Two surprising events have punctuated disappointing news in connection with gender diversity in the corporate world. First, as Facebook prepares to launch perhaps the most anticipated Initial Public Offering (IPO) EVER, news emerged in recent months that Facebook's Board of Directors is populated with seven male directors (out of seven), meaning zero female directors. For a company perceived to be on the very cusp of forward-thinking business modeling, this lack of gender diversity on the Board has attracted the attention (and raised the ire) of institutional investors.Per the Wall Street Journal article California Pension Fund Challenges Facebook Over Diversity on the Board: "In a letter addressed to Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday, California State Teachers' Retirement System Director of Corporate Governance Anne Sheehan wrote that, 'We are disappointed that the Facebook board will not have any woman members. This is particularly glaring at a time when there is clear evidence that companies with diverse boards perform far better than the companies with more homogenous boards,' Sheehan wrote."
Per the Forbes article Why Long-Term Investors are Worried About Facebook's Lack of Board Diversity: "Although Facebook has received a lot of positive attention for its inclusion of a woman, Sheryl Sandberg, as its Chief Operating Officer, the company has not appointed a single female candidate to its board, a characteristic that makes it a lot like other major U.S. companies that have zero women on their boards such as Urban Outfitters, Under Armour, and Zale, the diamond company. According to a recent report by GMI Ratings, the corporate governance research firm, 40% of the U.S.’s largest publicly listed companies don’t have any women on their boards. Facebook, though, has attracted an unusual amount of attention."
It is difficult to imagine how in 2012 Facebook, Urban Outfitters, Zale's and 40% of the largest publicly listed companies in the U.S. do not have a single female board member. This failure appears to be an enormous disconnect between emerging evidence supporting the fact that diversity increases success and profit of a corporation and the continuing survival of the old boys' network (or the new boys network in Facebook's case). Can this failure amount to a duty of care breach (gross negligence in a Board failing to inform itself)?
To this lack of gender diversity on corporate boards, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg (not on the Board) opined in PCMag.com: "'I really think we need more women to lean into their careers and to be really dedicated to staying in the work force. I think the achievement gap is caused by a lot of things. It's caused by institutional barriers and all kinds of stuff. But there's also a really big ambition gap,' Sandberg said. 'If you survey men and women in college today in this country, the men are more ambitious than the women. And until women are as ambitious as men, they're not going to achieve as much as men,' she added."
Second, as the Masters Golf Tournament wrapped up Sunday with its thrilling overtime finish, the question of whether the all-male Augusta National Golf Club would invite IBM's new female CEO, Virginia Rometty, to become its first female member, remained unanswered. IBM is one of the Masters three primary corporate sponsors (along with AT&T and ExxonMobil). Augusta National, which hosts the Masters, has offered the past four IBM CEO's membership (all men), but has refused to date to extend an invitation to Ms. Rometty who took over as CEO at the beginning of 2012.Of course, Augusta National has had a problem with exclusion for decades. It was not until 1990 that the club admitted its first male African American member. Rometty was in attendance at the tournament on Sunday for the exciting finale, with her status as one of the most powerful CEOs in the world cemented and on clear display, despite the fact that she, by nature of her gender, has not been invited to become a member of Augusta National. While Augusta National remains a private club, and outside the Constitutional mandates forbidding discrimination, many believe it is time for Augusta National to admit women, particularly the powerful CEOs of its major corporate sponsor.
(Photo of Sheryl Sandberg (top), Facebook COO, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons; Photo of Virginia Rometty (left), CEO of IBM, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Sheryl Sandberg makes a really great point about ambition. I do not have studies or research to back up this claim, but I believe that a majority of women limit themselves. A woman might strive to be a partner versus an associate, or a small business owner versus a corporate employee. I believe there are far fewer women who actually set their sights on positions of power at the top of large organizations and corporations. Historically the numbers of women in those positions is very small. I can only think of two companies (HP and IBM) that actually have women CEOs. It is interesting to note that both of these companies are in the tech sector, why that is I am not sure. Facebook is certainly in the tech sector. The combination of a lack of ambition and the odds against women make it difficult, but I believe women shouldn't automatically assume that positions on a company's board of directors or a highly coveted top executive position are off-limits. The only way to change the game is to keep playing, and Sandberg is correct in saying that women need to be dedicated to staying in the work force.
ReplyDeleteAs for Augusta National, the fact that the first black member was admitted in 1990 should be a good indication that the good ole boy network is pretty grounded in their beliefs. I honestly don't believe that they will admit women any time soon. The players who play there may not agree with the policy, but the members who control the course, like members of executive boards are far from youthful.
Seth P.
Corporate boardrooms are not the only places where minorities have been neglected:
ReplyDeleteParty insiders say the Democratic National Committee awards few contracts to companies controlled by racial minority groups, despite repeated pledges to increase business to such firms.
Instead, Democratic leaders claim progress by leaning on a broader definition of “minority contractors” that includes white women, the disabled and the gay community, according to internal memos and emails obtained by The Huffington Post and corroborated by those insiders.
The apparent dearth of contracts has fueled frustration and criticism, mostly from African American Democratic loyalists who accuse the party of failing to use its institutional finances to advance the cause of fair racial representation in the lucrative business of politics.
"There is no more loyal group of voters to the DNC than black people, and yet they have done nothing to ensure that that constituency is able to participate fully in the economic benefits of party business," said a DNC member who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The Huffington Post
The Democrat Party has a message for African-Americans - "Shut up and vote."
Sadly, gender diversity in the corporate board room is unlikely to improve until there is enough shareholder outrage to demand change. This outrage may come in two scenarios: 1) shareholders have an emotional investment in the company and demand it improve gender diversity, and 2) companies with diverse boards become considerably more profitable than Old Boy companies while the nexus between diversity and profits becomes common knowledge. In either of these scenarios, we would be likely to see change internally through shareholder voting, or through the courts and failure to inform claims.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I find Ms. Sandberg's comments appalling. She simply gives institutional barriers and glass ceilings lip-service while squarely placing the blame for women's inability to climb the corporate ladder on their own lack of ambition. She is only reinforcing gender stereotypes that women have been battling for decades.
I find it surprising that companies like Facebook and Urban Outfitters, which seem more progressive, are still playing into the notion of the good old boy network with all male boards. As for what Ms. Sandburg said about women and careers, her statement is not only apalling, it's laughable. More women than men are going to college these days, and still, women are paid less and are not well represented in top corporate positions. To say that it's because women lack ambition is insulting. I think the bigger problem is, as Tyler mentioned, that shareholders aren't demanding a diverse board. Until everyone becomes invested in fixing the problem, it is unlikely that the old boy's network will diversify itself.
ReplyDeleteI find it disappointing that a company like Facebook does not have a woman on its board. Over half of Facebook’s users (58%) are women. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-05/tech/31291953_1_mark-zuckerberg-facebook-active-users
ReplyDeleteThe part that is the most concerning is that it was not for a lack of available intelligent women for Facebook to place on its board. I do think the media backlash will bring attention to the issue and maybe we will see a female board member added in the future.
However, the fact that Facebook has a female COO, Sheryl Sandberg, is encouraging. I agree with Ms. Sandberg that the lack of women on corporate boards is due to many factors, but I do not think that women lacking ambition is one of them.
Women are not lacking ambition. It is the stereotypes placed on ambitious women by society that are the true barriers between them and the corporate boardroom. Ambitious women are portrayed as either one of two things by society: (1) too masculine or (2) too incompetent. This is best illustrated by looking at our most recent Presidential election. These two stereotypes were seen in the 2008 primaries where Hillary Clinton was deemed “too manly” by many commentators to be the first female President. On the other hand, Sarah Palin was deemed too incompetent to be the first female Vice President. These are just two famous examples of challenges women in the professional world face on a daily basis.
To overcome these stereotypes women can only do one thing: continue to prove society wrong and remain resilient. I think IBM’s CEO, Virginia Rometty, has done a good job demonstrating this. I have not read one article of her commenting about how unfair it is she was not invited to be a member of Augusta National she let society and the media do it for her while continuing to do her job as one of the most powerful CEO’s in the world. EArmstrong
No offense to Seth P., but I find Sheryl Sanberg’s statement to be a little offensive, almost as if she is saying SHE is woman in power at Facebook and the reason that there aren’t more is because women don’t want to. Like if she can do it, why doesn’t everyone else. Never mind that President Obama JUST announced a recent study proved women are paid less in their jobs than their male counterparts - even today. So, if a woman grows up and starts out in the business world seeing that there is a proven pay gap, or to use Seth P.’s example, that a company/firm doesn’t promote women to partner as much as men, or that there are ZERO women on the board at potential companies, they may see there are not many opportunities to rise. It’s not because they don’t strive for those things… My personal belief is that women are resilient.
DeleteBut, regarding corporate boards - I sort of just feel like the rest of society as sort of advanced and that like some commenters and the blog post alluded to, these closed-door behind-the-scenes boardrooms at America’s most recognizable companies are sort of still in the times where the good old boy’s way is the only way. And to bounce off of Tyler Lansden’s point, I don’t think shareholders will get as mad about it as quickly because board of directors aren’t as in the limelight; they are not immediately visible to the consumer. But – issues such as this current one with Augusta sort of fling these issues into the limelight every now and then, when they gain news attention. When “mainstream” people do see how many boards are run in these individual stories that do make the news, they do get upset, because it IS antiquated. We just need the market to dictate change!
No offense to Seth P., but I find Sheryl Sanberg’s statement to be a little offensive, almost as if she is saying SHE is woman in power at Facebook and the reason that there aren’t more is because women don’t want to. Like if she can do it, why doesn’t everyone else. Never mind that President Obama JUST announced a recent study proved women are paid less in their jobs than their male counterparts - even today. So, if a woman grows up and starts out in the business world seeing that there is a proven pay gap, or to use Seth P.’s example, that a company/firm doesn’t promote women to partner as much as men, or that there are ZERO women on the board at potential companies, they may see there are not many opportunities to rise. It’s not because they don’t strive for those things… My personal belief is that women are resilient.
ReplyDeleteBut, regarding corporate boards - I sort of just feel like the rest of society as sort of advanced and that like some commenters and the blog post alluded to, these closed-door behind-the-scenes boardrooms at America’s most recognizable companies are sort of still in the times where the good old boy’s way is the only way. And to bounce off of Tyler Lansden’s point, I don’t think shareholders will get as mad about it as quickly because board of directors aren’t as in the limelight; they are not immediately visible to the consumer. But – issues such as this current one with Augusta sort of fling these issues into the limelight every now and then, when they gain news attention. When “mainstream” people do see how many boards are run in these individual stories that do make the news, they do get upset, because it IS antiquated. We just need the market to dictate change!
I agree with Tessa. I found Sheryl Sanberg's statement incredibly offensive. It is a complete cop-out for her to blame the total lack of diversity in the Facebook BOD primarily on underachieving, under motivated women. It is not 1950. Young women are not under the illusion that their career choices are limited to housewife, nurse, and secretary. Most college-bound women are incredibly ambitious and, in many cases, work march harder than their male peers to achieve their career goals because of the obstacles (lower pay, "good old boys club" mentalities, etc.)they are up against.
ReplyDeleteAs a woman, she should appreciate this reality.
C.Gevas
I read an ABA Journal article detailing why few women are top partners at law firms. It quoted language of a female lawyer stating that many women simply do not want to be a big partner at a firm. Hence, I find Mrs. Sandberg’s comments plausible. However, for her predominate reason as to why less boards are less diverse to be based a lack of ambition seems unjustified. Many women may not be afforded with the same opportunities as Mrs. Sandberg has had, and many women may need to balance their work with family needs as well like raising child (despite men may having do the same). Thus, their ambition might still be there but outside influences and necessities might curtail that ambition.
ReplyDeleteI feel the atmosphere of many firms, companies, and organizations need to become entrenched in more progressive policies that open up equal opportunity. The problem is where to draw the line between infringing upon practices that have made certain companies with historically male dominated boards successful versus restructuring those same companies’ policies for the diversity betterment of the industry as a whole.
- Jordan K
When groups or individuals are held out of positions of power, only the most blinkered observer can insist that lack of ambition or devotion is the reason for the type of exclusion we're talking about here. There is no one that can simply will herself (or himself, for that matter) onto Facebook's board of directors through sheer force of ambition. It's not a mere trend that 40% of publicly listed companies have no women on the board. It's because in 40% of publicly listed companies, no one currently ensconced in power has made the effort to appoint a woman to the board.
ReplyDeleteSheryl Sandberg's perspective is nothing more than a restatement of the "bootstraps" canard; a particularly self-serving narrative for someone who is already successful. People are very quick to attribute their success to their own hard work, but it's vital to recognize that for every hot-shot sitting in a plum position, there is a counterparty who put him or her there. And for all the ambitious, hard-working people whose careers have topped out much lower on the totem pole, I'm inclined to believe that it has at least as much to do with lack of access to power-wielding social circles as opposed to some deficit of character.
I think its interesting that Facebook is the company of our generation, a generation of equality and diversity and more forward thinking, and yet there are no female board members. In a way, this causes me to think less of Mark Zuckerburg and Facebook overall. I agree with other comments in that the statements of Sheryl Sandberg are offensive. Women haven't necessarily had the privilege of being as ambitious as men in the past. Women have been expected to bear children and be responsible for family growth and well-being. Women have historically been expected to stand by their successful husbands, who are the primary bread-winners. One would think that a woman in Ms. Sandberg's position would be especially cognizant of the struggle of women in climbing the corporate ladder. While the times are changing, the statements of Ms. Sandberg and the fact that Facebook has no female board members are indications that perhaps we, as a society, are not as advanced and diverse as we think we are or should be.
ReplyDelete- K. Dean
A recent study actually showed that women have had a 92.3% job loss under Obama. The number of unemployed women has gone up by almost one million in the last three years. I don't know what the exact causes are behind this, but it can likely be attributed to a number of factors. I like to think, despite the uprising against Ms. Sandberg on here, that she isn't entirely wrong. Women go to college ambitious and they want big careers and they have big dreams, but they also want families. When push comes to shove most women realize they'd rather have a good career than a great one in order to spend time with their children. Women don't want to miss their child's first words, or first steps, or their sporting events because they're working late or on a business trip. They want their children to remember their mom always being there. Men don't have the same attachment (some men, I wouldn't say all), and therefore they are less likely to give up their big dreams for their children. Men see it as their duty to provide for those children and their wives so they work harder to make more. Now I may sound like I'm stuck in 1950, like others on here have claimed Ms. Sandberg is, but I don't think being a good parent can be put into a decade. There are women out there who I am sure are willing to give up marriage and families to achieve it all and good for them. I hope they succeed. But many women simply aren't willing to do that and with the cost of child care constantly rising many families see it simply as a money saver for someone to stay home with the children. Do I believe women are capable of being CEOs and on BOD, of course I do. I'm also sure there is some gender bias involved in their lack on inclusion in those positions; however, I also believe that many women don't want to give up everything to be in those positions.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Sheryl Sandberg, for all her success, is one very conflicted woman. Her remark that the achievement gap is caused by "institutional barriers" and all kinds of things, not the least of which is the "ambition gap," is certainly insensitive (or alternatively so appallingly offensive as to be laughable), but that article's portrayal of her is also incredibly one-dimensional and discouraging.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that while this comment was quoted in PCMag (which I'm guessing has a large male readership), last week HuffPost (more likely with majority female readers) ran an article with the headline"Sheryl Sandberg: 'There's No Such Thing As a Work-Life Balance' "(you can read that one here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/sheryl-sandberg_n_1409061.html). In that interview, she observes that in order to obtain professional and personal success, among a woman's most important business decisions is to select a husband who supports her ambitions enough to take on equal responsibility for household activities. She is also frankly admits that she feels guilty for being a working mom -- a guilt she says, not a lot of men feel -- and recognizes that women often must trade their success for likability -- another downside male executives do not experience.
She has recently admitted that she goes home from work at 5:30 P.M. (no word on what time she gets to the office, it wouldn't surprise me if she were there at 5:30 A.M.), a fact that she did not want people to know until recently. This is unsurprising; I'm certain that, at the very least, she would receive more than passing criticism from the peanut gallery for her failure to devote long evening hours to time in the office. I think many of our reactions to PCMag's coverage of her opinion nicely supports her claim that women sacrifice likability for success (but it is hard to distinguish whether that's her doing or the media's doing. probably both.).
In any event, it is definitely discouraging that the one institutional barrier to diversity in the business world she chose to highlight in that interview is women's lack of ambition. Why not highlight the fact that for women, a position on a BOD may mean another weekend away from her full-time (though unpaid job) as a parent. Although the handsome financial renumeration may make it a whole lot easier to pay for piano lessons and soccer practice, that long weekend or 3 in the tropics probably comes directly from the time the female executive was to spend with her children or grandchildren. Women have ambition, a word defined as "a strong desire to do or to achieve something, typically requiring determination and hard work," but their ambitions may be in a diverse number of personal and professional pursuits. Her narrow definition of ambition and achievement fails to represent the attitudes and opinions of my already accomplished classmates; our reactions to her statements illustrates why another female opinion in the ranks of Facebook's leadership is sorely needed.
My comment is in the same vein as Chelsy's response. Women do not lack ambition. In fact, I would argue that women are more ambitious than men. Women go to college, secure employment, have children, raise children, etc (not necessarily in that order and not one at a time, I might add). However, the women that do these things face stringent societaldiscriminatory norms. How many corporations would celebrate a single mother's professional achievements and elevate her to a board position? While my opinion is not supported by fact/research, I would say it is not a high number.
ReplyDeleteThis whole notion that women have "good careers", so they can raise a family if moot to me. This is a societal construct. If it wasn't, we would be criticizing those men with "good" careers for their lack of ambition. If that criticism/analysis exists, I've yet to hear about it.
As a law student, I sit in class with some of the most ambitious females I have ever encountered. Through my eyes, female ambition isn't lacking, I'm surrounded by it every day.
I agree with the above comments that many women today are just as or more ambitious than men. However, regarding Sanberg's comments, her comments probably stem in part from the generation in which she was raised. At the time that she was rising in the ranks, there were likely less ambitious women who chose careers over motherhood than there are today. Female attorneys from Sanberg's generation often make similar comments about how they struggled to carve a place for themselves in a man's business world. Essentially, women in that generation had to mold themselves to fit into a man's world, and they often sacrificed their personal identities as women to "fit in."
ReplyDeleteThat said, I agree with Jeremy's comments as well. Sandberg is no doubt intelligent and hardworking, but she is also very well connected.
While I do not mean to attack Sanberg's comments, I find it puzzling that she believes there is an ambition gap in the corporate world in the twenty-first century.
ReplyDeleteShe alludes to a survey of college students, though she cites no statistics nor defines what she means by "lack of ambition." In my limited personal experiences in college, law school, and at a law firm, I have seen roughly the same number of driven females as driven males. I have observed many females at the top of competitive and difficult classes and concentrations. I have encountered driven female professors and ambitious, hardworking female managing law partners. For these reasons, I tend to think Ms. Moore might be spot-on when she posits that perhaps Sanberg's views simply come from her own life experiences and upbringing.
Rather than declaring females and other poorly-represented groups as non-driven in elite corporate America, I think we need to focus on breaking down the institutional barriers that have always existed--those that have traditionally barred females, African-Americans, the LGBT community, the less-connected, etc., and allow truly innovative minds (regardless of their cultural background) to break through the glass ceilings.
I'm not sure if the movie was historically accurate, but the Facebook film essentially begins with Zuckerberg posting a Web site designed to "rate" his female peers. Since, it looked like he just posted photos, I imagine the object was to rate them on their looks.
ReplyDeleteIn class a few weeks ago we had a discussion about diversity in the boardroom and whether boards should be required to hire a certain amount of women or minorities. It appeared that the general agreement, at least from those who participated in the class discussion, was that boards should hire the most competent people, regardless of race or sex. I think this makes sense. But if we're under the assumption that women and minorities are equally competent, and yet women and minorities are not filling boardrooms, then what's going on? One explanation is that boards are not hiring women or minorities despite their competence.
As a woman, I was initially frustrated by Sandberg's comments. But then I tried to think if maybe she meant something a little different than what she ultimately said. Going back to what KNiland said, I think a lot of women have amazing ambition, but that ambition may ultimately fall second to love for family. Personally, if I ever have children I don't know whether I could continue to work as hard as I do now as a single person. It seems very realistic that I may reduce my work hours to spend more time with my children. But that would be my personal choice. And I don't think at all that it would be reflective of my lack of ambition, and it should not be confused with lack of ambition.
Personally, I'd like to see this blog followed up with a survey about professional women and whether they would ever want/have tried to be on a corporation's board. For those women that seek these positions, what do they think is holding them back? For those women who don't seek a board position, why not? Are they worried about the amount of time it will take? Are they frustrated from previous attempts to seek higher positions? Are they just not interested?
I need to back up Katrina Harper here that I've never been so impressed with the women I work with in school. Our dean is female. The EIC of our law review is a woman, our incoming SBA president is a woman. At the Culture of Excellence Ceremony Sunday, the law school honored the three students who've received 5 CALI Awards in the past year alone. All women. Looking right, left, backwards or forwards, I don't see a lack of ambition among the women in this law school in any direction.
As an aspiring young professional and a former female athlete, let me start by getting something off my chest: men and women are NOT equal. In fact, no two people on this planet are equal. Thus, arguments about equality for equality’s sake don’t get very far with me. However, I do find great merit in the fight for fairness. But to me, fairness does not mean giving a woman a seat on every board just because she is a woman. If a woman is qualified to be there, and she is better (brings more to the table) than the other perspective Board members then shareholders should be inclined to elect her. And there are many ways that a particular woman could serve a corporation better than another particular man: education, work experience, world experience, work ethic, etc. I believe this is why some women, like Virginia Rometty, have been able to hold their own and succeed in the workplace. The gender difference “gap” between men and women is much smaller in the business world. Even in jobs that require manual labor, women can keep up with their male coworkers as long as they are willing to work harder and exert more energy than the guys. Thus, I think it is perfectly acceptable for women to work with or even be the boss over men. I just don’t believe any person should be given a position because of their difference (sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever). If you’ve earned it, then by all means take it (and yes I understand there are a lot of hurdles our society still has to clear when it comes to fairness, I just don’t think that a force-feeding is what we need at this stage).
ReplyDeleteHowever, the same ability or level of performance is not necessarily true in the world of sports. Here, the physical differences are a much greater obstacle for women to overcome. Again, to pick at the equality argument, I do not mean that all men are more athletic or better at a particular sport than women. I’m sure we all realize that this is not the case (if you don’t, think Billie Jean King). Most of you men out there are probably able to (get past your egos and) admit that Brittney Griner is better at basketball than you could ever hope to be, and Abby Wambach would work you on the pitch. But in your defense, you aren’t professional athletes. Brittney Griner has no shot at being better than Andrew Bynum, and Abby doesn’t hold a candle to Lionel Messi. Because of this fact, sports have long been divided along the gender line. ***comment continued
***comment continued
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that some women have wandered into the world of Men’s professional sports, they have done so on a limited event basis and with little success. In fact, the only professional sport I can currently think of where a woman is “in the league” and regularly mixing it up with the guys is NASCAR. There, the gender gap can largely be overcome by the car and technology (although there is much more physical demand than most casual spectators realize). Still, Danica Patrick has raced only once in stock car’s premier league with a 38th place finish (to be fair, she did beat 5 men in that race, including five-time champion Jimmie Johnson). There are many people, myself included, who feel that the only reason Danica is running any Sprint Cup races this season is because she is an attractive woman (a marketing dream in a corporate-sponsor dependent sport). Again, there’s nothing “fair” about giving a woman a handout just because she’s a woman.
Unlike NASCAR, golf is a sport in which “you play the ball” and the course instead of an opponent. While the advancement of golf equipment has helped women slightly narrow the gap, women are at a huge disadvantage when they play in a men’s tournament. The fairways are longer and require more physical power. The longer the tee shot, the shorter the approach, and (generally) a lower score. When the best women’s golfers play in these events, most people consider making the cut a “victory” (I’m sure you are shocked to find I am not one of these people). Because there are no women competing on the PGA Tour, I really do not feel the need to hassle Augusta for its resistance to extending membership to women. Honestly, I would not be inclined to force the club’s hand unless a woman was consistently contending for wins on the PGA tour. Even then, I would not argue that Augusta should be forced to extend membership to women, but rather should invite this hypothetical golfing Wonder Woman to play in the Master’s tournament.
Augusta National is a golf club. Just like the numerous other all-male clubs out there, this golf club should not be forced to extend membership to women, especially considering that gender separation of sports has been used, accepted, and preferred for so long. To put it bluntly, quit your crying! Form your own all-female golf club, and make it better than what the guys have and two things will happen: (1) they’ll take notice and want to know your sex-exclusive secret to success (and you’ll be smart enough to not give it up for free – meaning you bargain for them to extend membership) or (2) you enjoy and all-around better experience and get over the fact that some boys in Georgia wouldn’t let you in their clubhouse.
While it is true that some women have wandered into the world of Men’s professional sports, they have done so on a limited event basis and with little success. In fact, the only professional sport I can currently think of where a woman is “in the league” and regularly mixing it up with the guys is NASCAR. There, the gender gap can largely be overcome by the car and technology (although there is much more physical demand than most casual spectators realize). Still, Danica Patrick has raced only once in stock car’s premier league with a 38th place finish (to be fair, she did beat 5 men in that race, including five-time champion Jimmie Johnson). There are many people, myself included, who feel that the only reason Danica is running any Sprint Cup races this season is because she is an attractive woman (a marketing dream in a corporate-sponsor dependent sport). Again, there’s nothing “fair” about giving a woman a handout just because she’s a woman.
ReplyDeleteUnlike NASCAR, golf is a sport in which “you play the ball” and the course instead of an opponent. While the advancement of golf equipment has helped women slightly narrow the gap, women are at a huge disadvantage when they play in a men’s tournament. The fairways are longer and require more physical power. The longer the tee shot, the shorter the approach, and (generally) a lower score. When the best women’s golfers play in these events, most people consider making the cut a “victory” (I’m sure you are shocked to find I am not one of these people). Because there are no women competing on the PGA Tour, I really do not feel the need to hassle Augusta for its resistance to extending membership to women. Honestly, I would not be inclined to force the club’s hand unless a woman was consistently contending for wins on the PGA tour. Even then, I would not argue that Augusta should be forced to extend membership to women, but rather should invite this hypothetical golfing Wonder Woman to play in the Master’s tournament.
Augusta National is a golf club. Just like the numerous other all-male clubs out there, this golf club should not be forced to extend membership to women, especially considering that gender separation of sports has been used, accepted, and preferred for so long. To put it bluntly, quit whining about it and do something to change the game! Form your own all-female golf club, and make it better than what the guys have and two things will happen: (1) they’ll take notice and want to know your sex-exclusive secret to success (and you’ll be smart enough to not give it up for free – meaning you bargain for them to extend membership) or (2) you enjoy and all-around better experience and get over the fact that some boys in Georgia wouldn’t let you in their clubhouse.
It saddens me to know that women are not present on Facebook’s BOD, because it is a product of the younger generation—a generation also characterized as being more intelligent, ambitious, diverse, and open minded. However, the lack of women in the board room is not caused by a woman’s lack of ambition, as Ms. Sandberg suggests. Although there are more women in board positions now, the corporate culture of a male dominated business world has yet to change. Ms. Sandberg fails to see that most women have not been exposed to the same opportunities. Therefore, I think it has to be taken into consideration that a lot of women have to take alternatives paths, which may take longer, or be more difficult. In addition, a woman’s goal of wanting to have a family while juggling a career should not be characterized as being less ambitious. It’s difficult for a woman to juggle a career and a family at the same time. Personally, I think James Brown said it best--“This is a man’s world; but, it wouldn’t be nothing, without a woman or a girl.”
ReplyDeleteI think that facebook only need to look at the information on diversity that was offered in the Grutter v. Bollinger case. The amicus curiae filed in that case stated the significance in having diversity in many realms. Although that case dealt with the race issue, rather than gender, it was clear that it is important for diversity in higher education because of the good outcomes it has on diversity later on in the corporate world (or just life after college). The same argument can be made in the context of a board of directors. There is a need for diversity, both in the racial and gender context. If it was seen as important to have diversity in higher education, because of the impact later on, it would also be important to carry on that diversity to that "later on" part it also.
ReplyDeleteInitially I was outraged at the idea that a WOMAN COO would make statements suggesting that a majority of women lack the ambition necessary to become board directors. I didn't want to believe a woman in Sheryl Sandberg's position could truely believe such a thing about her own gender. The outrage I felt as a woman led me to dig a little deeper into Sheryl Sandberg.
ReplyDeleteMy goal at first was to prove she is a woman who gave up children and family time to climb the corporate ladder. However, I was suprised to learn she has two children under the age of ten and leaves work every day at 5:30pm to go home and have dinner with her family. I looked further and found a speech by Sandberg discussing women and leadership in the workforce. The speech Sandberg gives seems to suggest that her comment on woman and ambition was not meant in a malicious manner. Instead, it seems that Sandberg is urging women to stay in the workforce and stick it out. Sandberg recognizes that women are often effected by society (both internally and externally) in a way that men are not. According to Sandberg and her data, women are more likely to underestimate their own abilities compared to men. In addition, success and likability is negatively correlated for women, while positively correlated for men. The stigmas women face versus men are also recognized. Women who are successful in the workforce are often looked at as failures on the parenting spectrum. Externally, society has conditioned men to work and succeed, while women are still pressured to fulfill the more traditional role of caretaker. Breaking out of this stigma is harder said than done. Sandberg seems to encourage the only way to achieve success as a women is to stick with it and not give up. To out stay the naysayers, so to speak.
I have no doubt that increased diversity of woman (and also race or economic background) would be a positive influence on the success of corporations. As it is recognized already that diversity of the board will help create more success, I think it should also be recognized .that diversity will help prevent a breach of duty of care.
I believe the continued survival of the old boys' network, is far too similar to the psychological phenomena of groupthink. Groupthink, which is often seen in policy making, is when a group of people ignore or reject alternative viewpoints in order to avoid conflict. It can often result in not only a failure to question and hear other viewpoints, but a general agreement to sit silently and go along with the group. It is shown, however, that diversity within a group will decrease the likelihood of groupthink.
Therefore, when a board lacks diversity- groupthink may lead to a failure for the board to be fully informed and in turn a breach in the duty of care. A diversified board will help avoid this phenomena and ensure the board is not in breach of any duty.
Sandberg Link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html