscionable conception that women are naturally subservient to men. In such cultures, more women than men will encounter men in leadership positions, who, because of their enculturation, will view themselves, vis-a-vis women in subordinate positions, as rulers rather than leaders and react accordingly.
When will we all understand and appreciate the fact that all people of both genders and all races are born equally endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Not until then will the problem addressed be resolved.
Posted by: Jack at Jan 31, 2004 2:01:25 AM
Nearly six years ago, as my wife ended her first maternity leave, I cut back my hours at a software company to two days a week so I could stay home with our daughter. (My wife went back to her full-time teaching job.) In the previous year, I had spent too many late nights (and early mornings) working, and childcare was both a good reason and a good excuse to get out of that routine.
But when the company started laying people off two years later, I was one of the first to go. To be honest, I had been thinking of leaving soon anyway. I knew that, for the time I spent there, I was particularly productive, yet my contribution seemed to be measured in hours, not work done.
My wife became ill last fall and has had to take a leave from her job, so after working freelance over the intervening three years, I returned to a full-time a salaried jobwith a group of old university student council colleagues who now run a different sort of software company. I made it clear at the outset that I needed to work no more than 40 hours a week, and could not travel, and they have respected that.
When my wife went into hospital earlier this month, I was able to take time off without even implied judgment from my co-workers and employers, and I have since arranged to work half-time while she recovers. One of my supervisors has said, "You're worth whatever you can give us, and your family is more important."
What's funny is that I'll likely stay in this job a long time, and dedicate a lot of effort to doing it well, because I respect the people I work with, and they respect me. Are employees really worth more if they're driven to be at work all the time? I don't think so.
Maybe women, on average, realize that sooner than men do, on average?
Posted by: Anonymous Guy at Jan 31, 2004 3:42:52 PM
