Women in the Workplace

On a slightly different point picked up from other comments: over 25% of American kids are living in single parent households, and an overwhelming majority of those households are headed by women. Over 75% of kids today will live in a single parent household at some point before they hit 18.

You may be painfully aware of this — but a lot of folks are so totally oblivious.

When I was a single mom, working as a VP/Marketing and Business Development for the 3rd fastest growing private company in Oregon, my son's elementary school teacher kept sending home 2 hour “make work” projects for him to do on *weekdays*. My weekday looked like this: Get us ready, drop Joseph at school, go to work. Pick Joseph up at 6pm, prep/eat dinner, kid to bed. There was no time in there for a 2h set of worksheet “learning games.” I wish!

At the parent/teacher meeting, I pointed out to his teacher what her demographics were. I couldn't imagine I was the only single parent feeling like she was missing a spare clue. When I complained that there were issues single parents had, that she might not be anticipating in her lesson plans, her reaction?

“Have you considered dating?”

*boggle*

Workplace understanding can be just as bad. Before I got the position at eMarket Group, I had 14 interviews. As a new (and still stinging) single mom, when the interview got to the “any more questions?” stage I was blunt. “I can't work more than 40 hours in the office. I have to pick my son up from afterschool at 6pm or they put him out with the trash. And if my son is sick, I work from home.”

My friends were appalled. “Just *shut up* about this stuff! Negotiate it later!” But my life was in enough transition. I wanted to find the company that “got it.” When I interviewed at eMarket Group, the Executive VP (a woman with no children and no plans personally to have any) said, “Uh, well *duh!*” and I knew I had a new home. It was an awesomely affirming place to work, in terms of understanding full lives and flexibility.

How about where you work? Your family? Your friends? Your volunteer work? Does every context of your life understand you need a life, and so do the kids in your “village?”

For over 20 years I worked in male-dominated industries and did stereotypical corporate claiming thing. Unlike most women, I had no family obligations and focused only on my work – until I ended up in the hospital with a presumed heart attack. It turned out it was just a massive stress attack that put me out of commission for 3 months. Imagine a super A personality, with goals like “making the top 50 most influential women on Forbes magazine” and “building my company into a $1.5 billion company” sitting a home doing nothing… The night spent in the hospital was more than a wakeup call. At the end of very long and very brutal self assessment, I ended up giving away over 30 pairs of high-heels and all but one of my power suits, changed my goals, and replaced the corporate job with a “me, myself, and I” consulting business. Life – my life, was more important to me than getting at the top of the ladder. I also realized that I can have a much bigger impact from behind the scenes.

That was a pretty logical explanation of my actions – or so I thought. It turns out that there is more to it. It has to do on how our brain works. A great eye opener is Louann Brizendine’s book “The Female Brain”. A neuropsychiastrist, Dr. Brizendine explains the psychology, the chemistry (i.e. hormones), and the mechanics of the brain. Women’s brains are designed to deal with multiple issues at the same time. It is not the lack of focus; it is the Stone Age brain that has to maintain not only peace in the cave, but protect and raise the offspring, prepare the food, and take care of the older people in the cave. Modern society only added to the list: climb the corporate ladder, do the laundry and the cooking, raise the kids, take care of both sets of parents, keep the peace at work/home/everywhere else you go, volunteer for at least 3 charities, be active in the PTA, run a marathon for a great cause, be the default shrink for family and friends. Ever wonder why most women fall asleep while taking a hot bath?

Men’s Stone Age brain was designed for only one task: kill beast, bring it home. Modern society added golf to it. OK, I’m being sarcastic, but quite frankly not much has changed since – there is still the same one task: kill beast, bring it home. That allows men to be laser focused and dedicate much more time to their careers, and hence leadership.

Those of us who got burned or had a very hard talk to ourselves decided to let others be the front leader. Don’t be too quick to judge: we are still having a significant impact (mommy bloggers power, anyone?) and are leading as we always had: from behind the scenes.

So, another way to see this might be “lead from a different chair.” Know what I mean? Not every leader has a C-level title.

One of my best bosses, Debbie, lived the corporate role while her husband did the Mr Mom thing. It just was. He sometimes had a rough time of it with the guys. I know that *I* wouldn't be cut out for that kind of life, but I know that lots of people do it just wonderfully.

To me, it's a tricky thing, though, because there's pretty much NO support for the “Mr Mom” role, such as it were. It's just not something our culture (western US-ish culture) supports. In other societies? I'm not sure that people in other cultures are any much bigger into it.

Chris, by highlighting the undisputable fact that “not all women want to lead,” and not mentioning the equally undisputable fact that not all men want to lead, I'm afraid you're missing the point and reinforcing a bias that contributes to the disparities mentioned in the article. You're suggesting that women are less likely than men to want to lead, and that this difference could (at least partially) explain the disparity. Have you tested your theory in any rigorous, non-anecdotal way? If not, you may want to consider that assumptions about women – about their preferred and appropriate roles, as well as their capacities to fill the entire range of roles – are more likely to explain the numbers. You don't need explicit discrimination to have this kind of effect, though we shouldn't dismiss it. Biased expectations (among both men and women) can go a long way toward limiting opportunities for women.

I think they are. Companies are offering whole-life recognizing benefits — Whole Foods comes to mind in general, but on-site daycare and flex time and job sharing are becoming much more popular (albeit, you don't see much paternity care offers).

But a lot of these benefits are under threat in a tight economy. I even saw someone saying that it was the “socialist” benefits offered in the EU that was sinking their economies. (Couldn't have anything to do with pandering Greek elected officials and stoopid banks and this global crisis, now, could it?) In most if not all the EU, paternity leave is law, health care is universal, and in many countries you get paid to have kids so the earning setbacks of parenthood are buffered.

Then you have households like mine, which are still unusual. I'm a liberal with family values. It's me and Fish, my 17 year old son, and my 89-year-old grandmother — and we're starting a company out of our house. Admittedly it makes for bad home/work boundaries sometimes — but I prefer to think of it as a very well integrated life! If you see me out in the evening, you know I'm missing my family dinner, which is being shared by the flanking generations in our absence. But if I end up working in an office, almost certainly Fish would stay home more than I would and help with mom. He's better suited to working from home, and it wouldn't be a question of gender.

My son at 17 thinks of issues of sexism, racism and homophobia as being the trailing edge of cultural change — but then, we do live in Massachusetts. I don't think he's going to have much issue working with strong women as he grows up. And ultimately, that's where the real change will come — from children who grow up with role models that say, everyone should have options; everyone should have choice; everyone should be treated fairly, and recognized for their talents and hard work.

I am a bit shocked we're having this conversation today in 2010. It would have been more appropriate 20 years ago, when women started rocking the entrepreneurial world and their startup rate doubled (and often tripled) the general startup rate. In 1978 women owned about 4 percent of all the businesses in the US, today it's nearly 40. Women weren't even “allowed” to get credit in their own names until 1974. Women are still at a big disadvantage when it comes to access to captial, and let's not even talk about access to VC money.
Just in terms of sheer numbers, the first group of the original baby boom (which I believe peaked in 1957) were not given many choices or shown many opportunities to “learn a trade.” In the late 60s I was given 3 choices of “what I could be” by my high-school guidance counselor–and I was a smart kid. Needless to say I rejected his choices (teacher, nurse or secretary) and forged my own path. I believe I was the first female editorial director of a general business magazine, but that didn't mean I was paid or treated the same as a man would have been in my postition.
The underlying premise of your point Chris assumes that ALL men want to lead. And they don't. Nor are they necessarily good (or better) at it. These comparisons between male and female leadership might be more valid if men and women were treated equally in this country, but they're not. While the overt sexism of the “Mad Men” era is gone (mostly), there's still plenty of covert sexism to go around.
Instead of asking why women don't want to lead, perhaps we should be wondering why there's still such a huge wage gap in American, why women do NOT get equal opportunity, particularly when it comes to money issues, and how very sad it is this question had to be posed.
Stop searching for the answer to what women want; it's like looking for the Holy Grail. There are hundreds of millions of us and some of us want what some of the hundreds of millions of men want and the rest of us want other things. We women are not monolithic yearners.

Hi Rieva,
Yes, I started my day here and it seems I will end my day here reading these comments. The comments and commenters are remarkable. And sadly, we are having this conversation in 2010. Chris mentions a couple of news stories in his post, but there were others in the past week:
Here are the links to those stories,
When Female Networks Aren't Enough http://s.hbr.org/9sdiX6
A Toolkit for Women Seeking a Raise – http://nyti.ms/a1cXuU

Here is a link to a post I wrote a year ago, Chris Brogan RT this week, it deals with the whole struggle of young women in the work force, you might enjoy it and the follow up comments: Thanking Lilly Ledbetter http://bit.ly/a9MgfU

Finally, as I told Chris earlier this morning: I think a more interesting article for people to read this week about women and what they can and need to do for the current economic situation is TIME Magazine profile of Elizabeth Warren, Mary Schapiro and Sheila Bair, The New Sheriffs of Wall Street…The women charged with cleaning up the mess. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,…
Nice meeting you, @judyhelfand

It is really very big issue and most probably appropriate to discuss also. It is very important to maintain dignity in front of women at work place. Today almost 70% women are working or want to work. Respect is very important for women and it should be given to all. Very nice article for this subject. Very nicely discussed.

Hi Chris,
Good points. You'd love this fascinating Financial Times podcast on the Gender Pay Gap for MBAs.
http://podcast.ft.com/index.php?pid=12

The journalist/interviewer constantly tries to sensationalise research findings and create a story of “women have it tough”. Thankfully the researcher (Professor of Economics from Chicago B-School) sticks to her guns and points out that any pay gap that exists is more due to a women's choice than any discrimination.

Hope all's well
Charlie
http.www.freshnetworks.com

The only real change I've seen with more women in the workplace is an increased breach of basic health and safety. Too many of them wear fitflops and other fashionable summer sandals instead of the proper shoes which are required when in the warehouse. It's a legal action just waiting to happen…

I really love this topic. And I think you're right in that not all women want to lead…at least not in the traditional sense. We have to remember that today's corporate structure has essentially been created by men. Women often prefer to do things differently. I think women ARE leading in many areas, just perhaps its not as obvious because the roles are not as clearly defined. We can't fit them into a box. I see plenty of women of influence on Twitter…they may not all be leading multi-national corporations, but they are appealing to their target audiences in a way that indicates they clearly understand what their market needs. Perhaps with the advent of social media we are going to see a fundamental shift in leadership too. Because social media is about understanding the needs of the target market we serve. And historically, women have been very good at getting below the surface, into the heart of things.

We have been able to do many things well…nurture our families, as well as change the face of the workplace with things like time-flex jobs, etc. And my industry, direct selling, has a huge percentage of women, each owning their own business, but on a schedule that allows them to nurture their many commitments.

We are not where we need to be as a society in terms of pay equality. But I think we're seeing a real shift in the role women play in the workplace, and what the workplace itself looks like.

Thanks for such a thought-provoking piece!

really nice sharing thanks

Well true. Not all men want to lead. I wasn't discounting the male perspective. I just wasn't writing about it. : )

Awesome, Charlie. Thanks for sharing that, and say hi to #bodger for me. : )

I think this is interesting, because “Mr. Mom” is mentioned a lot, but this is clearly the exception, rather than the rule. Single-parent households run by women are becoming the norm in many ways. Not only are these women forced to balance the dispensation of their leadership (rather than applying it almost solely to their professional lives, as many men with wives at home do), but I think there is a growing lack of trust. When women lose their trust in the leadership and integrity of men in the personal realm, there's no way for that not to effect the professional realm. Many, many women want to lead and are wired and capable to do so. Many more do so because they no longer trust that men will grow up and step up. Not only that, but the prolonged adolescence that often accompanies being men who've grown up without present and engaged fathers contributes to women getting married much later, when their career are already in full-swing and their leadership is being cultivated toward a professional end. That isn't meant as a bitter indictment of men, because inspection of current generations of men will reveal second and third generations of fatherless households, so the cards are stacked against their success. It is a reality, however, that in a culture where being a husband of a stable household used to be one of the markers that you were cut out for professional success, there is a sense that while the options are opening up for women, they are closing in also, as being bread-winner of household, sole provider of income, and primary daily example of professional leadership and success are no longer optional for many women.

Chris, I think you’re ‘right on’. While there are more choices for women and while women have advanced in organizations, for the most part it’s been because of their determination and sacrifice and in spite of the employer’s efforts, not because of them. Organizations haven’t changed very much, and it’s clearly time they do – both for women and for their own self interest. We must acknowledge two facts: 1) women have had to adapt to a workplace that was designed for work to be in a ‘place’ and be done without interruption, and 2) women have been, and continue to be, the primary caregiver (even though men are doing more).

These facts have often caused women to make choices they might not have wanted to make. What’s needed is for women – and men – to be able to have the flexibility they need to manage their work and personal lives most effectively. Today, while many organizations have flexible work arrangements – part time, compressed schedule, flex time, telework and flexible career paths — on the ‘books’, they are not necessarily encouraged or considered the ‘norm’ so that taking advantage of them may cause a woman to be seen as less than a full contributor and derail her career or even cause her to lose her job.

What’s been missing in many of today’s companies is a truly flexible work environment that takes into account the dramatic changes that have take place in the workforce, the workday, the workplace and the work team. These changes require employers to make flexibility the standard way of operating when considering how, when, where and how much work is done. They also need to examine the way the organization people processes – recruitment, on-boarding, talent management, job assignment, diversity/inclusion efforts, etc, — to make sure they are aligned with the dramatic changes that have taken place, and that they incorporate the perspective of flexible work both for the sustainability of the enterprise and so that women (and men) can create new ways of leading, and achieve their full potential as employees and as people with full lives and responsibilities outside work.

Good point Chris!
Every person must have the same oportunities. I remember when i worked here in Mexico for an european corporation, they issued an internal policy in order to balance the distribution of high positions. The intention was good and fair, but i think they forced the situation in some cases just in order to balance the positions in one year. At certain moment there were not enough ladies to cover the positions.

Now a days mostly women are working and also doing work of home in this costly generation. So women are in the workplace more than other field.

I personally appreciate the intent of your articles, although it's never quite that simple. As a working mom by night and female executive by day, I can appreciate the very real decision women have to make regarding life/work balance. At the end of the day, there are a lot of high quality executive women who chose to be the CEO of the family vs. CEO of their office – many of which are my dear friends. And thank goodness for them – they spend their smarts helping my children in the class room, raising money for our public schools system so my kids can have art classes and music classes in grade school. Conversely, I've chosen the executive in the office path…and although most days I manage to mask both world's from each other, there are days where they collide. Can I really take of 3 mornings this week to attend all of my kids recitals and graduations? Unfortunately, in many organizations, the higher you are on the corporate ladder the less transparent you can be – and some days, I feel like I'm failing on both fronts. So it's not easy for executive women, especially 'moms' – and I personally respect all who try to make it work as much as those who know which kingdom them want to 'rule'.

I have no doubt that many deserving women find it difficult to advance in to positions of leadership in their companies due to bias. However, it goes both ways. If a man decides he doesn't want to be a leader, he's often painted a loser, is ostracized and whatever career ambitions he does have can be ignored. Not all people want to be leaders, men and women alike. It would behoove businesses of all types to engage their employees as individuals, not as genders, to assess their interest and potential and support their development and advancement accordingly.

I´m not very fond of the idea of discussing whether women, handicaped, chinese, black or any other “category” want or not to lead, or have the right to do or receive something just because they are “member of a category”. Since you put people in this kind of ghetto, you reinforce the prejudice against them, instead of stimulating competences, learning and opportunities based on equality.

But I agree that when we study why these differences occur, and work to eliminate them not “protecting” minorities, but only giving them the same access to education and professional opportunities based on skills, we can have a light in the end of the tunnel.

A recent book (CAREER GPS: Strategies for Women Navigating the New Corporate Landscape), from Ella Bell, professor at Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, is one of this examples — understanding the corporate world in order to reduce the differences between men and women in the workforce.

Given the corporate landscape Im surprised anyone is willing to lead and most leaders dont. This issue goes to the root of feminine/masculine energies (not to be confused with male/female gender; both genders can channel both energies).

Its fair to say that most males are more comfortable with masculine energy (energy necessary to lead) and most females are more comfortable with feminine energy (the nurturing and caring type of energy).

To really get the sense and realness of this “energy” business start observing straight couples. You will notice (with most) a depolarization and a sort of even-ness, meet you in the middle kind of thing; which really stifles passion hence the high divorce rates in US.

On the other end, watch gay and lesbian couples and you will notice that even tho genders are the same, one partner is channeling masculine while the other is channeling feminine energies. They “get” this energy business; but the media has brainwashed us into believing that same-ness and this equalization of genders is a good thing. Its not. Its the worst thing in the world because no one is being their true self.

“Equalization of genders” is not to be confused with equality of genders. The first relates to our core energies while the other relates to human rights which ought to be the same for all. Alas, they are not.

While we argue male/female gender equality issues, we are not noticing the real separation in human-rights. The separation based on wealth.

Great post Chris and a great question. Glad I could put in my 2 cents :-)

I agree not all men or all women want to lead. And, “there's something happening here … What it is ain't exactly clear …” Not sure it's a man with a gun over there… [Thanks to Buffalo Springfield].

Here are just a couple of quick examples that just came across my desk today. An audit of Canadian University stats for women. http://bit.ly/9yLZuu. Pretty much parity until tenure, then then the stats for women start falling off. And, last week Canadian government granted 10 Excellence Research Chairs: men 100%, women 0%.

Is it that women just don't apply for these leadership roles? If they don't is it because they don't want to, that they don't think that they have a chance, that they're too busy with their families, other? I don't know.

I do know that talking about it, sharing ideas and insight, that's good. Thanks Chris for creating this opportunity.