At least that’s what one consultant advocates over at the Harvard Business Review blog. “As long as men and women are treated exactly the same by organizations,” says Avivah Wittenberg-Cox,
most women will continue to be shut out of senior roles. And yet for the past 30 years, managers have been taught to do just this: treat men and women exactly the same. That is considered the progressive thing to do. Any suggestion of difference was, and often still is, labelled a bias or a stereotype, especially by many women, eager to demonstrate that they are one of the guys, or the in-group.
The business world’s denial of differences hurts women, and excludes them in a myriad of ways – consciously and unconsciously – from leadership. Because differences are not recognized, women are too often simply judged as “not fitting” the dominant group’s systems, styles and patterns. There were good reasons for pushing “sameness” in the past, and the laws of many countries underlie today’s companies’ insistence on similar treatment – being treated the same is, after all, better than being treated worse. But today, those are not our only options. It’s time for companies to adapt to women – or watch them walk out the door to competitors who will. In all the companies I work with, lack of recognition of basic differences like career cycles, communication styles, or attitudes to power is enough to eliminate one gender and prefer the other.
As an example of role reversal, she points out
that because eight out of nine U.S. teachers today are women, schools today judge boys learning styles subpar because they deviate from the norm set by girls and women. Instead of adapting to boys’ differences (“more physical energy, developmentally less mature, use language differently,” as he put it), we insist that both genders behave the same, and medicate our sons to calm them down. According to [Michael] Thompson, 11% of American boys are diagnosed as having ADHD and are on drugs for it. That’s 85% of the global ADHD drug consumption. And since the late 1990s, boys have been more likely to drop out of school than girls. Imbalances like these help account for the growing gender imbalance in higher education (60% of university graduates will soon be women in the U.S.).
She quick to explain that she is not calling for “special treatment.” She is also not arguing for the innateness of gender differences. “After all,” she says,
businesses don’t debate whether the differences between Chinese and American employees are innate. They know that to work with and for the Chinese requires learning their language and culture. Working across genders is similar. Companies and managers, as well as teachers and educators, will need to learn the real and imagined differences between genders – and adapt to them if they want to work with and for both men and women. They urgently need to become “gender bilingual” if they want to tap into today’s talent pool.[ref]This is why you see consulting in “gender intelligence.”[/ref]
Worth thinking about.
It is possible to treat men and women the same, but not treat women like men. It surprises me that it doesn’t seem to have occurred to the author that it would also be possible to change the way we treat all employees, rather than assuming that the way we used to treat men ought to be the default for everyone.
“It is possible to treat men and women the same, but not treat women like men.”
I’m pretty sure I know what you mean, but this would have to be unpacked more. I think you’re saying that there could be institutional procedures that can recognize gender differences, yet produce fair outcomes. But the way you wrote it is equivalent of, “It’s possible to treat men and women the same, but not.”
“…assuming that the way we used to treat men ought to be the default for everyone.”
The entire article is against making the way we treat men the default for everyone. So, I’m pretty sure it occurred to her.
I’m personally reminded of the work by political scientist Christopher Karpowitz, which finds that women’s voice and authority are undervalued in deliberation. Yet, in some experiments, the gender gap in voice and authority disappears when (1) there is unanimous rule and few women or (2) majority rule and many women. So, there are procedures that can be implemented that recognize gender differences *and* diminish the (dis)favoring of specific differences. Even still, the author’s suggestion to have managers that recognize these differences would go a long way in establishing a more equal organization.
“I think you’re saying that there could be institutional procedures that can recognize gender differences, yet produce fair outcomes. But the way you wrote it is equivalent of, ‘It’s possible to treat men and women the same, but not.’”
It’s a rigid vs. nonrigid designator thing. Rather than taking “the way we treat men” to rigidly designate a particular way of treating employees, and in the future treating all employees that way, we should find a way of treating everyone which doesn’t assume anything gendered. That way, we’ll be treating everyone the same, without grounding that way in treating everyone the way we used to treat men.
I am not much familiar with feminist literature, but one strain I’ve heard mentioned is that traditional notions of masculinity are toxic even for men. What I’m suggesting is that becoming a workplace which doesn’t disfavor women is desirable even if all the employees are male. It’s precisely the assumption of gender differences which causes people to want to write the preferences they assume suit the majority gender into their corporate culture.
“‘…assuming that the way we used to treat men ought to be the default for everyone.’
The entire article is against making the way we treat men the default for everyone. So, I’m pretty sure it occurred to her.”
You’ve clipped off the part where I mentioned the way we treat all employees. That’s my point–the author seems to have considered two alternatives: treat everyone the same (like men), and treat women and men differently. She doesn’t seem to have considered treating everyone the same, but not having that way be like we traditionally assume men want to be treated. Is that clearer?
“Is that clearer?”
Yes, thanks.
I touched on this topic in discussing gender and Mormonism: http://www.withoutend.org/miller-eccles-study-neylan-mcbaine/