In honor of International Women's Day (Mar. 8), I will post this:
Jun. 10, 2017 "How gender intelligence affects the job": Today I found this article by Jared Lindzon in the Globe and Mail:
Jun. 10, 2017 "How gender intelligence affects the job": Today I found this article by Jared Lindzon in the Globe and Mail:
A new book outlines key differences between men and women in problem solving, and how they complement one another
For nearly half a century, the focus surrounding gender politics in the workplace has been on numbers, emphasizing the importance of hiring, promoting and retaining the same amount of men and women in order to achieve numeric balance.
A new book on gender intelligence hopes to demonstrate the folly of approaching gender issues in the workplace using numbers alone.
Written by one of the country’s top financial executives, Richard Nesbitt, and one of its most widely recognized voices on gender issues in the workplace, Barbara Annis, the book argues that a numbers-only approach fails to maximize results, promote gender harmony or achieve true equality.
The book they’ve co-authored, Results at the Top: Using Gender Intelligence to Create Breakthrough Growth, seeks to reframe the dialogue in terms that help utilize the unique attributes and strengths of both men and women.
“The whole reaching quotas and forcing the numbers strategy hasn’t worked,” Ms. Annis says. “Women bring complementary skills to men around problem solving, risk assessment, innovative thinking and how they look at leadership in general. That’s what gender intelligence is all about.”
Ms. Annis explains that even with equal numbers of men and women at the table, workplace cultures that favour one gender’s approach over another’s aren’t utilizing their human assets to the fullest.
Ms. Annis adds that men generally converge on a problem, weighing the pros and cons of the available options, often valuing swiftness over tact.
Women, on the other hand, tend to diverge into a wider contextual approach that considers long-term implications and broader impacts.
Women, on the other hand, tend to diverge into a wider contextual approach that considers long-term implications and broader impacts.
“It’s a combination of those two processes that produces better results,” Ms. Annis says, adding that traditionally female-dominated organizations demonstrate similar levels of improvement when they employ a more gender-intelligent approach. “It doesn’t have to be 50-50; as long as the diversity of thinking is there.”
Ms. Annis adds that no matter the ratio, organizations that take a male or female-centric approach risk alienating the other gender. That alienation often leads to higher turnover rates among one gender, requiring more aggressive recruiting and hiring practices targeting that group in order to rebalance the numbers.
In Results at the Top, Ms. Annis documents the effectiveness of her alternative approach at some of the organizations she has consulted for over the years as founding partner of the Gender Intelligence Group. Case studies include prominent Canadian, U.S. and global financial institutions, such as CIBC, Wells Fargo, American Express, Bank of America, RBC, BMO and more.
Canadian civil air navigation service Nav Canada, for example, was concerned by the aviation-engineering industry’s historically male-dominated culture before employing Ms. Annis’s strategies.
“We did a diagnostic and found that the culture didn’t allow women to thrive, especially at the top levels,” Ms. Annis says. “Neil Wilson, the CEO, embraced Gender Intelligence, starting with diagnostics and sessions with their senior leadership team.”
Less than nine months later, Ms. Annis says the company’s culture had gone through a complete transition – with female employees reporting greater job satisfaction and lower turnover rates.
“They made some bold moves in terms of declaring what their values were,” she says. “It’s about making no assumptions, understanding the differences, standing in each other’s shoes and really listening powerfully. And it’s about applying the behaviour of inclusion.”
Another example referenced in the book is American Express, which, prior to implementing gender-intelligent strategies, had a policy of eliminating its least successful project each quarter. Ms. Annis explains that quickly eradicating perceived failures is a classic example of male behaviour, as opposed to the long-term contextual approach more often employed by women.
“They saw these four projects [from the previous year] that the women thought would have been a huge win in the long run, and in the [gender-intelligence training] session they brought those four back, and three of those projects were their biggest success that year,” she says.
These successes, Ms. Annis explains, are the result of corporate leaders that were willing to take a more evolved approach to gender equality in the workplace – one that sought to overcome a male or female-dominated working culture.
“There needs to be a strong tone from the top, a strong statement of principal, and then a strong management information system reporting on that,” says Mr. Nesbitt, co-author and former CIBC chief operating officer. Mr. Nesbitt explains that Results at the Top “talks to men in terms they understand,” adding that he was keen to co-author a book with Ms. Annis after first crossing paths 20 years ago, when she served as a workplace inclusivity consultant for CIBC Wood Gundy.
“I thought Barbara had a very realistic approach to diversity; it was grounded in the reality of people working together and getting the job done,” he says. “It didn’t try to lay the blame on any particular group, but tried to focus on the opportunity.”
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/GAM/20170610/RBCAGENDER
Jun. 30, 2017 "What a pink dress says about feminism": Today I found this article by Emily Dickinson in the Globe and Mail:
Mar. 24, 2019: There are 60 comments, so I will post a few:
My opinion: But CSI is a TV show and they need to get ratings. So women who wear tight and revealing clothes helps.
Jun. 30, 2017 "What a pink dress says about feminism": Today I found this article by Emily Dickinson in the Globe and Mail:
Actor and freelance writer based in Toronto
I got this text from my mother recently: “It annoys me to see Chrystia Freeland wearing a tight dress and pearls. I’m just like – if you’re going to be a ball-busting foreign minister – wear a pair of pants. It’s sexist to say but I think to be in a man’s world and get taken seriously (right now, early days) a pink dress and pearls isn’t going to cut it.”
Despite being embarrassed that we were engaging in a morning argument over another woman’s outfit, I saw a bigger issue.
My core issue with this text, and the kind of limitations it implies, is that expecting Freeland to wear pants is saying: Yes, women can do big jobs just like men, but they can’t be too feminine while doing it.
This archaic way of thinking needs to be replaced with the earth-shaking concept that women should be allowed to be themselves, whatever that means to them. (I refer to the word “women” as inclusive to all self-identifying women, in all shapes and sizes, from all walks of life.)
The next step toward true equality is allowing women to express as much femininity as they wish – and not just in their clothing choices – and be respected for it.
The next step toward true equality is allowing women to express as much femininity as they wish – and not just in their clothing choices – and be respected for it.
This is not to devalue my mother’s opinion. She grew up in a small town in the 1970s, and for her, being a feminist meant fitting in with men to gain their respect.
My mother has always been rebellious and progressive. When I was a little girl, I would worry about the other kids thinking she was a boy because of her short hair. She wore army jackets and combat boots. She didn’t care what people thought of her (and she cares even less now). I wasn’t really surprised by her opinion about the pink dress. She is empowered in her self-expression and, in her experience, presenting oneself as too feminine warrants disrespect.
In 1977, John T. Molloy wrote The Women’s Dress for Success Book, which used drawings of various styles of women’s clothing, hairstyles and accessories to gain statistics on how men reacted to them. He uses this information to make “scientific claims” to help women succeed in the workplace.
In the book, he states it’s “not sexism; it’s realism.” He speaks about the importance of a pantsuit and low heels, yet also states explicitly that women should not be too masculine to “fit in.” In a nutshell, women shouldn’t be too feminine or too masculine. They should, essentially, just be neutral.
This 1970s how-to book is laughable, but so many of these limiting “rules” seem to still haunt women today.
» I wonder how much of my personal style is based on societal pressure to come off as more “masculine” (or at least what we popularly think of as masculine, since masculinity and femininity are shifting constructs).
I have a stereotypically feminine way of being – I am extremely sensitive and emotional – and I haven’t always felt empowered to be that way. I never thought I’d see the day that I was arguing for someone else’s right to go back to the dress, but by denying women the chance to wear what they want and be who they want, we’re just contributing to a system that shames femininity. Simply put: What a woman is wearing doesn’t represent her intelligence or capability to do her job.
I have a stereotypically feminine way of being – I am extremely sensitive and emotional – and I haven’t always felt empowered to be that way. I never thought I’d see the day that I was arguing for someone else’s right to go back to the dress, but by denying women the chance to wear what they want and be who they want, we’re just contributing to a system that shames femininity. Simply put: What a woman is wearing doesn’t represent her intelligence or capability to do her job.
The text from my mother reminded me of a debate at an International Women’s Day event this year. One panelist – a successful music producer – was advised at the beginning of her career to wear dark, masculine clothing in order to be taken seriously in a male-dominated industry. She encouraged the crowd to do the same, which sparked a lot of questions.
I wondered if, had she ignored this advice, she would be sitting on that panel. Her choice to adhere to these “rules” meant gaining respect and power in her industry. Had she not done that, would she have been as successful?
I wondered if, had she ignored this advice, she would be sitting on that panel. Her choice to adhere to these “rules” meant gaining respect and power in her industry. Had she not done that, would she have been as successful?
“Even when women used the same career advancement strategies – doing all the things they have been told will help them get ahead – they advanced less than their male counterparts and had slower pay growth.”
A report from Catalyst, The Myth of the Ideal Worker: Does Doing All The Right Things Really Get Women Ahead? shows the sad truth that, even as women change their behaviour for the sake of their careers, it’s still not resulting in equality.
A report from Catalyst, The Myth of the Ideal Worker: Does Doing All The Right Things Really Get Women Ahead? shows the sad truth that, even as women change their behaviour for the sake of their careers, it’s still not resulting in equality.
These experiences leave me with questions about systemic sexism, the sexism that women engage in against other women and the beliefs entrenched in our hearts that limit us.
Moving forward, I believe that we need to be grateful for where our foremothers have brought us, and we need to fight for a new level of equality. Men and women are not the same. Everyone deserves the same kind of respect and acknowledgment because of this, not in spite of it.
Moving forward, I believe that we need to be grateful for where our foremothers have brought us, and we need to fight for a new level of equality. Men and women are not the same. Everyone deserves the same kind of respect and acknowledgment because of this, not in spite of it.
I wonder: Did Ms. Freeland choose this bright pink dress to make a point? It’s a stereotypically female colour, and conveniently the theme colour of the Women’s March. I like to think she did.
Maybe she just liked the dress, and it has no political weight whatsoever. Maybe (although highly unlikely) she just grabbed the first thing she saw on a hectic morning.
Maybe she just liked the dress, and it has no political weight whatsoever. Maybe (although highly unlikely) she just grabbed the first thing she saw on a hectic morning.
I don’t think it matters.
Mar. 24, 2019: There are 60 comments, so I will post a few:
No comments:
Post a Comment