I read a blog the other day by a smart lady named Sarah Lim. It was called "Take the Lead in Fairness". She commented on women in procurement and the lack thereof in the top ranks. She implied a lack of opportunity due to gender bias, and a failure by Corporate America to "keep pace with the changing needs of modern day living". The implication of her point was that most workplaces are not flexible enough to meet the needs of working women, mothers in particular.
She goes on with a list of recommendations for a more flexible workplace, most of which I wholeheartedly agree with, though most of these are not really gender specific. She then implies that somehow if we resolved these workplace issues, we would achieve gender parity in the executive suite. Well… maybe not.
Certainly my experience will support the idea of gender bias in Corporate America. I agree as well that this issue is not as severe as when I started in the workplace, but it is still there for sure. Over the years, I have come to count on finding a group of talented hard working women operating significantly below their talent and earning potential at each new job I have accepted. I have yet to be disappointed.
Given the opportunity, I have found these women were able to move into positions of far greater responsibility (and pay), and achieve great results for the company, and themselves. These women were invariably very hard workers and would readily go above and beyond the call of duty at a moment's notice. Many of my management teams ended up with gender parity earlier than the statistical norm.
I did learn that accommodations had to be made. Yes, these women did take more time off than their male counterparts. A lot of this time was unscheduled as well. I also noticed occasionally, their children occupying their office or cube when child care issues came up. As I tacitly allowed for these, I also noticed them, back in the day, carrying reports home with them, and later, emails at all hours. In nearly every case, I got at least as much as I needed from these women and many times, more than I expected. I learned that, right or wrong, these women were carrying a bigger or at least different burden than their male counterparts, and had different demands on their time. However, if given flexibility, they could produce at least as much
This experience caused me to rethink a lot of my methods. I learned to define and measure job performance by specific deliverables and results, assigning work by ownership of a specific function or process rather than by hours worked or other more conventional measures. I found that these changes were not really an accommodation, but actually a more effective way of getting the job done. This has become even more true as the procurement function really goes global, requiring communication nearly 24/7. If I am on the phone with Asia from 8 to 10 PM, why do I need to be in the office from 8 to 10 AM? This also served me well later when I began to manage people remotely or who worked from home
OK, so why did I say "Maybe not" about these changes affecting the top echelon positions?
In the end the organization is a pyramid. There are a whole lot of lower positions and only a handful of top ones. This means competition, and very tough competition. The folks who win those slots are those willing to do whatever it takes to get them. That includes a near singular focus on the job and that precludes the sort of "flexibility" discussed above. You went to your kid's soccer game and someone else did not. She gets an opportunity you missed. Most really successful women I know who have made it to the higher ranks in procurement, are either single or have a partner who handles a lot of the details of the household, allowing for the sort of focus required.
This may not be fair or pleasant, but until we do away with hierarchical organizations or promotion decisions based on competitive performance, folks who chose for work life balance will lose. As more women than men tend to take this route, I believe that parity is a long way off…
Interesting post. I've had the benefit of working with a number of women during my career, most of them have been excellent at what they do. I've often wondered why the gender balance seems to favor men in management position as I've felt that the women I've known would be fully capable of a management role. This post goes a long way to a possible explanation. As men with families, perhaps we should ask ourselves why we feel that our wives should be the ones to sacrifice their careers for the family. Perhaps more equality at home would help the balance in the workforce.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog Tom. Keep them coming.