Re: By Rashida Mingo
I agree with Barbara, “The price women pay for success is disheartening”. According to the US Dept. of Labor Stats, “Women comprise of 46.5 percent of the total U.S. labor force,” which means that we make up 47% almost equal to 50% compared to men. I think it’s about time to see some systemic changes in company structures in reference to organizational policy’s so that women can be more effective in the workplace. I am classified, as what experts refer to as “Gen Y”. Mscareergirl.com states, “85% of Gen Y Women plan on remaining in their job after they have children.” The Sloan Work & Family Research network at Boston College reported that 73% [of Gen Y workers polled] worry about balancing professional and personal obligations” (Yahoo! HotJobs & Robert Half International, 2007, p. 3). I am a Single Mother of a 1yr old. Now, I have been faced with constant challenges of balancing work & family, more than ever. I aspire to do an MBA. I have always had the passion for leadership. I desire to be an executive. I already believe that I am representation of strength & leadership within my community. However, I do not desire to give up my family life in the process of accomplishing my goals. I do not see why a woman who has the potential to lead & build companies should give up her ambition because she becomes a wife or mother.
I understand that some women think they have to choose between the roles. That is fine. My argument is that we should not have to. Again, if we make of 47% of the workplace, is it not time to change the rules? I have worked for 3 financial Institutions; and my mentors are men. They are great mentors. But, I have yet to come across a woman in Senior Executive Leadership that I can connect who can help me navigate my career more effectively.
I work for one of the largest banks in the US. During my tenure here, I have felt like there is no regard for women in reference to making room for their family life & work balance. Just this morning, our manager passed out an addendum in our meeting stating, that we were not to consider the following holidays off, “5/31 (Memorial Day), 7/4 (Independence Day), 9/6 (Labor Day), & 11/11 (Veterans Day). I am really offended by Veterans Day, because I am one. This company already imposes 50+ work weeks on its employees, in addition to working on weekends. Family time is already very limited, as a working Single Mother. There is no flex time offered. Where is the balance? Honestly, finding flex time with a company is like striking GOLD! So, the question our generation faces is how do we bring about change for the future? It’s clear we need more conducive work environments. I think we have waited long enough.
Rashida Mingo,
Professional Banker & Mother
I understand that some women think they have to choose between the roles. That is fine. My argument is that we should not have to. Again, if we make of 47% of the workplace, is it not time to change the rules? I have worked for 3 financial Institutions; and my mentors are men. They are great mentors. But, I have yet to come across a woman in Senior Executive Leadership that I can connect who can help me navigate my career more effectively.
I work for one of the largest banks in the US. During my tenure here, I have felt like there is no regard for women in reference to making room for their family life & work balance. Just this morning, our manager passed out an addendum in our meeting stating, that we were not to consider the following holidays off, “5/31 (Memorial Day), 7/4 (Independence Day), 9/6 (Labor Day), & 11/11 (Veterans Day). I am really offended by Veterans Day, because I am one. This company already imposes 50+ work weeks on its employees, in addition to working on weekends. Family time is already very limited, as a working Single Mother. There is no flex time offered. Where is the balance? Honestly, finding flex time with a company is like striking GOLD! So, the question our generation faces is how do we bring about change for the future? It’s clear we need more conducive work environments. I think we have waited long enough.
Rashida Mingo,
Professional Banker & Mother
The Abiding Tyranny of the Male Leadership Model — A Manifesto
10:00 AM Tuesday April 27, 2010 by Barbara Kellerman Comments (22)
I'm sick of hearing how far we've come. I'm sick of hearing how much better situated we are now than before. I'm sick of hearing how women are closing the gaps (in health outcomes, educational attainment, and economic participation), how in some cases women are superseding men, and how in the present more than in the past women are progressing to positions of middle and upper management. Above all I'm sick of hearing about the pipeline, about the path to the top supposedly thick with women who will, in the fullness of time, be rewarded for their patience and virtue. The fact is that so far as leadership is concerned women in nearly every realm are nearly nowhere — hardly any better off than they were a generation ago. The following figures, from the American experience, speak for themselves.
3% of Fortune 500 companies are headed by women (2009).
6 % of the 100 top tech companies are headed by women (2010).
15 % of members of Fortune 500 boards are women (2009).
16.8% of members of the U. S. Congress are women (2010).
14.5% of 249 mayors of U. S. cities with populations over 100,000 are women (2010).
21% of nonprofits with budgets greater than $25 million are headed by women (2010).
5% of generals in the U.S. Army are women (2008).
8% of admirals in the U. S. Navy are women (2009).
7% of tenured engineering faculty in four-year institutions are women (2010).
19 % of senior faculty at the Harvard Business School are women (2009-10).
All ten Princeton University eating-club presidents are men (2010).
This does not, of course, mean that there is no improvement whatsoever. Rather it is to point out how abysmally low the numbers remain, a decade into the 21st century. (In some cases, the figures are worse than before. In 2009 the percentage of women holding statewide elective office was 22.6. Ten years earlier it was 27.6.)
Even more disheartening, dismaying even, is the personal price women pay for professional success. While not every woman does, or should, want a partner and/or a child, again the statistics are significant.
54% of women executives are childless vs. 29% of men (2007).
33% of women executives are unmarried vs. 18% of men (2007).
The data confirm a conclusion as inescapable as irrefutable: so far as leadership in America is concerned, men still rule. Moreover in those relatively rare circumstances when women do reach the top, the costs they incur are more likely to be high.
In recent years it's become very clear that diversity matters. It's good for people and for performance as well — which means we have a nefarious problem without an obvious solution. Solutions have been suggested, of course; quite a few in fact. They range from institutional development to individual development; from changing the culture of the workplace to changing the structure of the workplace; from providing time off, to part time to flex time; from shifting housekeeping from women to men, and childcare from mother to father; from imposing mandatory quotas to suggesting voluntary quotas; from grandiose remedies such as an overarching top-down commitment to gender diversity, to more modest ones, hypothetically, accessible to all, including mentoring, networking, and career coaching.
But for various reasons the various solutions have fallen short. Some, such as mentoring, networking, simply can't cut it, at least not to a significant, sufficient degree. Others, such as family friendly policies, are unlikely in themselves to be effective. Still others, for example quotas, are socially and politically unpalatable, at least in the U.S. And, finally, some, including educational reform, public policy, and political action are simply too ambitious if not downright fanciful to have any bearing on the here and now. Put another way, for all the politically correct hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing, at the macro-level the problem of women and leadership has so far resisted even the best of intentions.
What, then, is to be done? How to address a problem that in the U.S. should be considered intractable — at least to those of us unwilling to wait? (In "Letter from Birmingham Jail" Martin Luther King wrote, "For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!'.... This 'Wait!' has almost always meant 'Never.'")
I am not delusional. There will be no social movement to advance the cause of women ambitious to get to the top. But what could create change at a rate other than painfully slow is this: a different mindset. Women and men must own the problem. They must acknowledge, openly, that the paucity of women leaders is equity denied. They must admit, openly, that equity denied is expensive — socially, politically, and economically. They must speak to the issue loudly and publicly and often. They must address it consciously and with deliberate forethought. They must stop touting "gains" so long as these gains remain meager. (In March a New York Times headline read, "Women Making Gains on Faculty at Harvard," which, while technically accurate, was nevertheless misleading. In 2009 women at Harvard held only 21% of full professorships.). They must, whenever and wherever they are able, aggressively administer corrective measures involving, simultaneously, institutions and individuals. They must, whenever and wherever they are able to do so, initiate change from the top, and also from the middle, and from the bottom. And, finally, both women and men must make it socially and politically, professionally and personally, unacceptable to tolerate significant imbalance.A 2007 McKinsey report titled "Women Matter" concluded that the companies that "perform best" are those "where women are most strongly represented at board or top-management level." However it went on to acknowledge that, "as things stand, change will come only very slowly." The solution suggested was to change the modern model of leadership which, by requiring "unfailing availability and total geographical mobility," is now "male-oriented." Four "best practices" were provided: implement gender diversity, facilitate the work-life balance, adapt the human resources management process, and help women nurture their ambition by helping them to "master the dominant code."
All well and good. How to argue against the conclusion that women make a difference, and for the better, or against a set of suggestions both sensible and well-intended? Still, if past is prologue, this will not suffice — at least not for those without the patience of Job. In fact it's precisely this kind of incremental thinking that yields incremental change — instead of a critical mass.
The modern women's movement is almost a half century old. But so far as women leaders are concerned, we have precious little to show for it. We, women and men, remain largely ignorant of the dismal statistics, complacent instead in the certainty that things are getting better. But the sad truth is that so long as equity remains a concern as opposed to a cause, so long will women who want to lead have an albatross on their back.
10:00 AM Tuesday April 27, 2010 by Barbara Kellerman Comments (22)
I'm sick of hearing how far we've come. I'm sick of hearing how much better situated we are now than before. I'm sick of hearing how women are closing the gaps (in health outcomes, educational attainment, and economic participation), how in some cases women are superseding men, and how in the present more than in the past women are progressing to positions of middle and upper management. Above all I'm sick of hearing about the pipeline, about the path to the top supposedly thick with women who will, in the fullness of time, be rewarded for their patience and virtue. The fact is that so far as leadership is concerned women in nearly every realm are nearly nowhere — hardly any better off than they were a generation ago. The following figures, from the American experience, speak for themselves.
3% of Fortune 500 companies are headed by women (2009).
6 % of the 100 top tech companies are headed by women (2010).
15 % of members of Fortune 500 boards are women (2009).
16.8% of members of the U. S. Congress are women (2010).
14.5% of 249 mayors of U. S. cities with populations over 100,000 are women (2010).
21% of nonprofits with budgets greater than $25 million are headed by women (2010).
5% of generals in the U.S. Army are women (2008).
8% of admirals in the U. S. Navy are women (2009).
7% of tenured engineering faculty in four-year institutions are women (2010).
19 % of senior faculty at the Harvard Business School are women (2009-10).
All ten Princeton University eating-club presidents are men (2010).
This does not, of course, mean that there is no improvement whatsoever. Rather it is to point out how abysmally low the numbers remain, a decade into the 21st century. (In some cases, the figures are worse than before. In 2009 the percentage of women holding statewide elective office was 22.6. Ten years earlier it was 27.6.)
Even more disheartening, dismaying even, is the personal price women pay for professional success. While not every woman does, or should, want a partner and/or a child, again the statistics are significant.
54% of women executives are childless vs. 29% of men (2007).
33% of women executives are unmarried vs. 18% of men (2007).
The data confirm a conclusion as inescapable as irrefutable: so far as leadership in America is concerned, men still rule. Moreover in those relatively rare circumstances when women do reach the top, the costs they incur are more likely to be high.
In recent years it's become very clear that diversity matters. It's good for people and for performance as well — which means we have a nefarious problem without an obvious solution. Solutions have been suggested, of course; quite a few in fact. They range from institutional development to individual development; from changing the culture of the workplace to changing the structure of the workplace; from providing time off, to part time to flex time; from shifting housekeeping from women to men, and childcare from mother to father; from imposing mandatory quotas to suggesting voluntary quotas; from grandiose remedies such as an overarching top-down commitment to gender diversity, to more modest ones, hypothetically, accessible to all, including mentoring, networking, and career coaching.
But for various reasons the various solutions have fallen short. Some, such as mentoring, networking, simply can't cut it, at least not to a significant, sufficient degree. Others, such as family friendly policies, are unlikely in themselves to be effective. Still others, for example quotas, are socially and politically unpalatable, at least in the U.S. And, finally, some, including educational reform, public policy, and political action are simply too ambitious if not downright fanciful to have any bearing on the here and now. Put another way, for all the politically correct hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing, at the macro-level the problem of women and leadership has so far resisted even the best of intentions.
What, then, is to be done? How to address a problem that in the U.S. should be considered intractable — at least to those of us unwilling to wait? (In "Letter from Birmingham Jail" Martin Luther King wrote, "For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!'.... This 'Wait!' has almost always meant 'Never.'")
I am not delusional. There will be no social movement to advance the cause of women ambitious to get to the top. But what could create change at a rate other than painfully slow is this: a different mindset. Women and men must own the problem. They must acknowledge, openly, that the paucity of women leaders is equity denied. They must admit, openly, that equity denied is expensive — socially, politically, and economically. They must speak to the issue loudly and publicly and often. They must address it consciously and with deliberate forethought. They must stop touting "gains" so long as these gains remain meager. (In March a New York Times headline read, "Women Making Gains on Faculty at Harvard," which, while technically accurate, was nevertheless misleading. In 2009 women at Harvard held only 21% of full professorships.). They must, whenever and wherever they are able, aggressively administer corrective measures involving, simultaneously, institutions and individuals. They must, whenever and wherever they are able to do so, initiate change from the top, and also from the middle, and from the bottom. And, finally, both women and men must make it socially and politically, professionally and personally, unacceptable to tolerate significant imbalance.A 2007 McKinsey report titled "Women Matter" concluded that the companies that "perform best" are those "where women are most strongly represented at board or top-management level." However it went on to acknowledge that, "as things stand, change will come only very slowly." The solution suggested was to change the modern model of leadership which, by requiring "unfailing availability and total geographical mobility," is now "male-oriented." Four "best practices" were provided: implement gender diversity, facilitate the work-life balance, adapt the human resources management process, and help women nurture their ambition by helping them to "master the dominant code."
All well and good. How to argue against the conclusion that women make a difference, and for the better, or against a set of suggestions both sensible and well-intended? Still, if past is prologue, this will not suffice — at least not for those without the patience of Job. In fact it's precisely this kind of incremental thinking that yields incremental change — instead of a critical mass.
The modern women's movement is almost a half century old. But so far as women leaders are concerned, we have precious little to show for it. We, women and men, remain largely ignorant of the dismal statistics, complacent instead in the certainty that things are getting better. But the sad truth is that so long as equity remains a concern as opposed to a cause, so long will women who want to lead have an albatross on their back.
Barbara Kellerman is the James MacGregor Burns Lecturer in Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Info taken from:http://blogs.hbr.org/imagining-the-future-of-leadership/2010/04/the-abiding-tyranny-of-the-mal.html
No comments
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.