The Changing Role Of Women

February 6th, 2009

by John R. Sedivy

Introduction
This morning I read an article in the New York Times titled “As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men In The Workforce”. Although a surprise to many, it was not shocking to me as business writers such as Tom Peters, who in my opinion was way ahead of his time in his writing of Re-imagine!, have been predicting this sort of shift for years. This article reflects upon my experience of working with women in the past and present, my opinion of this article, as well as insights drawn upon the two.

The Glass Ceiling
For years many have been discussing the “glass ceiling” that may have existed for women in corporate America. Men have historically made more than women for performing the same task, at least if one is to believe the reported surveys and labor statistics. To some extent this has always made sense to me, not because it was right or even sexist but mainly due to the history of our country and associated traditions.

Since the founding of the country it was not acceptable for a woman to participate in the workforce due to traditionally assigned gender roles. In addition, there is a certain biological instinct leaning towards traditional gender roles – women to nest and men to produce, check out “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” by Dr. John Gray for more insight into this. However this shifted during the World Wars, mainly due to the necessity – most able bodied men were off fighting the wars. Women had to take the mantle of responsibility and keep the front lines supported and successfully did so, therefore earning a much deserved place in American history and industry.

My rationale behind the glass ceiling is that because men are biologically tuned to have an instinct towards productivity, in many instances our state of mind is linked to how much we produce and results achieved, and that we have been playing the industrial game for generations, we had the natural inclination, practice, and people were accustomed to seeing men in leadership positions in this country. People generally like what they are used to, and people were just used to seeing men in leadership positions, at least in this country.

Take the current presidency for example. There would have been a time when having women candidates for the President or Vice President would have been too much for the average American to handle – it simply would have been too risky for a serious contender to consider. The same could be said for an African American candidate. However, the former we may not have been ready for, but obviously the latter we are, if the election results are any indication of our readiness and acceptance of change. Although now that our country has been exposed to seeing female candidates for the top two positions in government I believe this will be more readily accepted and even lead to the election of a female President – it is only a matter of time.

The purpose of this article is not to debate whether this ceiling existed, as in my experience I have found that like most other things, it is advantageous to be of a certain gender or background in various situations – being a Caucasian male with military service was likely to my advantage when applying to a defense contractor as my first position out of military. However, years later when another employer was specifically seeking candidates with diverse ethnic backgrounds and female gender to satisfy government diversity desires – it certainly was not to my advantage to be a white male – and employment offers and conditions reflected this. My point is this – your strength can be your weakness, and vice versa – it is all context dependent. Let’s discuss this further.

Weakness As Strength
For the purposes of this article let’s say that the glass ceiling does exist and that women do make less in the workforce than men. It appears that based on the latest Times survey and statistics that this position of weakness has turned into a definite strength. A majority of men – specifically 82 percent are being laid off due to their employers not being able to afford to pay their salary. At first glance this may not appear to be a position of power or even a strength – from the vantage point of women. Okay, I will risk saying it – the short term implication is that employers are keeping women around because they cost less. However if you look at the long term implications you may change your mind.

In Tom Peters’ book “Re-Imagine!, specifically “Chapter 13: Trends Worth Trillion$$$I: Women Roar”, Peters discusses the underutilized position of women in traditional organizations; he proposes their strengths when compared to men by citing the work of Harvard psychologist Carol Gilligan’s study titled “In a Different Voice”:

1. Men want to get away from authority and family. Women want to connect.
2. Men are self-oriented. Women are other-oriented.
3. Men are rights-oriented. Women are responsibility-oriented.

He goes on to cite Marti Barletta, in Marketing to Women:

1. Men have an “individual perspective” while women have a “group perspective”.
2. Men take “pride in self-reliance.” Women take “pride in team accomplishment”.

To further the claim that some of these traits are “hard-wired” into us by gender, Peters further cites Barletta’s studies:

1. Vision: men, focused. Women, peripheral.
2. Hearing: Women’s discomfort level is half that of men’s.
3. Smell: Women, sensitive. Men, relatively insensitive.
4. Touch: The most sensitive man is less sensitive to touch than the least sensitive woman.
5. People orientation: By age three days, baby girls exhibit twice as much eye contact as baby boys.

Peters also argues that women make most of the consumer purchase decisions and investment decisions in a American households than men, citing Newsweek and Miami Herald reports. So if women are better suited for business, why are they naturally not in higher corporate positions when compared to men?

My Personal Experience

My thought is that Tom Peters’ assessment is dead on and this is based on my experience. As a partnership Amy and I work together to achieve very specific goals, that as a small business are crucial to both our personal and business survival. I have found that working with her is many, many times more effective than working alone, mainly for the reasons stated above. My strengths offset her weaknesses, while her strengths offset my weaknesses – I find this to be a perfectly complementary relationship. Warren Buffet is noted as saying that it is always good to team up with a woman because they are loyal and hard-working partners (The Snowball, by Alice Schroeder).

Although this is the first male/female business partnership in which I have worked, my guess is the success of our complementary relationship is based heavily on these innate differences as outlined in Re-Imagine! Of course other aspects come into play such as education and experience which undoubtedly define us and as a result have an impact, however in the past I have worked in male dominated industries with diverse education and experience with a fraction of the results. Interestingly enough I have found the complimentary nature of the male/female relationship in other areas such as my business school education – with similar results.

That is not to say that our partnership is not without challenges. The very strengths that make for a strong, complimentary partnership also tend to challenge the relationship at times. Diversity is sometimes difficult to tolerate, especially when it goes against who you are as an individual. However we both have found it worthwhile to work through the challenges and that our combined strengths provide many, many more advantages than disadvantages.

The World Is Changing
In “Re-Imagine!” Peters purports that women mainly have not been given the opportunity to shine in traditional organizations for reasons I had discussed earlier. Although in general I tend to agree, I do offer one word of caution – I tend to stay away from absolutes – there are always exceptions to every rule. Although patterns can be determined based upon trends of groups of individuals, and that is what Tom Peters, and his cited studies, have done. They have studied group behavior, how men and women are “hard-wired” differently, and how they behave in different environments. As discussed earlier these strengths are advantageous in certain environments but may be a disadvantage in others – it all depends on context. In general it is a matter of positioning; most successful people position themselves so they are in the optimum context to maximize their abilities.

Which brings me full circle to the New York Times article. The world is changing dramatically. Established companies are failing and even disappearing, massive layoffs are occurring, people are re-inventing themselves to stay afloat. On the other hand, new opportunities are being created around the new economy for those creative enough to adapt and seize upon these opportunities. Marsha Firestone, founder of the Women Presidents’ Organization refers to entrepreneurship as “the great equalizer” when questioned about the glass ceiling. In her view, the glass ceiling does exist, however creating a small business is a way to mitigate or even eliminate its effects.

My personal view is that I find the current state of the economy and the resultant power shift as an opportunity for women and entrepreneurs in general. For women in the corporate world, it is an opportunity to shine as women appear to be relatively unscathed by the surge in layoffs when compared to men – again this is not absolute but a generalization based on the reported trends. For men and entrepreneurs in general I see it as an opportunity to re-invent yourself or your business. Hard work, determination, and focus will increase the likelihood that when the economy does recover that as an individual or a business, you will be in a position of power – once we reach the other side.

It won’t be easy – anything worthwhile seldom is. Another certainty is that nothing will ever be the same again. Change of this order (referred to as discontinuous change) results in destruction and recreation – destroying the old to make room for the new. Visionaries such as Tom Peters have seen this coming for some time – when will you recognize it, and ultimately once recognized; what will you do with it?

The changing world will result in new opportunity for everyone!

-John R. Sedivy of Cape Cod Branding

If you found our information helpful, please feel free to donate. Thanks!