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.