"Women, minorities see greatest gains from entrepreneur training"/ "Stop telling women they must change themselves to become leaders"

 Mar. 16, 2017 "Women, minorities see greatest gains from entrepreneur training": Today I found this article by Daina Lawrence in the Globe and Mail:

Entrepreneurship programs have a more profound and long-term benefit for women and minorities than Caucasian men, according to research conducted by Laurina Zhang, assistant professor at the University of Western Ontario’s Ivey Business School.

Dr. Zhang’s study, Creating Entrepreneurs: The Impact of Entrepreneurship Programs on Minorities, will appear in the May of 2017 edition of American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings. She and co-author Elizabeth Lyons, an assistant professor at University of California, San Diego, followed 335 undergrad students in North America who went through an entrepreneurship training program between 2011 and 2015.

Their report found there was “an increase in the likelihood that minorities subsequently pursue entrepreneurial activity,” particularly in the technology sector, following participation in the program.

The increase applies in both the short and long term, with a 23-percentage-point difference noted in the short term alone.

It comes down to access to resources such as mentorship and capital that these subgroups would otherwise struggle to acquire, explains Dr. Zhang.

“What we’re showing is that for a particular group of people [minorities and women], the benefits provided by the program are very important and difficult to access in the absence of the program,” she says.

“Whereas for the other group [Caucasian males], while the program can expedite the time it takes for them to gain access to these things, like networks, mentorship and capital, they would eventually be able to capture them, even without the program.”

The hope is that this research could affect future policy regarding government support and funding of incubators and accelerators.

This is filled with comments that people had with this article:

Mar. 2, 2019 "Stop telling women they must change themselves to become leaders": Today I found this article by Melanie Dunn in the Globe and Mail:

I posted the article here on my blog:

"Closing the language gap between business and AI"/ "Women don't have to change to become leaders"

"Closing the language gap between business and AI"/ "Women don't have to... I'm posting this in honor of International Women's Day Mar. 8. Dec. 21, 2018 "Closing the language gap betwee...

Stop telling women they must change themselves to become leaders

Stop telling women they must change themselves to become leaders True diversity means recognizing the inherent value of individuals, just as they are

Here are all the comments:

1 year ago

That is nonsense.... I have hired many leaders in business....never thought of telling them anything of the sort

1 year ago

This whole era of positive discrimination is going to fail, or at least we all should hope it does. No discrimination needs to be the actual goal, and that is what our laws used to support before the social engineers started tampering with the legal princial of equality, 1984 style. As far a flexible work hours, get a grip. 

Leadership people and those aspiring to it are workaholics by choice or inclination. Either compete and win, or accept your role with whatever tradeoffs you wish to make. 

That's what men do. And what most women actually already do as well. Or better yet, start a business, and run it however you want. 

The marketplace tends to be pretty harsh to those who think the world owes them opportunity. Other than dealing more head on with the workplace harassment of women, this whole social engineering movement is a classic example of massive mission overreach, typical of the socialists and their media enablers in everything they do.

1 year ago

Imagine reading an entire book of this slush? Or even submitting to an entire seminar? Please don't muddy the political, economic, and cultural waters, women. The only way to create gender equality is to first create economic equality. 

The Scandinavian nations proved it many decades ago. Sadly, the media are promoting the backwards way backwards.

1 year ago

At the same time stop telling men they have to change to become human.

Kramnot:

What works as a leader is not going to change and is not gender specific. I, a man, was not a natural leader as I was shy and lacked confidence. I had to rely on my other talents and change my shyness and build confidence. 

It got me to the lower executive ranks in Fortune 500 companies, but no further. It is the same for women - unless you are a natural leader with all the talents you have to change.

1 year ago

The only person you can change is yourself. 

Don't expect 'the world' to change for you. You want something? Go get it. Can't get it? Try harder.

My opinion: I agree.  You can change some other people's behaviors and actions, like telling them: "You can call me and talk about anything, but politics."

1 year ago

Agree...No one owes you anything...you owe yourself!

1 year ago

our we getting more "I'm a victim , and im a women " articles from the globe ??. If I were a women , I would find them repetitive and offensive !

1 year ago

I do.

 

When my VPs stop crying 2-3 times a year at conferences, then I'll respect them. Best person for the job, regardless of gender and check your emotions at the door, so as not to embarrass yourself. You're the leader for Pete's sake

1 year ago

 (Edited)

Translation: "We want the rewards that some men get but we don't want to do the things that men do to get those rewards. And we don't want to start our own companies and succeed by these different rules so we want men to change."

 Why is it that the people who make these demands never just go out, take the risks and create the place they want?

 It's not like there haven't been big business incentives, provided by government, for decades that are only available to women.

 It's not like women don't form the big majority of university students. It's not like there aren't special programs and scholarships etc. etc. only available to females starting in public school. And can there be more irony than a headline complaining about women being asked to change, above an article demanding that men change? Pretty thick imo.

1 year ago

"equity initiatives helped mitigate 100 years of discrimination" As if she personally suffered those 100 years and so was entitled to an unfair advantage.

1 year ago

Before undertaking any of the terrific suggestions the author makes, the employee might ask, "How much do I need/rely on my present job?" The question is gender-neutral. 

The timing of this article couldn't have been better. Take this statement: "We won’t change human nature or genders, but we can change a company’s priorities, practices and ways of doing things. What’s valued in a company can evolve." 

Yes, but if you attempt to initiate this, be prepared to be punished. We have new proof (as if we need any more) on a significant scale right now. 

Two quick changes, and the statement becomes... "We won’t change human nature or genders, but we can change a government’s priorities, practices and ways of doing things. What’s valued in a government can evolve." That was Jody Wilson-Rabould stated hope when she became a Liberal MP--and later, Minister of Justice. 

To do "politics" in a different way. Nobody said it would be easy. A few years ago, while teaching a college course in Workplace Communications, adult business professionals debated similar issues. One student angrily disagreed and shut down discussion with, "I wouldn't keep my job!" The student was a woman.

I'm a woman who for many years has worked in a wide variety of industries - technology, finance, production, government. Whether men or women, the 'leaders' (if we want to elevate managers and directors to that extent) tend to have similar traits, regardless of gender. 

They're bold (sometimes so bold that they're incompetent but their bravado allows them to sail ahead), they strategize about positioning themselves, they often have a kind of charisma that charms their superiors and also those who report to them, and so forth. Some of these people are genuinely great at what they do, and they propel the organization forward with their energy and charm. 

Perhaps men are more socialized to be bold and grasp than they want than women (though quite frankly I've seen an equal number of women like that), but without that essential trait, I think most people, men and women alike, don't bother to seek roles in the higher echelons of their companies. It's not a game they want to play.

1 year ago

I agree with your "essential trait," ("to be bold and grasp what they want"), Gizella. Sometimes it's not a position, or a particular "level" on the vertical org chart that the employee aspires to.

 It's simply a matter desire: "how can I get to do what I really want to do?" The desire is strong enough that they'll FIND themselves there--even creating a title that validates their new "position." 

These individuals may rationalize it in corporate terms: "effectiveness" or "more efficiency" or, "maximizing profit potential." All true, in the best-case scenario. But at the heart of it: a desire to fulfill a personal objective or goal. 

And when those goals align smoothly with corporate goals--fabulous. (Occasionally, in an "aha!" moment, the organization's senior management adopts the employee's personal goals--because they "fit."--all the while maintaining--ironically--a "top down" mentality.)

1 year ago

Biggest flaw - equal opportunity will result in equal outcome. It won't. Just as eliminating streaming in schools hasn't improved rest scores.

 News bulletin, woman and men are different, people are different and groups are different. 

All "identities" should be considered on an individual basis. Works better.

 

1 year ago

In my experience, companies are falling over themselves to promote woman. Unfortunately, in their hurry to do this, their ability to do the job can be ill-considered. This can be negatively perceived, that they weren't promoted for merit but to achieve some sort of diversity quota.

1 year ago

Well said.

1 year ago

Interesting. I’ve seen many men promoted to leadership positions with very different styles of leading some quite questionable, but promoted none the less. They were allowed to be themselves (and believe me, I wish some weren’t allowed). 

Right or wrong, we took a chance on these men because...well...we felt more comfortable promoting men...maybe unconscious bias or maybe conscious bias. 

Maybe we just need to take the same ‘chance’ on women as we take on men everyday. Whatever the ‘style’ of leadership, we should just be determining whether the person has the emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to lead and make strategic decisions. 

In a recent review of upcoming leaders, I was taken aback when the woman candidate with the highest cognitive and EQ scores of the group was down-played because she wasn’t showing enough ambition to the top level job.

 I knew that she was ambitious, just not overtly obnoxious about it. Should she change and be overtly ambitious or should we be smarter and recognize the strengths she will bring to the organization. I think it’s the latter. We want the best leaders in our organization.

1 year ago

This is acknowledged in the article "It’s important to say: This is not prescriptive for women. It is for everyone. " and a great point to make. I was going to add that we had better start adjusting our attitudes back in grade school.

1 year ago

This is a great article and, as a male, I fully agree with its positions. Quite frankly, I am a bit tired of "type A, alpha males". We don't need women to change. We need to accept and embrace the healthy difference they bring into the workplace. Let's hope it does "humanize the culture" for all.

1 year ago

Then I recommend you, as a male, go start your own company and run it according to the principles you value. Best of luck.

1 year ago

Move to Sweden . Its mayhem there ! No alpha males there ….all gone !

1 year ago

You don’t have to change, though you may just only lead a conga line of one. People respond to certain behaviour in leaders, you can stomp your feet all you want, but unless you can somehow manage to get people to change who they have confidence in you may be stomping a lot. Good luck and all that.

1 year ago

Stop telling everyone they must change themselves for 

women to become leaders.

I really hope this gender and race intersectionality excuse making victim nonsense will end in soon. You probably didn't get the job because someone else was better qualified or better connected. Life is hard; you might want to toughen up.

1 year ago

I don't understand what the article is trying to say Of course leaders have to be confident and ambitious, etc. that's why they have the job. You're saying give the job to people who are shy, unsure of themselves, and lacking in ambition? Just for equality? I don't get it

1 year ago

We don’t want “equity”, we want equal opportunity. We don’t want mandated quotas, just how would that work? Equal numbers of men/women? What about race? What about biological women vs trans women, biological men vs. trans men? What about representative numbers reflecting gay/lesbian people, even age of people? What about those who identiy as a man/woman? 

The qualities that make a good leader are not gender, race, or creed specific; They are character traits people are largely born with. Those with these leadership qualities inevitably end up in leadership positions. Elimiate barriers, promote equalilty of opportunity, and let those of merit rise.

1 year ago

To become leader, EVERYONE needs to make changes and uncomfortable decisions. Women should be no exception. 

(btw: i'm a woman and in leadership position). Equality is to measure everyone with the same ruler and not changing rules to accommodate.

1 year ago

Think it goes beyond measuring "everyone with the same ruler," GE1. Two individuals may "measure up" pretty much the same in terms of intelligence, street-smarts, drive and even recent track-records of accomplishments. But it is often a matter of style and personality. 

And the individuals may be quite different: collaborative and self-effacing; quiet and reflective. #2: a little mercurial; fast-thinking; jovial and personable. Great speaker and motivator. If we're talking "sales"--as we often are, then I know the individual I'd choose. Being a man or woman plays no part in it. But...here's the thing: which traits are usually associated with which gender?

1 year ago

Not ridiculous. Merely irrelevant. The lads are getting nervous, I see. Diversions don't help.

1 year ago

Thank you for your reply. However my post is no more ridiculous than the originating article...

1 year ago

Pointing out inconsistencies in logic is not 'nervousness'. I'm only too glad to have women in high and meaningful positions, but I also want to know they're there because they are the most apt, not just because they're women.

1 year ago

Here's the thing, Rocksteady: studies have shown that most women do not particularly like team sports. Some do. Some already play in them. I suspect these women wouldn't want to "change" the penalties. Nor impose any "weights" (literal or figurative) on male colleagues. They'd want to make it on the terms of the game as played. Gotta ask: is there actually a NHL rule that forbids female players?

1 year ago

Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron' is coming true

1 year ago

I have seen sexism go both ways. To coin a phrase, “There are bad people on both sides.” To claim that one type is worse than the other is disingenuous. If women are told to “change” to get ahead then I suppose I’d have to ask, change what? And why. Then judge each statement accordingly. I do know that I, as a man, have been told all my life that I must change based on what some other men were doing. Equal, but not the same.

1 year ago

"I, as a man, have been told all my life that I must change " And likely told that by women. Look at the title: "Stop telling women they must change themselves..." heading up an article demanding that men change themselves. Did the Globe really not get the irony?

1 year ago

"ambitious, confident, assertive, risk-taking, calculating and fervently committed". I reject the notion that these attributes are more typically found in men. We should expect leaders to have certain attributes regardless of their gender. The sooner we stop stereotyping attributes according to gender, the better. Gender has nothing to do with it and the minute that we start making gender an issue, we only serve to perpetuate perceived discriminations.

1 year ago

There is no substitute for hard work. If you want to get to "ahead" in life, whether personally or professionally, then be prepared to work hard for it. If you don't, you'll be left behind.

1 year ago

Cant argue with that statement

1 year ago

Yes, there is a substitute for hard work. It's called "smart work." Nobody worked "harder" than an early 20th century coal miner. Not sure many "got ahead in life," as you put it, despite all that "hard work."

1 year ago

I'm my industry it's still hard work over long hours. We're more productive by utilizing different technologies, but we still work long hours. We roll 24/7

1 year ago

So many words to say nothing. Hmmmmmmm.

1 year ago

The advice given on being confident, taking on tough assignments, being flexible, and finding a sponsor is all good - for women or men. I used these myself in my 37 year career, and mentored many young women, and young men, that way.

 I continue to be stunned by young people of both sexes who ask me "do you really have to work as hard as that to get ahead"? The answer is yes. There is still sexism, and racism, in the workplace. I am not arguing that. Employers can sometimes offer personal flexibility and happily in Canada the law says they must. 

But the person who is always doing great work, thinking ahead, stepping forward and working well with others (not necessarily on the same team) will succeed. I am happy that some people, who don't like this lifestyle, have opportunities to start their own businesses. I suggest they will need all of these qualities to succeed there as well.

Thanks for that, EAC3. Right out of the "How to succeed" self-help manual. 

Here are my go-to "Qualities To Succeed": 

1. Choose work that feels like play, so you get to have "fun" every day.

 2. Be better at your job than your co-workers. If you aren't--study co-workers others think are wonderful. Emulate them. Not comfortable or able to "do as they do"? Quit. (remember, we are talking about "success" here.) 

3. Assess your "superiors"--the individuals who think they control your professional life. I.D. their strengths; weaknesses; quirks. Use this knowledge in interactions with them. 

4. Success is about opportunities. Learn how to recognize them.

 How to even ANTICIPATE them. How to seize them. 

5. Remuneration: be ready to ask for more. Be ready to justify it, if challenged. If "extra mile" stuff is requested: ask for more money. No raise? Quietly cease going "the extra mile" superiors expect you to. If challenged: ask for more money.

6. Be prepared for illogical decisions from on-high. Some will affect you. 

7. Expect to be called out on any decision you make that disturbs the status quo. 

8. If you successfully defend this decision, expect to be punished. Somehow. Sometime.

1 year ago

There are identifiable 'characteristics' of leaders but they are not defined accurately by intrinsic qualities (confidence, etc.). They are defined by actions and outcomes (being able to make good (timely) decisions, etc.). 

Even though the writer starts by saying she has advanced in her career to the point where a leadership role is a possibility an inability to define the core problem indicates otherwise.

1 year ago

I (a women) started my career in the 1980's.I was given glowing reviews and told the was "no money in the budget for a promotion". A few months later they hired a man at a level higher as my boss. When he was unable to complete time critical work, I was regularly asked to take over his work.

 (i asked for and received a promotion retroactive to the glowing review. A few years later, again he was judged to be unlikely to be able to deliver mission critical work, and I stepped up to the plate... and he got a promotion. This was also happening with other women in the organisation. 

Tired of the glass ceiling, I left to start my own company. Better boss, better pay, more appreciated and less stress.

1 year ago

You made the right choice, BB1960--and I will not criticize you for the time it took to reach the decision "to start my own company." I did the same. It took me awhile, too. What tipped it: the seemingly illogical decision of the President to pass me over for a promotion heading up a new division (long discussed for an extended period; after my proven ability; with company-financed training all the while!) 

It took me some years to connect the dots. I was being punished, I believe, for a management decision I made some months before that, while in no way endangering profitability, nor smooth daily operation of my area, did disturb the status quo. So, I quit. Like you, refused to be a victim. 

The best "revenge"--completely unintended, I assure you: I became a valued client of the company, adding to its profit--and my own--and the man who received the promotion I expected? 

The Pres. allowed him to drive the new division perilously close to bankruptcy. Twice. Between lawsuits threats. But, here's the thing...my case had nothing to do with a glass ceiling. I'm male, and, at the time, in a sector far more male-dominated than it is today.

1 year ago

"I left to start my own company." Good for you - sincerely. The people complaining usually don't do that. They just demand that everything else change to suit them.

1 year ago

I'm a man and I've had all those suggestions given to me as I accepted more responsibility. I've also been in many human resource group discussions, all genders, where these attributes were reviewed in the context of leadership for both men and women. 

My point is that the article is correct, but too narrow. We should question these stereotypes of leadership, without reference to gender, because they are all too simplified and, obvious to anyone with leadership experience, they're not useful in real life.

 Every one of these attributes is useful to a leader in the right circumstances and inappropriate in others. The same is true for countless other attributes.

1 year ago

Yes, exactly. Feminists wanted the opportunity to compete in the workplace with men because they claimed that they were just as driven and competent as men. So they were given that opportunity. But now they all complain that the workplace is too masculine. 

What a lot of these feminists want is to have the workplace re-designed so that it is gentler and less competitive. They want to be able to get to the top of the career ladder via the work/life balance lane instead of the fast lane. 

What they don't realize is that the greatest accomplishments of humanity were achieved by people (mostly men) who weren't concerned with stopping to smell the roses. Feminism used to be about equal opportunities for women. Now, it's become all about how men should be obligated to make the lives of white-collar professional women a little more comfortable .

1 year ago

It was also achieved by people who didn't care who they had to exploit or trample on or what laws they had to break to get ahead. A gentler, less competitive model doesn't mean that there is no drive to succeed and innovate, only that success can be achieved without toxic exploitative behaviours.

1 year ago

"A gentler, less competitive model " They should feel free to create gentler less competitive companies rather than demanding that others change.

1 year ago

I would think that the SNCL affair would show that it is in fact "broke". Business schools give lip service to concepts like integrity and ethics. We should start there. Stop admitting students whose only goal in life is $ and who don't care who they have to trample on to get ahead. Ruthlessness at the expense of morals and legality have given us the Mark Zuckerbergs, Jeff Bezos', and Donald Trumps' of this world.

1 year ago

The paradox. Women are being told to "act like men" when they want to get ahead in leadership roles. Then they are castigated for being "too masculine and pushy".

 Women have centuries of discrimination to contend with. A puzzlement indeed. I hope we can change the workplace culture within my lifetime.

1 year ago

There is an industry built around feminist complaints. What do you think gender studies and journalism schools churn out? People that don't produce anything of value so they need this industry to operate in. 

It's not about solving things. The goal post will always shift left, right, up and down as needed to keep this going.

1 year ago

Women were no more discriminated than men have been, historically. Until the invention of birth control and even sanitary measures for our periods, we were slaves to our biology. Blame evolution, not discrimination. 

Men are had to contend with dangerous jobs in unsafe factories, farming, and military service, they had it equally bad. To suggest all men discriminated against all women is wrong. 

Women could not have done the jobs men had to do prior to the industrial revolution, they lack the physical strength. Even as hunters on foot in the hunter/gather society men were faster, and stronger, and kept the tribe alive. 

Due to technology, medical advances and enlightenment principles us women can now join the work force and are as good as any man in legal, medical, and academic professions, among others. 

Yes, the some of the boys didn’t want us there, yes we had to fight for our place, but please don’t perpetuate the false idea that we were purposely discriminated against....it really wasn’t as simple as that.

1 year ago

"This whole concept of climbing the corporate ladder is still quite new." Nonsense, app. It's been around as long as business has been around. "Hmm...they're bringing in hundreds of slaves to build the pharaoh's pyramid. What're the opportunities, here? Who's got the clout? How do I get together with him?"

1 year ago

Most men today have jobs not careers. This was the big lie Feminism told women - that they could have it all with the flashy titles and perks. But they never told them them the truth - that 95% of them would end up in dead end jobs of drudgery just like 95% of men and that they might have more freedom and fulfillment in the home.

1 year ago

"Women have centuries of discrimination to contend with.” Yeah sure, men meanwhile just need to show up somewhere and immodestly everybody goes down on a knee and kisses the ring. I have no idea what world people who keep repeating this live in, but it’s clearly one that is utterly devoid of historic knowledge or the ability to actually look around and see how the world works.

1 year ago

There is a huge advantage to women to paint themselves as victims a a class. Then whenever an issue comes up that pits women against men the women get the advantage by default and men have to argue for equal treatment. 

Such issues include but are certainly not limited to: child custody/support laws, university enrolment, the justice system, the penal system, affirmative action etc. etc. The woman in this article illustrates the point when she says that yes perhaps she had an unfair advantage but justifies it with an easy "100 years of discrimination."