Condoleezza Rice is a constant source of intrigue.
Did you know she was an assistant professor at Stanford by the age of 27? Or
that she is a born-again Christian? Her documented achievements
notwithstanding, women of her ilk are as rare as a bottle of Rudesheimer Apostelwein.
That brings me to Sheryl Sandberg,
and the furor her memoir/manifesto, Lean In: Women, Work And The Will To Lead, has
evoked, which is both puzzling and comprehensible.
Success
is subject to the will of the individual. If your desire is to scale the ranks
and earn the accolades as a distinguished author, CEO, or whatever field your
talent steers you toward, then your passion will determine not only your speed
in achieving your goals, but the outcome of your input as well. Sow mediocrity,
and expect to reap mediocrity. And that goes for both men and women.
Statistics
reveal that the number of women graduating from college supersedes men, and although
we have proven to be their academic peers, somewhere along the way, we deviate
from the course and fail to inhabit the pinnacles of many an arena. From company
stewards to slots in government, across the globe, women consistently feature
on the lower teens in the percentile spectrum.
Ms.
Sandberg’s solution to this seeming crisis is to change the balance of power, specifically
in the corporate front. She aims to empower women by providing simple tools to
get them back in line, allowing them to qualify for more opportunities. She blames
external and apparently internal factors for restraining women from breaking
tradition and achieving their full potential, pointing out that they are indeed
their own worst enemies.
It
begs the question. Despite these supposed roadblocks, exactly how many women seek
to soar the heights of their respective professions? Crave it like men? I’ll
use the example of my siblings. They will not speak to me for a while after
reading this, but it’s my observation that their drive slackened following the arrival
of their children. In their strive to manage the work/life balance, they grew
disillusioned in their respective professions, leaning out more and more.
It
is precisely this observation that Ms. Sandberg has attracted all this flack
for. Comments on the issue have been sniggering to say the least. From the dailymail,
“For Sandberg to invent the excuse that women
are holding back their true potential is a theory based on conjecture {sic}”
“She is so condescending, it’s not even
funny. Women can do anything they want and don’t need some idiotic life plan on
how to do things {sic}”
And
on and on it goes.
Critics,
none other than women, have summed her advice as this: women have to become
more like men to succeed, and the notion is insulting. But we forget that Ms.
Sandberg is in a unique position to voice her concerns in light of her managerial
posts in Google, and currently Facebook. It’s not women’s fault passé, she’s
quick to add, but it’s her view that they are not contributing as much and as
frequently as their male counterparts. She uses a number of studies as proof,
one of which declares that women, in their natural capacity as nurtures and
peacemakers, prefer to be liked than to be considered aggressive. If you haven’t
noticed, ascending the corporate ladder inspires ruthless tendencies and they
in turn deplete likeability, especially from fellow women.
Some
commentators have observed that she comes off as bitter and unhappy, despite
her achievements. She has managed to
miff others in her failure to include single mothers in her stratagem for success.
The criticism has even spanned to her body
language on the Time Magazine
cover. To add to the pile, several point out that many women are gratified to
remain in the home and raise their families and that not everyone bears the
ambition of running a corporation to feel a sense of worth, or equality to men.
On the subject of men, another points out that perhaps they are to blame for
women’s shortcomings, as many continue to hold on to the belief that women are
not up to snuff when it comes to critical thinking.
An
educated peer states that another reason why women fail to inhabit powerful positions
is because the skills they need to get them there–aggression, ego and the
willingness to exploit the vulnerabilities of others–are not typical traits
found in our DNA, and that many of us do not, in fact, harbor the desire to
acquire them. She concludes that it’s time women stopped adapting to a man’s
world to earn a seat at the proverbial table and exploit our own advantages
instead to get there.
At
the core of the debate is a forgotten fact that as women, we don’t have the luxury
of the in-between option. We either give it up to raise our families or have it
all. Former Lehman’s CFO, Erin
Callan, blames her job for missing out on key milestones in her life. Now
at 47, and in her second marriage, she is trying for a baby, quick to warn
admirers that the C-suit is not worth the sacrifices. The flip side of those
sacrifices for those who are not swayed include beating men at their own game,
media notoriety, more than enough money put away for a rainy day, and a coveted
slot in Forbes, Fortune and other
revered ranks of powerful women. It is a rare woman who can happily declare
that she has succeeded in conquering the balance. Ms. Sandberg happens to be one
of them.
My
take? Life is too short to compromise on excellence. Why do we, then, continue
to apologize for our ambition, whether it’s limited to the home or the
workplace? One comment could not have stated it better: “People are people,
some want to achieve some do not. Real freedom is doing what you want with your
life {sic}”
Great
Bite?
A
shot of reality, that’s what!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Tell me what you think about today's post!