Stuck, unstuck, willingness and unwillingness--what the experts have to say about women and their goals

I listened to Sheryl Sandberg’s 15-minute TED talk from 2010 today and found it to be a good talk, albeit a superficial one, from the standpoint of lack of time and the inability to delve deeper into the subject matter. That is apparently why she wrote her book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, to delve deeper into the problem of women lacking the will to lead. I haven’t yet read it, but plan on doing so. Women are not choosing to be leaders; they are undermining themselves by not ‘sitting at the table with the men and by leaving before they leave’ (thinking about having children long before the situation presents itself and adjusting their career goals accordingly), as Sheryl Sandberg says. Funny how not much has changed since the 1980s when I was starting out in the work world.

Thirty years ago, Susan Schenkel, PhD, a psychologist, published an excellent book called Giving Away Success—Why Women Get Stuck and What to do about it. You can find it on Amazon (Kindle edition) at http://www.amazon.com/Giving-Away-Success-Women-Stuck-ebook/dp/B00DS5QKJE/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1390668266. I read it when it first came out, at a time in my life when I was really just starting out in the work world and when I devoured most of these kinds of books. Games Mother Never Taught You by Betty Lehan Harragan was another favorite: http://www.amazon.com/Games-Mother-Never-Taught-You/dp/0446357030/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390677004&sr=1-1&keywords=games+mother+never+taught+you. The kinds of books that told women to believe in themselves, to take themselves and their dreams and goals seriously, how to tackle the business world, how to get ‘unstuck’ when you were caught in a spiral of inaction and lack of ambition, how to deal with anger, assertiveness and aggressiveness, and how to identify negative thoughts and thought patterns—in order to be able to commit to a career or career path. Schenkel’s book was a cut above the rest; not only did it clearly identify the problems women faced, but it came with solutions for how to deal with them, helpful solutions that I use to this day when I get ‘stuck’. I recently re-read specific sections of her book and it is every bit as relevant today as it was when I first read it. Perhaps more so, because I finally understood that I have been stuck in my own negative thought patterns concerning my present job during the past four years, and that I needed to practice ‘thought stopping’ as suggested by Schenkel. Believe me, it works. But it took a long time for me to get around to ‘wanting’ to stop the negative thoughts. Why, is the operative question. Is it more comfortable to wallow in the negative feelings? Do they allow us to remain inert, to not make a decision, to not want to change your life? I could answer yes and I could answer no—because whatever I answer could not answer the question 100%. I think it is our subconscious thoughts about ourselves that keep us stuck. Every now and then they surface, become conscious thoughts, and give you a glimpse of your feet stuck in mud. Sometimes it feels like quicksand; if you attempt to move, you will only sink deeper into it. Sheryl Sandberg has a lot of good points that women in this generation need to hear, but Susan Schenkel dealt with the problems of women getting in their own way already thirty years ago. Women are still getting in their own way; but we don’t always know why. We give up when we should fight, we fight when we should give in, we don’t bounce back from failure very well, and we have a harder time visualizing ourselves being happy and an easier time visualizing that a lot of what happens to us is our fault. That doesn’t describe all women all the time, but it describes a lot of women I know, including myself, at least some of the time. That is why I want to dissect Sheryl Sandberg’s thoughts, to figure out how much of my own current situation is me and how much of it is externally-influenced. Because it’s important that her book not cause women more stress in the sense of not being able to live up to the author’s convictions. We don’t need a book to tell women the problems with them without giving them the answers, or at least attempting to. There are no perfect answers because the world we live in is not perfect.

When I was younger, I was the type to take the bull by the horns and to go after what I wanted. I did it as a student in grammar school, high school, and college—I wanted good grades and a degree in science. I got them. I did it each summer when I wanted a summer job, and got them as well. I was persistent and stubborn and didn’t give up in the face of defeat. I went after any and all opportunities that were thrown at me during the seven years I worked at a major research center in New York, and they were not few because it was a great place to work. I didn’t get everything I wanted there (to do a PhD and continue to work at the same time). So I understood after seven years there that it was time to move on. And I did. The problem was figuring out what to do with my life. As luck and fate would have it, I moved abroad and started a new life in a new country. I ended up doing a PhD, working in medical research, and doing what was necessary to advance in my profession (post-doc and junior scientist—all grant-funded from external sources based on grant applications that I had written). I came up with my own research ideas that funded my salary. My company didn’t have to pay my salary since I managed to drag in funds to pay myself. I didn’t doubt my abilities too much along the way. I reached the level of professor competency, and that’s where I am today. But the workplace as we know it has changed dramatically just within the past decade—there are budget cuts and high personnel turnover rates; people come and go and there is very little stability or continuity in the practice of research. You must reinvent yourself continually, and you're only as good as your last publication. And as everyone knows, it's a catch-22 situation; you must have grant money to get students in order to publish, but it's your publications that get you grant funding. I know it’s time to leave this organization; I knew that already four years ago. However, I’ve gotten stuck in negative thought patterns: too old to change jobs (reinforced by many well-meaning people I know); too specialized (also reinforced by well-meaning colleagues); won’t be able to compete with the younger crowd; too many responsibilities to others (a typical excuse if ever there was one—they still need me); can’t keep up with the pace of things and won’t have the energy to keep up (how do I know until I try?); and the list goes on. I’m scared and I find that strange. I left my birth country and moved myself across an ocean to another country, started a new life (personal and professional), made new friends, got adjusted to another culture, and---I’m afraid? Of finding a new job, of the unknown, of not being wanted, of making a mistake, of new expectations from others, of the devil I don’t know rather than the devil I do know, of not being good at something new. And I’m confused about whether to stay or to go, whether to give more chances to a situation I know won’t change or to take the leap into the unknown. I will re-read the two books that had such a profound influence on my early work life and give Sandberg's a chance too. But I also want to reconsider the definition of success at this point in my life, and to figure out whether I really want to be in the business world at all, or whether I want to pursue the creative dreams I have for myself. Because it has occurred to me that one of the reasons I might be dragging my feet about changing jobs is that I want to invest most of my waking energy in my creative endeavors. I don’t think that’s the excuse for staying put, but I’m willing to do what’s necessary to figure that out. I believe in my writing, but entering into the creative world is every bit as daunting as it was starting out in the research world. I want to be sure it’s the right thing, but I know deep down that I’ll never get that confirmation. Life doesn’t work that way. You’ve got to take the leap first. 

Weighing in on women and leadership

There is a new book out called Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg. I have not read the book; I may do so at some point. I did read the recent Time magazine article about her and her book; she graced the front cover of the magazine and the headline accompanying her picture read ‘Don’t hate her because she’s successful’. The article about her was well-written, but points out some of the anomalies that one will always find in the lives of the truly successful. I agree with much of what Ms. Sandberg says about being efficient and ‘ruthlessly prioritizing’ in terms of dealing with the many challenges the workplace throws at you; I disagree with her on other points. No matter. She is a good example of a successful woman leader in the business world, and more power to her. But she got to that place with help; as she says herself in the article, ‘I was hugely lucky, and that explains most of my success.......just like every man'. Indeed she was, to know some of the enlightened men she knows, who were not afraid to head-hunt her to specific jobs or use their clout to get her on board. And therein lies the rub, at least for me. You don’t get anywhere in life without support and help from others. Call them whatever you want—sponsors, mentors, advisers. You need them in order to rise in whatever hierarchical workplace or organization you find yourself. Unfortunately there are not enough of them to go around; even if there were, the current way of doing things focuses on finding the best candidate in any branch and grooming him (or her—perhaps less often) for a top position. I would argue that this perpetuates an elitist system; I am not necessarily opposed to that. However, the ramifications of this type of system are that not everyone can be a leader. Even those who are qualified to be leaders may find that they are pushed aside in favor of another; that happens to both qualified men and women. I know just as many men as women who were pushed aside or ignored in favor of ‘better’ candidates. You can of course question whether those other candidates are ‘better’. Much of the time it’s ‘who you know’, not ‘what you know’ that gets you ahead. And the 'who you know' is what comes from networking, which not all qualified candidates master.

Sandberg argues in the article that women prepare for other things in life—getting married and raising a family—and thus do not follow (or choose to not follow) opportunities to move vertically, thus narrowing their chances of getting closer to the boardroom. So that by the time they actually have children, they are not even in the running for consideration for a leadership position. When I was younger, I used to wonder about this too, except that my generation grew up thinking we could have it all, that we could find time for it all, and that we would have complete lives in the process. It was a myth and it was painful to let go of it. Men and women compromise and make choices all the time not to pursue specific avenues in order to make their lives work; we cannot have it all. But it is no surprise to me that self-help books about how to have it all are still best-sellers. We want to believe the hype. Reality is something else altogether.

That is one consideration. The other considerations have to do with how women are treated in the workforce. I know many women who followed the opportunities that came their way, only to encounter unenlightened male leaders who held them down, ignored them, or pushed them aside in favor of male candidates. Gender bias is nothing new. I remember an interesting story reported in the media from a few years ago about a Swedish man who held a high position in a personnel department in a big company. He admitted that he tossed most of the resumes from female applicants into the waste basket, and had done so for most of his work life. He was married with a family. When he reached middle-age, it suddenly dawned on him that his daughter, who was now in her early twenties and entering the workforce, might encounter the same type of treatment that he had been dishing out to other women for years. Bing—a light went on in his head, and he became an enlightened man, but only when he understood that if his daughter encountered his type of behavior in her own attempts to rise in her career, that it would harm her chances of succeeding in the work world. I have tried to find the story online but failed. But the long-term effects of this type of behavior may be what we may be seeing now in the business world, as Ms. Sandberg points out—many women assume that they will only come so far and no further, so they reach a certain level and stop there. They resign themselves to (without necessarily accepting it) the (often covert) gender bias in the work world in order to be able to do their work well and to have some modicum of peace in their lives. It is very stressful to try to fight or to change unfairness; more power to those who try. It is my contention that change comes via example, and that perhaps it is best to start small. The only way to get women interested in taking leadership positions is to set an example for them as a woman leader; if you actually maneuver your way through the system and manage to get to the top, you should mentor and/or sponsor other women. Women should be helping other women at the top levels; I haven’t seen much of this, unfortunately, at least in academia.

But perhaps there are other aspects that must be considered in these discussions. Perhaps younger women (and men) are re-evaluating what they want out of life, searching for new definitions of success, and looking for ways to live simpler, less stressful lives. Because that is one thing I noticed in the article about Sandberg; she goes home each day from Facebook (where she works) at 5:30 pm to be with her family—to eat dinner and such—and then returns to the office later that evening. This is simply not possible for most employees, many of whom commute long distances to and from work; and even if it was, is it desirable? There are so many articles about employees who must be constantly available to their workplaces via computer and smart phones. Aren’t they allowed to have a life outside of work, whether or not they have families? If you are single, you also need down-time from work. Are you a better employee if you are always working? Is it so important to be available 24/7? I think the answer is no, but it is unpopular to say so.