Sheryl Sandberg - the chief operating officer of Facebook - is urging women to "lean in" when it comes to business. Well...I am the first to agree that women deserve equality in the boardroom, on every level of management and in every form of leadership. I disagree, however, that ALL women need to "lean in" as Ms. Sandberg has suggested in her new book, Lean In: Women, Work, And The Will To Lead.
Not every woman wants to be in a leadership position. Not every woman wants to have a voice at the table - and I don't think anyone should criticize a woman who is happy - or at least content - with whatever position she holds...whether it be in business...or in life in general.
Quite frankly, the same goes for men. Not all men want to be in charge. Some men - in fact, probably most - don't want the added responsibilities and the extra stress that are involved with being one of the "big cheeses", so to speak, with a company. And be it a man...or a woman...such a decision shouldn't make that individual any less of a person...or any less of an employee...because they are not as aggressive as the ones who are fighting to make it to the top.
As to the issue of making more money and becoming wealthier because of being a high tier executive, I personally know several people who have never wanted to be anything more than "comfortable." They don't want to be rich.
One person, who I am acquainted with, recently told me that "money only makes for more problems." I certainly don't agree with that - if you know how to spend it...how to invest it...and how to use it to better yourself and others in a philanthropic fashion.
I am positive how helpful I could be...and would be...if I was a millionaire...or better yet...a billionaire. But money and power are not good for all people. And I prefer not to use the word power when discussing leadership and success - as power can, at times, be such a nasty word - and it doesn't take power - to be successful.
Women - especially those who are mothers - are leaders in every family across the country. The so called - "lady of the house" - can in many homes be the CEO...and is almost always...the chief operating officer of that household.
Usually...it's the mom - for the most part - who takes care of the children when they are sick and home from school. Women who don't travel to business everyday are still very much a business person. The woman in many homes keeps the household budget - for everything from grocery shopping to buying clothes for her kids - to even paying the monthly bills.
The father may head to the office or to another place of work everyday, but the mother's job - in many cases - is just as tough and just as demanding as her male partner.
In Sheryl Sandberg's book, she writes that, "The blunt truth is that men still run the world." That may be true, but the "blunt truth" is...there are women - as there are some men - who just don't want to run the world.
I think it's spectacular when a woman has a burning desire to be the chief executive officer or president of a company - or for that matter - a woman who yearns to be the chief executive officer and president of a country.
Time magazine reports that only 17 heads of state out of 195 are women. And women globally...only hold about 20 percent of all seats in legislative bodies.
In an interview with CBS News correspondent Norah O'Donnell, on the March 10th, 2013 edition of 60 Minutes, Sheryl Sandberg was asked if she is bothered that the United States has not yet elected a female president. "Yes, it does," Ms. Sandberg said. But when Norah asked, "Why wouldn't you... lean in...and run?"...Ms. Sandberg replied, "For me, I feel like I'm doing all the leaning in that I can do right now."
Frankly, I would have preferred Ms. Sandberg, a Democrat, to answer Norah's question by saying, "That's why we have Hillary Clinton." Of course I hope the former Secretary of State, former U.S. Senator from New York and former First Lady will run again for the presidency and, although I'm a great supporter of
President Barack Obama, come 2016, it would thrill me to no end if Secretary Clinton is elected to become the 45th President of the United States of America. But that's a commentary for another day.
The idea that all women - or even some - are afraid to...speak up... and speak their mind in the boardroom...is a false assumption. Not all women want to "lean in." It's not a matter of fear. Not every woman needs...or wants...to push that hard - nor should they have to if they don't want that kind of life. And neither should the man, who may just feel that enough money is enough...instead of the person - male or female - who says, "No matter how much money I make...it'll never be enough."
If, as Sheryl Sandberg suggests, women are too reluctant to negotiate for higher salaries and other rewards in business...Ms. Sandberg is 100% correct that they shouldn't be. Women should have no fears when asking a male employer why a man is making a higher salary performing the same tasks as she is doing. Not only is it wrong for men to be paid more than women for the same work, but it's the law.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed by President Obama on January 29th, 2009. It is named for an Alabama woman, who - at the end of a 19-year career as a supervisor in a tire factory -complained that she had been paid less than men.
Sheryl Sandberg writes that "Fear is at the root of so many of the barriers that women face. Fear of not being liked. Fear of making the wrong choice. Fear of drawing negative attention. Fear of over-reaching. Fear of being judged. Fear of failure. And the holy trinity of fears: the fear of being a bad mother/wife/daughter."
Despite the fact that some men are not comfortable with a woman being a decision maker, no woman should be afraid of any of the above any more than a man who might experience the same fears.
Let us create a scenario where a man is earning one million dollars - (to use a number) - to serve as executive vice president of a company. But when the man quits his job...or is fired...a woman is hired to hold that exact same position and to do the exact same work, but for less money. There is definitely something wrong with that picture.
The woman should be paid the same figure of one million dollars. And for those of you who say that the female executive may not have the same qualifications or credentials that the man had, then why would she have been tapped to take on the job? If the organization's owner, CEO, president, board of directors or anyone else who is responsible for hiring...offers a woman the same job that was vacated by a man, then that should indicate that she is as qualified to take on the tasks of that job with the same excellence that her male predecessor had when he was first hired. Therefore, if a company believes that the woman will be successful in her post, then by all means she should be paid the same salary as the man.
I applaud Sheryl Sandberg for promoting that women should be as outspoken, as demanding, and as tough about getting what they want in business as much as men. Women should rise to top corporate positions at the same rate as men. There is no reason that people who are of the female gender are not as equal - in every sense of the word - as the male of our species.
But not all women want that. Not all women want a career outside the home. Ms. Sandberg writes that "A truly equal world would be one where women ran half our countries and companies; and men ran half our homes." I have no problem - in fact I would encourage those women who want it - (as I would those men who want it) - to be the leaders of half the Earth's nations and half the businesses in America or throughout the world. And if their goal in life is to climb the corporate or political ladder then more power to them. However, as for men running half our homes - how about an equal partnership with husbands and wives when it comes to all household responsibilities and all decisions in those homes? And I mean truly an equal partnership.
I know many, many married women who will say that they and their husbands jointly decide on most matters concerning their home and family... BUT...and there's always a BUT...if there is a disagreement, the man will generally get the vote that counts. The world has changed from when only the man in a marriage had the final say. In those days, a woman stayed at home to raise the kids, take care of the house and make dinner at 6 o'clock every evening. And although there are still homes in this country where the mom does the cooking and the cleaning; and in many cases has a job outside the house too...women should never be considered subservient to their male counterparts.
In fairness to Sheryl Sandberg, she does write, "Make your partner a real partner." Ms. Sandberg says that men need to "lean in" at home by being an equal partner in parenting and housework.
Naturally, all husbands and fathers should participate in an equal share of all responsibilities in the home, especially when it comes to parenting. But the word "make" - in Ms. Sandberg's statement, "Make your partner a real partner" is unsettling to me. True partners shouldn't have to "make" anyone do anything. Today, in order for a family to succeed, both men and women need to help in the areas of child rearing, housekeeping and cooking the meals. Although not all women (or men, for that matter) want that high-powered, high-pressured career - or to become the boss - many women need to take a job in addition to their work at home - even if it's one that pays minimum wage - just to help pay the bills.
Women should not have any limits. They should been given the same chances to achieve whatever it is they want. If it's a woman's hope and desire to get married, have children and be a homemaker...so be it. But if a woman wants to do those things and juggle a career as well - if she can successfully handle it - then she should have the right to do it all - and be given equal pay to the men who hold the same position.
Towards the end of the 20th century, American women were realizing there was a lack of balance between themselves and the men of the nation - even when it came to performers on certain television shows.
In 1993, at the conclusion of the third season of the now legendary crime drama series, Law & Order, network executives at NBC felt the show did not have enough female characters. Warren Littlefield, who at the time was president of NBC Entertainment, reportedly told series creator and executive producer Dick Wolf that the Law & Order cast needed additional
female characters or else face cancellation. Wolf realized, since there were only six leading characters on the show, that he was forced to fire two of his stars.
As a result, actress S. Epatha Merkerson was brought in as the new squad leader, Lieutenant Anita Van Buren to replace Dann Florek as Captain Donald Cragen; and Jill Hennessy became a regular as Assistant District Attorney Claire Kincaid, thus eliminating the role for Richard Brooks as A.D.A. Paul Robinette.
For several years after that, the Captain Cragen character remained with the Law & Order family as he was given a position at the Internal Affairs Bureau of the New York Police Department. But Dann Florek only appeared in a recurring role until in 1999, when Captain Cragen returned weekly in the spin-off series, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, where Florek and Cragen can still be seen every Wednesday night on NBC.
The leading star on that show is another woman - the Emmy Award winning Mariska Hargitay as Detective Olivia Benson.
Any company today that does not include women equally to men is going to be left out in the cold in the future; and is not going to succeed throughout the 21st century. Time magazine says currently only slightly more than 4 percent of Fortune 500 companies are headed by women; and only 17 percent of females hold seats on the boards of all Fortune 500 businesses.
Whether in real life or on television, the role of women in a leadership position may have grown some - but not nearly enough. And for those women who want it...they need to be given the same opportunities...as men.
And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
Please express your opinions in the comment box below. You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer. The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog. Just click on the word "Comment" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears. Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish." Thank you.
Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
,_2nd_president_of_the_United_States,_by_Asher_B._Durand_(1767-1845)-crop.jpg/220px-US_Navy_031029-N-6236G-001_A_painting_of_President_John_Adams_(1735-1826),_2nd_president_of_the_United_States,_by_Asher_B._Durand_(1767-1845)-crop.jpg)
Our founding fathers - including such honorable men, who also became President of the United States - John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution"...stipulated most clearly in the U.S. Constitution...that "all men are created equal." If that is to be true...then two men...or two women...should have the right to join together in a same-sex marriage. Polls and public opinion should not even be part of the issue.
