Do Women take care and men take charge?

A section in chapter 13 talks about the prejudice for women in the workforce, such as the stereotype of women taking care and men taking charge. It also addresses the fact that women should be more masculine in their roles, as far as decision making, but not be too masculine.

This makes me wonder if anything a women does is ever enough in the workplace. I sometimes feel that when women take charge they are seen as controlling rather than being leaders. There were a few articles that stated that a big reason for these stereotypes are created by women themselves because they are not confident enough about their leadership abilities.

The article below addressed different ways of why women are seen as taking care and men taking charge. Like discussed before, women are more nurturing then men and are more focused on getting along then getting ahead. Do you think that we, as women, don't know how to balance getting along while being in charge and getting ahead?

http://www.catalyst.org/publication/94/women-take-care-men-take-charge-stereotyping-of-us-business-leaders-exposed

What would you do?

After reading chapter 13, and the very interesting cases, I started to wonder what I would do if I was in those situations. The case that interested me the most was the case of Lisa Weber, the portfolio manager of the Wall Street firm. I thought it was interesting that she was aware of what went on in the firm but at the meetings with the CEOs she never stated that or the fact that she actually advised some of the people in the room.

It was stated in the case that she was content with giving advice and feeling like one of the boys. I personally think that this is the issue with us women advancing in the workplace. We seek acceptance and do not always challenge situations like these because we want to be viewed as team players. That is why we remain in the positions we are in and the men advance.

Once again I think this happens because women are sometimes too bashful to recognize their leadership qualities. As stated in the book, "women are more likely to take informal, as opposed to official, leadership roles, and use terms such as facilitator or organizer instead of leader." Therefore, women are okay with being the person behind the scenes and when they finally decide that they need to be up front in the spotlight they are turned down. Women, I feel, create the "glass ceiling" for themselves when they don't speak up and go through the motions just because they want to be accepted.

Back to the case, I question what would I do? My response to my own questions is that I would speak up at the meetings and let the CEO know that I have been advising the partners. Then again that is just me personally because I don't like to sit back and pretend just to be accepted. In this case Lisa ended up quitting and starting on her own investment firm. I think that I would have tried a little harder to prove to the CEO that I had the potential before starting my own firm because by walking away you only continue to leave the door closed for other women.

My question is, what you would do? and do you think that we help create that image of women being incapable of serving in leadership roles?

Sticky Floor Discussion

In continuing with my last post, I would like to tell a story that one of my professors talked about. This relates to how it is possible that although women believe that at times they are being discriminated against, leadership takes hard work and dedication. Some women do not have this power, but one women did, but she had to give everything else up.

There was a grad student in the professors class. The first day of class, they went around the room saying their names, what they were studying, and what they wanted to do. When they reached one woman's turn, she said her name, what she was studying, and that she wanted to some day be the CEO of Caterpillar. Now, the other student's responses were much less than this, so of course, the professor asked her some questions about how she would manage. A few years later she came back with a response for him. She was now the CEO of the company and was married. Her husband had wanted to have a child, but she was right where she wanted to be with her career and only agreed to having the child if the husband took over the parenting. Turns out, she was gone in the morning before the child woke up, home after he was sleeping, and she basically did not exist to him.

Now, many women would be in awe over the attitude this woman carried, and the fact that she had carried this child for 9 months, birthed him, and now left the responsibilities to the father because she didn't want a child. She broke the glass ceiling, but gave up a lot along the way.

I believe that the idea of the sticky floor has a lot to do with women wanted to settle down, get married, and have a family that she will actually have time to spend with them.

What would you rather do, be a mom and have a mediocre career, or be married to your career and maintain the focus only on that career?

Women do better once they break the glass ceiling

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Women+better+once+they+break+through+glass+ceiling/4410242/story.html

Although women have a hard time reaching top level of management in many organizations, those that do are proven more successful then men. This article in the Vancouver Sun talks about the same stereotypes that our book and class has discussed of women in top leadership roles. Women are usually looked at as too "male" and are seen in a negative light, or too empathetic and not tough enough to deal with the demands of being a CEO. However, this article shows that many top women leaders show leadership traits that have proven to be successful. These traits include decisive and collaborative, competitive and team driven, power and ethics, and capability and curiosity. Because women in top leadership roles use things such as collaboration to help make their decisions they are not giving out that "know-it-all" persona but also making their co-workers feel like they are important part of the organization and decision making process. Although the glass ceiling effect is still something we deal with everyday we should take note of how women have become successful and think about how that could help other women move up the ladder in corporate America.

http://www.fmwf.com/media-type/news/2011/02/women-in-the-boardroom-the-glass-ceiling-or-the-sticky-floor/

After reading chapter 13, "Women and Leadership," and the article "Women in the boardroom: the Glass Ceiling, or the Sticky Feet I was able to make a few connections, and found some interesting information. The book explains how many women are less likely to hold a leadership role that is as effective as a males. This may be true due to a woman's want to maintain peace and show they care while the leader role has been masculinized making it more difficult for women to get the job done. Data shows that women in leadership roles tend to be more participative rather than delegating and more motivating like men have shown.
This ties to the attached article, because although women are feeling like they are being discriminated against, some studies show otherwise. Leadership roles that have been lead by women have usually failed. On occasion a good leadership job is maintained by a woman. However, the article talks about how although women may do a good job at their job, because they don't focus on politics and world events, they tend to miss important chances at taking risks and ultimately, making decisions that are right for the company's future. The article says this "It might not be the glass ceiling, but the sticky floor’ that is partly to blame." The sticky floor pertains to women who are not interested in becoming leaders because they want to also have a family and not be married to their jobs. This situation can be looked at in two different ways. So I ask you: is the glass half empty, or half full? Would you say there is a glass ceiling, or a sticky floor?

Indra K. Nooyi

http://leadership.bcg.com/americas/nooyi.aspx

This article gives four good examples for why Indra Nooyi the CEO of Pepsi Co has a (5,5) Middle-of-the-Road Management style in the Blake and Mounton's Managerial Grid. Middle-of-the-Road Management is described as adequate organization performance is possible through balancing the necessity to get work out while maintaining morale of people at a satisfactory level.
The first example from the article that leads me to believe the Indra has a (5,5) management style is when she talks about the performance with purpose movement she is making with Pepsi. When describing this movement she says that the word purpose has three elements. One of the elements she describes is talent. Which refers to Pepsi Co employees. Indra says she wants to make sure that people that work at Pepsi are able not just to make a living, but have a life. This comment shows that she cares about her employees and understands that they have lives outside of the business.
A second example that Indra has a (5,5) leadership style is because when asked if she reduced R & D during the economic downturn she responded that they increased it. This statement shows that even in hard times Indra is still very task related.
A third example that helps to show that Indra has a (5,5) management style is when she talks about how CEO's of the future need to have emotional intelligence and treat their employee's right. This example again shows that Indra is not only focused on the task and performance side of Pepsi,but also concerned with the well being of her employee's.
The last example that supports my conclusion the Indra has a Middle-of-the-Road Management style is when she talks about how CEO's need to stop focusing on the short term and focus on the long term. This helps to prove that Indra is task oriented and not only is concerned with Pepsi performance in the short run, but also in the long run as well.

Women & Quotas: Will it Break The Glass Ceiling?

http://blogs.forbes.com/sashagalbraith/2011/02/25/women-quotas-will-it-break-the-plexi-glass-ceiling/

With the number of men in the boardroom greatly out numbering women, Sasha Galbraith, the author of this article suggests that maybe a law needs to be put in place to help women break through the glass ceiling and even out the number of men to women in upper management positions. Both Norway and France have instituted quota laws to help make sure publicly traded companies have women in their board of directors. As we learned in chapter 13, the only difference in leadership that has been found between men and women is that women tend to lead in a more Democratic or participative manner. They also tend to use more of a transformational style, which is a style that emphasizes intrinsic motivation and follower development. Since these leadership styles are associated with the contemporary notions of effective leadership there should be no reason for women to be kept from the board room. With chapter 13's evidence that women can be just as effective leaders as men do you think that the United States should institute a law, like Norway and France, that sets a quota for the percent of women that have to be included in the board room in publicly traded corporations? If so, would this be helpful or hurtful to progress of women in the world?