A dominant idea in gender-based discussion is that there are masculine and feminine corporate cultures....All this stereotyping rubs me the wrong way. Much as I want women to advance, I hate to think this kind of talk about human beings is the key. Researchers seem to believe it's just fine to stereotype as long as they put negative spin on everything associated with men -- "[h]ierarchies, orders, supplication, obedience, puppy dogs tails" -- and sugar-coat the presentation of the supposedly feminine characteristics -- "communication and collaboration" -- which are perfectly susceptible to restatement as negatives and which have traditionally been used to obstruct the advancement of women.
Two women from the University of East London asserted last summer in a paper, Implementation of Large Scale Software Applications, that a blinkered, hierarchical approach to the implementation of IT systems has also been linked to the failure of IT projects. Hierarchies, orders, supplication, obedience, puppy dogs tails - these are the things little boys are made of, as the authors pointed out.
A good way to sum up IT failures would be a lack of communication and collaboration, and that, if you have any truck with stereotypes, is what little girls are supposed to be made of.
Janice Kinory, who ushers women into SET ... industries, spent 25 years working in the automotive industry and lived through its transition from Fordism to the Kaizen system of manufacturing.
It changed, she says, from a culture in which decisions were determined by "will of the loudest, most macho male in the room" and "overlooked better ideas put forward by less forceful individuals", to a culture in which the careers of women like Ms Kinory improved along with the fortunes of the manufacturers who embraced more collaborative working practices.
A study of organisational politics published last year by Linda Holbeche, a consultant with Roffey Park, found that men were more likely to engage in divisive politics, while women were more constructive.
Yet, Holbeche says men are more able to use politics to their own advantage because they can be more goal driven and competitive - they have no glass ceilings, social stereotyping and fewer difficulties in hierarchical work environments to hamper their ambition....
Improving your bottom line is clearly not as simple as employing more women. Bismuth says he's still trying to remove glass ceilings, but there's a masculine, corporate establishment that is "resistant" to having its workplaces feminised.
ADDED: And just look at the headline:
If you become like them
Notice anything? Oh really? Women improve my performance? If I become like them?
IN THE COMMENTS: An IT guy strikes back:
I've been in IT for a bit over 20 years and I'm scratching my head over this one. Hierarchies and orders are unfortunately common in IT, but supplication and obedience? From what alternate universe IT department did they drag those? Anyone marginally worth their salt in an IT department has more than a bit of a primadonna complex. We don't supplicate to or obey because we don't have to.
Continue reading inside.
Posts
24 comments:
Dave: These managers need to figure out what bad behavior is in individuals and what is fair to individuals. And they should bone up on the law while they are at it. Employers treating people according to sex stereotypes is illegal in the United States.
It's interesting... because I've worked with more women than not who say that women are more political in the office than men. They've specifically said that they liked working with men rather than other women because there is less in-fighting.
The view from those I've talked to is that men may be more political on the surface, but they make their feelings exactly known. Women on the other hand tend to hide their feelings, and do more fighting behind the scenes, and stab others in the back.
As far as stereotypes in general are concerned... as one friend of mine likes saying... "They're stereotypes for a reason"
I wonder to what extent that these gender-aligned stereotypes reflect a more common problem. Sometimes a take-charge, aggressive approach may be needed just to get things done; other times a more communicative, cooperating approach may be what makes a project better. The root problem is that it isn't always clear which approach is the one that is needed now for a given project.
"They've specifically said that they liked working with men rather than other women because there is less in-fighting."
My wife brings this up about once a week. She works in a office full of women and it amazes me how much in-fighting goes on.
OTOH the office I work in caters to women. Different expectations wrt attendance and communication. Women also seem to get projects that are above their technical expertise and get all the accolades when others come in and save the project.
Janice Kinory ... spent 25 years working in the automotive industry and lived through its transition from Fordism to the Kaizen system of manufacturing.
It changed, she says, from a culture in which decisions were determined by "will of the loudest, most macho male in the room" and "overlooked better ideas put forward by less forceful individuals", to a culture in which the careers of women like Ms Kinory improved along with the fortunes of the manufacturers who embraced more collaborative working practices.
Yes, because that Kaizen structure from Japan was designed specifically by and for women. We all know what a bunch of wusses those Japanese men are, getting pushed around by all those women Samurai, Ninja, and Sumo wrestlers.
...
Is it too much to ask for the authors of these studies and the writers of these articles to actually pay attention to what they're writing about?
In law offices, female secretaries never want to work with the female attorneys. I've seen this. The female attorneys are considered the worst bosses, and secretaries would much rather work for a male attorney.
Peace, Maxine
I agree with Nick--the negatives are never mentioned, as if the backstabbing and emotional bullying are anomalies.
What Maxine said also applies to courts with a preponderance of female judges.
Instead of denying these tensions, why don't researchers figure out a way to defuse them? Oh wait, Larry Summers comes to mind...
Based on this headline, is it stereotyping to say that it appears copyeditors assume tech/biz magazine audiences are male?
Are there still women who harbor this utopian belief, that if only everyone would become women, harmony would ensue and all conflict would be gone?
Does this not strike the authors as the least bit implausible? Have they ever really worked in such a heavenly place, where the mother-run company forever profits, the trains run on time, and the trees have gumdrops and cotton candy?
Over and over, business fads pursue the effortless success. Deming, Total Quality, Reengineering. All were fads which came and went. This fad, The Wisdom of Mother Superior, has the same sheen of believability, and is destined for a similar fall from grace.
Some people want to believe this claptrap so badly, they will ignore their own experience with women and men. I have learned to be wary of such intellectual theorizing; it always ends in tears.
Since we are dealing in gross gender stereotyping, allow me to add my own two bits:
"If your dog has bitten the child next door...which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress?" C.S. Lewis
(Of course, the correct answer today is neither. You sell your house and wait for the lawsuit.)
People who think women are more communicative and collaborative in a corporate sense have never seen the Apprentice (particularly season 2).
Please check out The Obvious?, the blog of Euan Semple, who set up all the internal forums and networks at the BBC. Here's a man talking about connection, level playing fields, the advantages of networks as opposed to hierarchies (both for organizations and the people who work in them), and how modern technologies are conducive to them. It'll pleasurably bust your stereotypes.
Unfortunately the collaborative approach from Chevrolet brought us the Caprice, the new Malibu and the Malibu Maxx. While the same approach brought to Ford the eminently forgettable Five Hundred, the Thunderbird and the Freestar. All dogs all the time. It seems that the American manufacturers started tanking for a variety of reasons and the collaborative approach is probably one of them.
Girls are not made of sugar and spice, and everything nice. And, they grow up to be scheming sirens. Women are connivers. They are harridans.
Margo Channing.
Lady Godiva.
It's absolutely biblical. Eve picking that stupid apple, even though told not to.
Contrary.
Guess who the true enablers of Enron were? Not the men. Who sat by and allowed the whole thing? Heros, according to Time Mag. Oh really? Sure they came forward....after it was too late.
Behind every male Corporate Crook.....there's a woman/women standing by, enabling the whole thing.
Nixon, and the "Nixonettes"----a core group of women who paved the way.
Peace, Maxine
My experience: there's a big difference working for a software development company (where most large scale software development projects take place) and in the IT departments of other corporations, no matter how big they are.
From what I've heard from family members and friends, BrianofAtlanta is right about the way things get done in IT departments of large corporations, but in software companies, it's a whole other story. I worked for small, medium, and large software companies over my 15 year career. At all but the smallest, the gender stereotyping was very strong among the male development managers. Most of the women were in non-development roles, and the few that weren't, like me, had long ago learned to get along with the guys as one of the guys. (It helps to read the sports page and ignore all the swearing.) The women in project management, tech writing, and qa were generally disrespected, their opinions discounted, and their overall effectiveness limited -- even when they were supposed to be running meetings, or their input was specifically solicited.
I know my experience is specific to the companies I worked for, but the "boy's club" atmosphere was unmistakeable. I can't tell you the number of times the dev teams went ahead and built something "cool" that the clients didn't need or want, just because it was "cool" and no one had the nerve to reign them in. But that attitude came down from the top, so we all learned to just let it go, rather than be tagged as "troublemakers."
michael babin:
Have you seen the movie "All About Eve" ???
--Offers a very good, and timeless, example of just how great woman get along and work together.
I also recommend "Jezebel".
Women in the workplace----oh yeah, real fun times!
Peace, Maxine
Yes, because that Kaizen structure from Japan was designed specifically by and for women. We all know what a bunch of wusses those Japanese men are, getting pushed around by all those women Samurai, Ninja, and Sumo wrestlers.
Oh, well, you know. The feminised Orient and all -- Western writers have been doing this for centuries.
Only, the Japanese car companies, fitting as they do within the old keiretsu/zaibatsu conglomerates, have some of the most hierarchical corporate structures in the world today. Forget anything you can imagine in the US context, back when they were first trouncing US car manufacturers, corporate underlings at the big car manufacturers are supposed to have had to address their superiors in keigo, in forms so servile they practically amount to a different language. As an example of non-hierarchical corporate management structures, I think major, traditional Japanese corporations like the car companies are about the worst example possible.
"Bill's thirty-two. He looks thirty-two. He looked it five years ago. He'll look it twenty years from now. I hate men."
--Margo Channing (All About Eve)
Hey Michael Babin: I noticed you use the word "Legal Assistant" in your post.
Heaven for fend we call 'em "secretaries". Everyone's an "Administrative Assistant" nowadays, because "secretary" is such an insult.
No more "Gal Friday"---- too sexist.
Stewardess, Cleaning Lady, Waitress....Directress? ....Executrix? ----All discriminatory terms.
Language is now subject to sexual harassment fears.
Women in the workplace.
Good times.
Peace, Maxine
Joan: I don't see how the bad behavior you described equates to the stereotype that Brian said wasn't true ("supplication, obedience"). There's a difference between discrimination against women and particular gender stereotypes that might motivate people to engage in discrimination. One could believe the stereotypes and refrain from discriminating or not believe the stereotypes but still discriminate. A preference for a boys club could exist apart from the stereotypes cited in the article.
Maxine, you're coming across a little, um, unhinged.
Also, "Legal Assistant" is very different from "Legal Secretary". One is a secretary and one is a professional - albeit one without a JD - in most states, it's a certificated position.
It doesn't fit in with your whole stewardess exectrix thingie...
(I've decided to give free reign to my post and not subject it to the rigors of spel-cheking.)
Halo, it's an irritating spelling; not such a big deal. But now you have me thinking about free reign chicken. Chicken Royale?
Maxine, those nasty femmes you keep citing are, you know, not real, right?
HaloJonesFan: Sorry about the typo, I assure you I know the origin of the expression. I type fast, and sometimes the fingers work independent of the brain.
Ann: Brian said the bad behavior isn't true in IT generally; in my experience, it is true in large software development companies. I don't disagree with anything you said, particularly: A preference for a boys club could exist apart from the stereotypes cited in the article. That's true, but at the medium-sized and large companies I worked for, the discriminatory behavior against women was based on the stereotypes that the senior management held and at times actively promoted.
My group was a bit peculiar. We built tools from system-level utilities, so we took requirements from three different application groups and made requests to four system-level groups. I had to enforce a highly cooperative, communicative model or none of it would've worked. It was not an easy position to be in, and one that led to both excellent performance reviews and a reputation for being a bitch. At least we managed to deliver what we were supposed to, when we were supposed to!
Screw All About Eve.
The real cinematic reference in this thread should be...
Ninotchka!
That emotionless, de-feminised, comrade automaton who along the way discovered she can be as effective in a ballgown and funny hat.
Love conquers all.
Except for MoDo, obviously.
Cheers,
Victoria
Post a Comment