Tag Archives: gender bias

The Problem With Saying Women Are Better At…

I am pleased to share my latest post to Philadelphia Business Journal.

A recent study at Harvard T.H.Chan School of Public Health concluded that hospitalized patients treated by female physicians show lower mortality and readmission rates.

This study is getting a lot of media attention, and in many cases, the conclusions drawn go beyond the findings of the study.

Take, for example, the NPR headline: “Patients treated by Female Doctors Fare Better Than Those Treated By Men.” NPR is but one example. Here’s one more.

On a national TV program, the question was asked: who makes better doctors, women or men? Citing the report, the on-air talent said “women.”

But it is not just about doctors. The internet is replete with articles that report on studies that ask if or conclude that women are better leaders than men.

I understand why the Harvard study is vitally important. Women still face very real bias in medicine (actually, everywhere), and we need to increase our focus on the contributions of women that are often under-appreciated and profoundly unrecognized to combat that bias (including pay to which I will return).

But would we ever ask: who makes better doctors, white people or people of color? Hispanics or African Americans?

Of course not! But why is it okay with gender? Well, it’s not.

It’s no more okay than the surveys that ask would you rather work for a male or female boss? In some cases, the majority answer “men.”

Would we ever ask if you want to work for a person who is white or a person of color? The question indulges in bigotry and so does the question on gender. If someone want to choose the gender of their boss, let them start their own business and work for themselves.

We need to sell the benefits that go with diversity to increase support for smashing conscious bias and bringing to conscious awareness implicit bias. Stated otherwise, if we want to cream the crop, and who doesn’t, we need to harness the talent women bring to the table and not nearly enough is done to do just that.

But we need to be careful not to stereotype in our efforts to eradicate bias and increase inclusion. There is no such thing as “benign” stereotyping and here’s why.

First, the stereotyping creates higher expectations for its intended beneficiaries. It is not enough for women to be competent doctors, leaders, etc. No, they must reach our inflated expectations.

Let me give you an example. Let’s assume that the average male is a “5” on a scale of “1” to “9” in terms of core competencies. If we assume women are stronger, we may expect a “7.”

Now, we interview a woman who is a “6” and a man who is a “5.” She is the stronger candidate but he may appear better because he meets our expectations and she does not meet our inflated expectations.

Second, the stereotyping may result in discrimination against men of talent. This is both a talent and a legal issue. Under the law, gender bias knows no gender.

Finally, by focusing on gender, we don’t get at the root cause of what makes someone more effective. Our focus should be on competencies.

For example, in both leadership and medicine, strong communication skills are critical. That explains, in part, the results of the Harvard study.

So our focus should be on the communication and other skills that have resulted in women outperforming men. And, then we should make sure that, when we, hire, evaluate, promote and pay, we consider those key skills.

When we focus on competencies, as we should, it very well may mean that more women than men will thrive but we are recognizing a core skill and not unwittingly engaging in gender bias. In medicine, the failure to understand the difference literally can have life and death consequences.

Lost in the headlines beyond which many do not go is another key finding. The story within the story is that, while the women performed better than men in this study, they still made materially less money.

The gender pay gap is alive and well in medicine and virtually every aspect of corporate America. Of course, there are legal reasons to address it.

But the business imperative is just as great. Imagine if those gifted doctors who are women leave the profession out of frustration for being paid less, even where they not just meet but exceed the performance of their male peers? That, too, is a life and death issue, literally.

Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In 2.0 and Corporate Gender Bias

I am pleased to share my latest article from Entrepreneur.

It is now more than three years since Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, wrote her ground-breaking book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead. “Lean In,” I believe, is shorthand for “Go for it, if you want it.”

In her book, Sandberg acknowledges that there are many systemic obstacles to the advancement of women in corporate America. However, her focus is what women can do to maximize their chance of success in spite of these obstacles.

Well, more and more women are leaning in. That includes applying for leadership positions and/or negotiating for more equitable compensation.

There is some good news.

Women who lean in do better than women who don’t. However, women who lean in are also facing substantial resistance.

Late last month, Sheryl Sandberg wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal entitled: “Women Are Leaning In — But They Face Push Back.” In what could be called “Lean In 2.0,” Sandberg focuses primarily on the systemic obstacles and not on what women can do to overcome or navigate around them.

Sandberg’s article came out on the same day as a study conducted jointly by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Co. Among the findings: we are still more than 100 years away from there being gender equality in C-suite positions. Further, men are 30 percent more likely than women to be promoted into a management position.

This is bad news for women (and men). It is beyond dispute that businesses do not reach their full potential if there is not gender diversity among those holding leadership positions.

The ‘too aggressive’ penalty.

One of the reasons for the absence of acceptable progress in terms of gender equality is what Sandberg calls the “too aggressive penalty.” Citing the McKinsey/Lean In study, Sandberg states in the WSJ article, “women who negotiate are 67 percent more likely than women who don’t to receive feedback that their personal style is ‘intimidating,’ ‘too aggressive,’ or ‘bossy,’ and they are more likely to receive that kind of feedback than men who negotiate.”

Don’t negotiate and don’t advance. Negotiate and wear the Scarlett B coded in other terms. This is the classic double standard, and it is indefensible.

So what do we do to shatter the double standard that provides a coat of cement for the glass ceiling? Six suggestions (for starters):

1. Acknowledge the problem.

We cannot solve the problem unless those who have power to correct it acknowledge that it exists. And, too many still deny the problem. I have never experienced labor pains. But I would be a fool to deny their existence.

So share data with your leaders, for example, the McKinsey/Lean In Study. Consider sharing other academic studies framed in business terms that identify the scope of the problem. The Harvard Business Review and Catalyst.org are great resources, to name but two.

2. Don’t attack or admit bias.

Don’t attack your leaders. That will do nothing more than make them shut down, if not worse. Plus, it may be used later as an admission of organizational bias. Instead, try something like, “we know this problem exists in the business world, and we would be a bit naïve, if not arrogant, to assume we are immune from the problem.”

3. Focus training on unconscious bias.

As Sandberg and others acknowledge, some of the bias is undeniably unconscious. Focusing on the unconscious in training gives leaders a “safe” way to change. “I was not aware.” Well, now you are. Message to leaders: with conscious awareness, unconscious bias can and must be avoided.

4. Eradicating gender bias cannot be over-emphasized.

When emphasizing the need for change, talk about the business imperative: bias is bad business. Do not call the training sensitivity training. Most leaders view that as soft fluff. This is business training to maximize profitability. The message would be the same if there were no men in leadership; make that clear!

5. Show leaders how to address unconscious bias.

Leaders may not realize that their feelings are due to unconscious bias but they should be consciously aware of their emotional reactions (or they shouldn’t be leaders). When they find themselves feeling someone is too aggressive, pushy, bossy or strident (I could go on), encourage them (in their heads) to move from labels to specifics behaviors and then ask themselves the million-dollar question: do I laud this precise behavior when engaged in by a white man?

6. Hold leaders accountable.

Training leaders is just a start. We need to hold them accountable. If there is conscious bias or unconscious bias (usually evidenced by a pattern), leaders must pay a price. However, this should be done in a way where you correct the wrong but don’t create an admission of bias. This is easy to say but deceptively complex to implement. But it can be done with reasonable legal risk and substantial business upside if thoughtfully implemented.

Let me end by quoting Sandberg from Lean In: “‘She is very ambitious’ is not a compliment in our culture.” It’s on all of us to change that for our collective benefit.

 

Mad Men: Where Are Our Friends One Year Later?

I am pleased to share my latest SHRM blog post regarding what “Mad Men” can teach us about life and career: http://blog.shrm.org/blog/a-year-later-what-can-mad-men-teach-us-about-life-and-career

With all of the focus on the new overtime rules, a major event could be forgotten. One year ago last night we said good bye to Mad Men. For some, it was just a television show. Allow them their blissful naivety. A lot has happened to our friends in the last year with career and life lessons for all of us. So let’s leave the real world for just a moment:

Joan. Because Joan would not sleep with a knuckle dragger named Ferg, Joan was forced out of McCann Erickson. That was far from the first time she was sexually harassed. Joan had enough of the boys’ clubs of the corporate world. So she started her own business. I am delighted to report that Joan made 17% more over the last year than she ever made at McCann Erickson or Sterling Cooper. That gender pay gap? No issue when you are your own boss. Bravo Joan!

Roger. Although a lothario, Roger was loved by most of us. I think of Roger when I think of someone I like but “should not” or don’t like someone I “should.” Unfortunately, senior executives have begun to ask Roger in various ways whether he has given thought to when he will retire. Under the law, employees generally cannot be forced to retire. So picking up on the not so subtle hints, Roger called Joan, who had threatened to contact the EEOC when she was forced out of McCann Erickson. The predator is now prey but has taken control by making clear to the powers that be that he does not want to hear about age again, only about his performance. And, it remains stellar. On a personal note, Roger married Marie Calvet, the mother of Don’s ex-wife, Megan Draper, He is very happy with Marie—spending long holidays in Paris.

Pete. For so many years, it was hard to find anything nice to say about Pete. He was, after all, the character we loved to hate but not quite all the way. I confess that I feared his jaw dropping job in Wichita, Kansas City with a private jet to boot would bring out the worst of him. In reality, he initially struggled at his new job. So, he sought out a coach and listened to the advice he received. He has become more humble as hard as that may be to believe. And, now more of a team player, too, he is getting more support from his co-workers. And, part of success is people wanting you to be successful. Pete is on right track, back in the groove. On the personal side, Pete and Trudy are genuinely happy. Sometimes reconciliations work.

Betty. As we all knew was inevitable, we lost Berdie (Don’s term of endearment for Betty). Thankfully, she did not suffer too much. It happened too quickly for too much pain. But before she died, she and Don spent a weekend together (concluding one of Don’s 3 calls from the final episode). Betty’s death caused Don to think more about his own mortality and what he wanted to achieve and who he wanted to be. Back to my pal Don shortly.

Peggy. Let’s return to the Boys’ Club at McCann Erickson. It would be next to impossible for any woman to survive, let alone thrive. But thriving is what Peggy is doing. In her own voice, she has succeeded beyond expectations. She did not ask for a seat at the table; she took it. She is now a full-fledged copywriter with a waiting list of clients. She started a mentoring program for girls in junior high school. One of her mentees is a young girl named Sheryl Sandberg. As is often the case, the mentee teaches the mentor. Whenever Peggy is told that she is bossy, she hears Sheryl’s words and responds that she is simply leading. I am also delighted to report that Peggy and Stan got married. On a personal note, it was an honor to dance with the bride at the wedding.

Don. And, that leaves us with my friend Don. The last season was beyond painful as we watched Don’s life fall apart. Many of us wondered whether he would survive—we feared the opening of the show was a metaphor for his ending. Instead, he found himself at an Ashram in California where he thought of the genius marketing campaign for Coke and then returned to McCann Erickson to implement it. But his drinking continued unabated. Eventually, he hit bottom and went into treatment. At times, we all need help. No stigma. Get the help you need. I am pleased to report that Don has not had a drink for 7 months, one day at a time. No longer an active alcoholic, Don has focused on repairing his personal life. He and Megan had a short reconciliation but Megan is now on prime time so the bi-costal relationship ended. More importantly, the mad man is now a good man. Don is a good dad without a role model for the parenting skills he now employs.

Conclusion: Okay, I am a sucker for happy endings. So, I wanted to see all the seeds of professional and personal happiness planted by Matt Weiner in the last episode grow to their full potential. Yes, the Mad Men world is singing in perfect harmony, except for the tragic death of Betty. But, after watching the last season 3 times (to which I will admit), Matt left me no room to save her, as much as I tried. And, if nothing else, as you can plainly see, I am a realist, says the mad man who remains mad about the mad men and women of Mad Men.

Neither this blog nor SHRM, Duane Morris or Jonathan A Segal is affiliated, sponsored, endorsed, licensed or in any way associated with AMC. AMC neither endorses nor approves of the content of this piece of fiction or the services provided by SHRM, Duane Morris or Jonathan A Segal.

 

The Boys’ Club Perception Test

I am pleased to post the latest blog that I have written on gender bias and boys’ clubs. This one was published, gratefully, by Entrepreneur: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/274623

We read a lot about “Boys’ Clubs”. They are power circles of men, mostly white, who control, formally or informally, organizations or silos within them.

The gender demographics of the senior leadership team may be relevant but are in no way dispositive as to whether a boys’ club exists. I have seen organizations with senior leadership teams lacking in gender diversity that are not, in my opinion, run by a boys’ clubs. Conversely, I have seen organizations where the numbers at the top look good in terms of gender diversity but a core “boys’ clubs” calls the shots.

So, how do you know if you have a boys’ club? Of course, there is no test. So, I have a created one.

Warning from this lawyer — write your answers on a piece of paper and then throw away. Don’t want your self-evaluation to be used against you in litigation by a plaintiffs’ lawyer.

Emotions of this management lawyer — I want to scream about my prior warning. There should be strong privilege against discovery for critical self-assessment with eye toward increasing equality, maximizing compliance, etc.

Now, as for each of the five questions:

  1. If you generally agree, answer A
  2. If you are not sure, answer B
  3. If you generally disagree, answer C

The five questions:

  1. We don’t have a boys’ club.
  2. We don’t need a formal system to ensure equal access to meaningful opportunities; merit will prevail.
  3. More than a few of our sales and sales strategies informally take place in bars.
  4. I think the gender pay gap is attributable not only to employer practices but also to employee choices.
  5. Women mentoring women is essential to shutting down the boys’ club.

1. We don’t have a boys’ club.
Almost everyone knows that boys’ clubs exist. But many believe that they exist only at the employer next store. Certitude is a good thing. But, on this issue, a little doubt is a good thing. So give yourself:

  • Two points for A
  • Zero points for B and C

2. We don’t need a formal system to ensure equal access.
Often the gender gap at the top is because women don’t have the opportunities they need to get there. Absence of meaningful opportunities also contributes to the gender pay gap. There is no one system always works. But “no system” never works.

No system often leads to what the EEOC calls “like me” bias. Those in charge of opportunities give them to those just like them — often other men. So some vehicle to measure equal access to opportunity is essential. Merit will prevail but only if there is equal access to opportunity. Time to score it:

  • Two points for A
  • One points for B
  • Zero points for C

3. Sales and strategy meetings informally take place in bars.
Social inclusion is a form of business inclusion. Information is shared, strategies are developed and relationships formed and/or cemented. Of course, many men don’t relish business in bars. And, there are women who do. But the local watering hole is often the club house for the boys’ club. The same is true of the golf course. Okay, let’s score it:

  • Two points for A
  • Zero points for B and C

4. Pay gap due to employer practices and employee choices.
There is no doubt that there is a gender pay gap. Those who doubt it sound as credible as men who deny the existence of labor pains because they never have experienced them. But, the gender gap is not due solely to employer practices. If you step out of the game to be the primary caregiver, when you step back in, you will make less. And women are still more likely than men to be primary caregivers.

As for points, the pattern you may have predicted no longer holds.

  • Subtract 1 point if you picked A (you have thought about the issue).
  • No points for B or C but, if you picked C, you may see bias in certain cases where it does not exist.

5. Women mentoring women will shut down the boys club.
No. And here’s why:

  • There are fewer women at the top so women mentoring women will deprive women disproportionately of access to the top.
  • The burden of gender equality cannot be put entirely on women (particularly since men and women alike benefit from it).
  • The benefits to cross-gender matching are significant in terms of what each gender can impart and learn

Let’s score this one:

  • Two points for A
  • Zero points for B
  • Subtract one point if you picked C (again, very thoughtful)

Now, add up all of your points, subtracting points where you have earned them.

If you have five points or more, you may have a boys’ club, but don’t see it. If you have fewer than five points, you still may have a boys’ club, but you are primed to help dismantle it; please do.

Lean Out?

I am please to share with you my latest SHRM blog post.

Sometimes clients ask me relative to gender:

1.  Would it be gender discrimination if we do X?

2.  Does the law require that we do Y?

Of course, we need to start with the legal imperative.  But, as HR professionals, we know we must transcend the legal imperative and focus on the business necessity (and moral obligation) to ensure gender equality.

For example, some subtle harassment may not be severe or pervasive enough to rise to the level of actionable harassment.  But it very well may create a place where women don’t want to work so they take their talent and contacts to a competitor.

Another example:  the law generally does not mandate that employers provide flexibility to help employees with work-life management.  But rigid employers will lose talented women (and men) to employers who get that flexibility and accountability are not inconsistent if managed correctly.

To paraphrase Sheryl Sandberg’s message in Lean In, organizations cannot survive, let alone thrive, if they exclude half of the pool of talent.  So, HR professionals lean in hard on the business case for gender equality or you may find successful women and women of promise “leaning out” rather than “leaning in.”

Subtle Bias: Micro-Inequities and Micro-Aggressions

This article was originally published for SHRM Blog and can be found here.

I am pleased to include a link to an article I wrote last month for Entrepreneur on subtle bias: How Entrepreneurs Can Spot Subtle Bias

The focus is on what I collectively call “micro-indignities”: micro-inequities and micro-aggressions. Continue reading Subtle Bias: Micro-Inequities and Micro-Aggressions