What I found interesting about your post is that, even within a female-dominated organization, there is still the struggle of inclusion for women resuming part-time work after maternity leave. Unfortunately, there is still the mindset that making accommodations for family means lower productivity and contribution. I actually think that when proper accommodations are made, a person is more productive during their work time because they don’t have the stress of performing at the full-time level (as you referenced about the person feeling that had to be at all meetings)! It’s great that you are working towards more inclusion. You have also reminded me of the importance of clearly communicating expectations and not making assumptions. Thanks.
Response to Sarah’s Learning Activity 2
https://create.twu.ca/sjasmins/2018/11/18/learning-activity-2-2/
I particularly appreciated your analysis of Nugent, Pollack & Travis because the issue of inclusivity is something I have identified, through this learning activity, is a problem during management meetings in my company. You write that Nugent, Pollack and Travis (2016) suggest that we “pay attention to whose voices are being heard, whose opinions are being validated, and who is being ignored or dismissed during meetings, then interrupt these behaviors” (p. 10). This particular quote is relevant in my context because I have noticed that the men in our management meetings typically have more “air time” than the women. They talk more and seem to be listened to more intently. I am going to be actively working to increase the “air time” of the women in my meetings. Thank you for sharing that quote!
Reference
Nugent, J., Pollack, A. & D. Travis, (2016). The Day to day experiences of workplace inclusion and exclusion. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/the_day_to_day_experiences_of_workplace_inclusion_and_exclusion.pdf
Unit 8 – Learning 2
Because of this week’s focus on gender discrimination, I have spent time reviewing books I have read recently, but this time looking for references or stories about gender discrimination. Pages that I previously read didn’t impress me about gender discrimination, but with a reread I was greatly impressed with the frequency and intensity of gender discrimination historically and even to the present day.
Historically, gender discrimination was rampant in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. J. Edgar Hoover was president from 1924 to 1972. Hoover “wanted young, energetic white men . . . men like himself” (Anders, 2011, pg. 46). During that time, “women didn’t stand a chance” (Anders, 2011, pg. 35). I found this to be appalling.
There is a common stereotype that woman are more emotional than men (Epley, 2014, pg. 125). Woman smile more often, cry more often and laugh more than men (Epley, 2014, pg. 125). Scientists can actually see people’s “emotional experiences” because they “leave physiological traces” in their minds. Scientists have found that “when people are hooked up to this equipment, research confirms that man and women watching the same emotionally evocative scenes show the same emotional reactions . . . [and] the same intensity” (Epley, 2014, pg. 125-126). What is great is that technology has proven a stereotype to be wrong.
Caroline Turner, author of Different Works: Improving Retention, Productivity, and Profitability Through Inclusion writes that out of the top three reasons women leave the workforce the top reason was child care. But after this, the motivation for leaving a job most frequently given “was lack of engagement or enjoyment in the job” (Huffington, 2014, pg. 25). Turner writes that “for women to be engaged in the workplace, they need to feel valued. And the way many workplaces are setup, masculine ways of succeeding—fueled by stress and burnout—are often accorded more value” (Huffington, 2014, pg. 26). From this, I conclude that if workplaces were not set up in “masculine ways,” fewer women would leave the workplace.
Do I see gender discrimination in the home? Definitely yes. The following is taken from a New York Times article about patterns of marriage, housework, and earnings. The article reported that “wives who earn more than their husbands also do significantly more housework and child care than their husbands do, perhaps to make their husbands feel less threatened” (Rubin, 2017, pg. 158).
Carl Jung, an influential thought leader of the last century promoted analytic psychology, which “cared about the individual’s feelings and experience with an intensity that was unprecedented in American society—a philosophy of emotional attentiveness that was especially pertinent to the nations’ female minds” (Emre, 2018, pg. 89). Even in the mind and philosophy of the influential Carl Jung, woman are overly emotional.
To the question about how I can foster recognition and a sense of belonging for women in my organization, I have thought of the following.
- Develop a “pyramid” management chart that will consist mostly of women.
- Design and print business cards for employees who are on our team. Many are women.
- Highlight key employees (most of them women) on our two websites
- Have more one on one conversations with team members.
- Supply appropriate reading material on the subject of management and leadership to all team members
Because of this study I will be permanently more aware of gender discrimination and ways to reduced it, even in areas of my influence outside of my organization.
References
Anders, G. (2011). The Rare Find. New York, NY: Penguin.
Emre, M. (2018). The Personality Brokers. Random House: Toronto, Canada.
Epley, N. (2015). Mindwise. Vintage Books: New York, NY.
Huffington, A. (2014). Thrive. Random House: New York, NY.
Rubin G. (2017). The Four Tendencies. Harmony Books: New York, NY.
Unit 8 – Learning Activity 1
Greatly summarized, the case study of The Glass Ceiling (Northouse, 2018, p. 412-413) describes the story of Lisa, a competent, confident, experienced, extremely well educated, investment executive who was blatantly discriminated against because of her gender. In spite of outperforming her peers, she was denied promotion. She was publicly discriminated against when the CEO, when seeing Lisa with another woman, “he called out to the men, ‘Hey, guys, two women in one room. That’s scary’.” (Northouse, 2019, p. 412). This obvious gender discrimination is disturbing to me. I would like to think that Lisa would today have grounds for a law suit.
In the light of this article, and other readings in the context of gender discrimination, I have assessed my own organization of 65 people. Half of our sales force is female. Our plant manager and assistant manager are female, three of four departments are led by woman, two of three production managers are female and three out of four of the highest paid salaries are paid to females. However, I acknowledge, that in our management team (of three woman and four men), the men “out talk,” the woman. While this is largely because the men have more technical knowledge in the areas we discuss, I plan on making it my goal to tip the balance of conservation, so it is more balanced.
When thinking about gender discrimination, this week I’ve read of a number of discrimination instances that have received a public profile. For instance, recently there was tremendous backlash again when “women scientists who were told that they might be too distracting to the male scientist in the lab” (Dulski, 2018, p. 27).
Historical evidence of gender discrimination is the fact that not a single woman is pictured on Canadian currency. To address this, Merna Forster “led a successful campaign calling for women to be put Canadian currency . . . [to ensure] woman are recognized for their contributions to society” (Dulski, 2018, p. 172). Eventually Forster was successful, and Viola Desmond was placed on Canadian currency (Dulski, 2018, p. 175).
A woman named Celine Schillinger who worked in a very large organization recognized “that her organization possessed a significant gender imbalance – where the majority of the senior roles were occupied by men and the majority of promotions were awarded to men-Celine wrote a letter to the CEO” (Pontefract, 2016, p. 89). She described the problem and identified ways in which to remedy the situation. The letter went vial throughout the organization. Over 2,500 people supported her. The CEO agreed that gender balance was an issue and changes were made. Her outspoken voice made a difference.
The president of one of the greatest universities in America “opined publicly that perhaps biological differences were responsible for the underrepresentation of woman in science and technology.” (Hennessy, 2018, p. 71). Ten years later after an immensely strong criticism of this opinion, “this struggle continues, as evidences by the famed “Google memo,” containing similar opinions about biology and ability” (Hennessy, 2018, p. 72). As the author says, that in spite of ten years of voluminous push-back against a university president’s, gender discrimination statement, it obviously hasn’t ended the debate.
Kahnweiler writes that female introverts are judged by men “as being ‘cold and unfeeling’” (2018, p. 13). In contrast, these same men do not view male introverts “as cold and unfeeling”. This is clear evidence of gender discrimination. Because of this study I am much more aware of gender discrimination. I plan to more proactive about identifying ways this discrimination shows up in my organization, church and friendship circle.
References
Dulski, J. (2018). Purposeful. New York, NY: Penguin.
Hennessy, J.L. (2018). Leading Matters. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.
Kahnweiller, J.B. (2018). The Introverted Leader. Oakland. CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pontefract, D. (2016). The Purpose Effect. Boise, Idaho: Elevate Publishing.
Light From Many Lamps – Will Durant
The essence of this chapter is the question, “What is happiness?” Will Durant’s answer to the question is lengthy, but his definition of happiness is that “there can be no real or lasting happiness without love . . . [and] there can be no fulfillment of life’s ultimate purposes without a successful marriage and a good family life” (Watson, 1986, pg. 246) This definition, the author of the chapter claims, “has inspired many to seek their happiness where they are most likely to find it: in their own homes” (Watson, 1986, pg. 246-247). As an aside, I might ask Durant, if he were alive today, if he would argue an unmarried person can find happiness.
In the various, recognized definitions of what a leader is or does, Durant was not a leader. He had no followers, only readers of his books. However, I believe that it is important for a leader to be happy. I feel it is safe to say that a “happy” leader, is a satisfied person. In the context of a team, individual satisfaction occurs when the team members feel that participating in the management team results in them working together more effectively, when they appreciate their colleagues and their contributions to the team processes and they get energy from the collaboration within the team (Bang & Midefart, as cited in Myrtveit, 2016, pg. 7).
A leader or team member who is happy and satisfied, emulates a happy, satisfied spirit. One of a leader’s skill sets is to oversee constructive controversy. Constructive controversy may motivate an active search for more information and new and more adequate cognitive perspectives “in hopes of resolving uncertainty” (Johnson & Johnson, 1987, p. 21). Constructive criticism may introduce a slowing down of the problem solving but seems to stimulate both individual task performance and “satisfaction” (Johnson & Johnson, 1987, pg. 21). Relationship conflict reduces group members’ individual satisfaction (Wall & Nolan, as cited in Myrtveit, 2016, pg. 14). If teams practice constructive controversy, the team members will not likely so easily interpret new and unexpected information or ideas in a biased manner (Shaw, Zhe, Duffy, Scott & Susanto, as cited in Myrtveit, 2016, pg. 15). The leader who is happy and satisfied will convey such a sense of calmness, control and peace. Constructive controversy should be a major component of team discussions.
In my context of leadership, I encourage constructive controversy because in my experience it opens people’s minds to better ideas, generates a greater acceptance of each team members passions, and ways of thinking. Constructive controversy, releases energy, makes discussions much more interesting and to me at least generates good will. Constructive controversy can become the normal, regular form of discussion only if the team is conveyed a sense of calm, peace, happiness and satisfaction from the leader.
References
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1987). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Myrtveit, R.B. (2016). The Mediating Effect of Constructive Controversy. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Watson, L.E. (1986). Lights From Many Lamps. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.