shescrafty6679

I agree with certain things he said like the personality differences between men and women on average (ex competitive vs cooperative). The major point he missed though, is that the corporate system favors the male dominant traits simply because it was designed by men from their world view (ie if i am more motivated by competition, I'll set it up as a zero sum game because I assume that's what will motivate others too). But If women are more motivated by cooperation, then why not change the structure from being exclusively a zero sum game? The corporate hierarchy was designed a few hundred years ago -- since then, the entire economy has transformed along with the composition of the workforce, yet these underlying structures have remained exactly the same. the question i pose in the book is, what makes more sense, rewiring women's personalities to conform to an outdated system or rewire the system to better meet the needs of today's workforce and economy?

I am a feminist and always had a problem with all the female leadership stuff at work. It all seemed like phony corporate cheerleading. The truth is, the corporate world is all about power politics. Naturally the more pushy people will rise to the top. Some of them use 'women's issues' as a platform to further their own personal agenda and it's not really about a genuine interest in helping others. My advice: ignore them and don't let the bastards get ya down :)

The book includes a ton of research. Happy to debate any specific points.

Building relationships and having formal authority over other people are two distinct motivational forces which are in direct tension with each other. For example, let's say you're on a team with your two best friends then suddenly you are promoted and now their manager. If you flex that position by lording your authority over them, your relationships suffer. But if you act like nothing has changed and they're still your best friends, then your authority is undermined. That's what I mean by they're in tension with each other . Everyone is more motivated by one over the other (relationships vs authority). The problem is, the only reward at work is formal authority, so what does that mean for those who aren't motivated by it? So many people stay below the glass ceiling not because they lack ability or ambition,, but because there's literally nothing motivating them to work harder and climb higher. That's an issue with the system of reward/motivation/incentive. It's not an issue with the people operating within that system.

I think one of the real problems is that facetime, visibility, and being in the office are used as proxies for good performance. That obviously hurts people's ability to manage their responsibilities across home vs. work. Instead of changing parental leave policies, I think it would make a much bigger impact if we could change the way we grade performance and design more objective ways of evaluating people's work/impact. Right now we grade on visibility which compromises people's ability to have balance.