This article from last week's NY Times has been inspiring some lively discussion. The article features an interview with Carol Smith, senior vice president and chief brand officer for the Elle Group, in which she claims, among other things, that in her experience, "female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers. Men love to hear themselves talk." In the same article, she goes on to make this gem of a generalization:
"We women take things very personally. We're constantly playing things over in our head -- "What did that mean when they said that?" -- when they mean nothing. And I'm certainly not immune to this. So there's a downside to women."
Of course, Ms. Smith covers a variety of topics in the interview, but these are the quotes that stood out to me. I came away with two main impressions after reading this article.
a) Generalizations, including generalizations based on gender, are, always have been, and will continue to be incredibly limited and simplistic ways of looking at the world (generally speaking ;-). Reading the generalizations in this article made me feel like I was living in a world in which there really are no shades of gray, and the only thing that is allowed to contradict itself is a back-handed compliment. For real, when are we going to get past the tired gender generalizations in the guise of girl power compliments? Smith suggests that women are good managers, and she herself is a somewhat inspiring example of a successful business woman who is balancing her career and family life (she has a daughter and husband), yet she insists on furthering the same ole tired trope: we women also just loovvee to spend our time analyzing the meaningless and being hyper sensitive to, well, nothing at all. Anna N. at Jezebel sums it up by noting that Smith "explodes a bunch of gender stereotypes" in the interview but asks "is she also creating new ones?" Even the traits that she suggests make women better managers in the workplace, such as being "better list-makers" and "rational thinkers" are kind of trite oversimplifications that miss the mark in terms of furthering a real discussion about the role of gender in workplace management. List-makers? Really?
b) The second impression I had was just how incredibly privileged corporate America STILL IS. I'm truly happy to see a successful woman (albeit since I don't know Ms. Smith personally and can't speak to her having any of the characteristics I personally associate with success, such as kindness, I'm using the term "successful" in a very narrow way, to mean strictly financially and professionally) speaking out about issues of gender from her own perspective. Sure, it's a little stereotypical for the NY Times to feature a female businesswoman who is heading a fashion magazine (a la the Devil Wears Prada), but no doubt she has had to work hard to achieve her current position, and I respect her hustle. But I still resent being forced to swallow along with my morning cup o' joe some self-congratulatory cookie cutter "business" advice from someone who doesn't really seem to get the multi-dimensional privilege inherent to her position. As Julie Z. of the F-Bomb puts it,
"it's always nice to hear from women in business who hold leadership positions" but "it's really disappointing when powerful women don't really care about gender roles in the work place or don't hold feminist views, considering that they do have so much power and could be such great role models."
Agreed.
To that end, a very telling part of this article comes from a quote that hasn't received a lot of attention. Smith is asked about her hiring practices, and she launches into a discussion of what she looks for when hiring, explaining that "you've got to meet someone three times, and one of them better be over a meal." she goes on to explain:
"You learn so much in a meal. It's like a little microcosm of life. How they order, what they order. How are they going to give instructions to a waiter? Are they sending back the meal eight times? Can they keep the conversation going, especially if you're hiring someone who is in sales? Are they asking smart questions?"
See, to me, this is the a-HA moment. These are all LEARNED traits that have very little to do with how good of a job someone will do in their position, and everything to do with their class and privilege background. Interacting in a restaurant setting is a social skill that is acquired through experience. And I may be mistaken, but I assume Ms. smith isn't referring to the local Applebee's when she talks about a restaurant setting. Call me simple, but fancy schmancy restaurants take some getting used to. Being comfortable and sociable in that type of atmosphere is certainly more an indication of how often you've been privileged enough to be exposed to expensive restaurants than your ability to work hard or meet a deadline, and it's simply classist to use this as an indicator of someone's ability to be good at a magazine position. And I'm sure Ms. Smith is not alone, as indicted by her success and high regard in the business world- people in power are consistently toying with other people's LIVELIHOOD using judgments based on their own classist, racist, shallow, silly BS whims- BS whims that just happen to be institutionalized, purposeful, and completely non-coincidental whims at all, but rather learned behavior used to keep power within familiar and similarly privileged circles of people.
And it's not just this comment, or anything else that she said, but what she didn't say that raised a red flag (and then waved it around back and forth in front of my face tauntingly). Where's the acknowledgment of the sexism, racism, classism, and all the other flaws in the system, or the responsibility to give back from her position of relative power? Where's the humility and awareness?
Leora Tanenbaum, author of "Catfight Rivalries Among Women: From Diets to Dating, From the Boardroom to the Delivery Room" hits the nail on the head in this NY Times follow-up "Room for Debate" article when she said,
"Yes, countless female managers are great at making lists and sure, lots of men love to hear the sound of their own voices -- endlessly. But none of this behavior matters if it's accompanied with a denial of the continued existence of sexism in the workplace...The best managers, female or male, are those who admit that the corporate structure favors men and who recognize their responsibility to help others follow in their footsteps."
(emphasis mine)
Despite my issues with this interview, Carol Smith did manage to inspire me in one MAJOR way, and that is in the area of employing empty professional networking rhetoric to make my point. Why speak like a normal person when I can employ the tool of business champions? I can honestly say that after reading this article, I have been TRULY inspired to employ as many cliché business terms as possible. So I'm gonna go ahead and "wrap up" this post by encouraging Carol Smith to "think outside the box" by not "assigning success" to just one type of person and being much more of a "team player".
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Devil Wears Prada, Women Make Better Bosses, and Other Generalizations That Generally Piss Me Off.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15305
That quote hit it on the head. It's really irking when someone presents their own success within their own individual (usually privileged) circumstances as evidence that "see anyone can do it!!!!" It's usually followed up by some jingoistic bullshit about how in America anyone can do anything.
People feel like the admission that they benefit from privilege will devalue their accomplishments. It doesn't devalue them, it only adds dimension and depth - I think it's ignorance of the fact that (most) everyone benefits from privilege in one shape or form, and we all need to own our own brands of it.
"It's really irking when someone presents their own success within their own individual (usually privileged) circumstances as evidence that "see anyone can do it!!!!" It's usually followed up by some jingoistic bullshit about how in America anyone can do anything."
*cough* Barack Obama *cough*
"See, to me, this is the a-HA moment. These are all LEARNED traits that have very little to do with how good of a job someone will do in their position, and everything to do with their class and privilege background."
Think you're being a little harsh here? Just maybe? She's talking about hiring execs, not entry level clerks. Maybe she'd like her execs to be able to get through a client dinner without dribbling water over themselves, or launching into inappropriate topics (race, politics, religion, coarse humor, etc). And, of course, this is "learned" behavior; that's why she's not scouring undergrad campuses looking for VPs & Directors. I'll never forget I was in HS during career day when I asked this SVP to describe his toughest situation. He said it was when he fired a smart, capable guy simply because he lacked "gravitas". You better believe that the senior reaches of corporate America is a tough, subjective & judgmental world. We usually talk about the airport test. Would you be able to make it if you were stuck with a person in an airport?
You complain about assessing how a candidate interacts with a waiter. As a former waiter you better believe I do that too. Is the candidate rude? Contempuous? Crisp in ordering? Courteous? Do they have a million requests? Do they send the dish back?
I agree, and I think that Lori really missed the point of what Carol Smith was trying to say.
For example, I *wish* I were a better list-maker than I am right now: when you have a lot of different projects going on at the same time, it's important to be able to plan on how you are going to get things done.
Corporate America has its learned behaviors and signals, and it's not unreasonable for an employer to demand that a prospective employee be able to fit in, which is tantamount to demanding a certain level of social class. I'm surprised that you are shocked by this? It's what people go to fancy schools to obtain, besides the higher than average proportion of competent professors.
You may jump on Carol Smith for taking her privilege for granted, but your own class resentment shows itself clear as day in your last paragraph. No, she does not feel that she has to "responsibility to give back from her position of relative power." And there is no evidence that she has "humility and awareness," either. But the lack of those traits are probably some of the things that have helped her succeed as a woman in the difficult and cut-throat climate that she inhabits.
"succeed as a woman" should have been "succeed as a woman business-person" in the last sentence
"...You complain about assessing how a candidate interacts with a waiter. As a former waiter you better believe I do that too. Is the candidate rude? Contempuous? Crisp in ordering? Courteous? Do they have a million requests? Do they send the dish back?"
Right on!
I agree mostly with your response to the article, but don't understand how the food comment is what made you decide she's elitest.
I thought that was the least offensive thing she said, intelligent even. Of course you can learn more about someone out of a work place environment. I didn't get "do they know how to behave in my fancy shmancy world and know which forks to use." I assumed she meant you can find out things like:
Do they micromanage things - a la sally in when harry met sally
Do they seem intelligent in conversation - do they ask questions during lunch that give you the impression they have done research and know what they are talking about
And as far as the comment that women take things more personally, I think this might be grounded in theory that feminists can get behind. I work in corporate world (yes it's awful), and I feel like men are much more comfortable being aggressive, competitive, and assertive with each other. These traits tend to pair well with what culture tells me is "masculine." When men use this direct, aggresive style of communication with me, I feel like it is me being attacked rather than whatever it is the discussion is about. I feel like I didn't get the same tool set when it comes to being confident about confrontational conversations, and wonder if it is because women are supposed to be demure, sensitive, etc.
also - men won't curse in front of me during meetings. which i find HILARIOUS.
wonder if it is because women are supposed to be demure, sensitive, etc.
I've personally always wondered if its an unintended consequence of the less adversarial approach teachers have towards teaching girls then they do teaching boys. (i.e. girls are less likely to be punished, more likely to receive good marks, etc.) Which then sets the girls up as more friendly with the teacher, and thus less likely to challenge them, and more responsive to criticism. Thus ill preparing girls for certain situations.
"disappointing when powerful women don't really care about gender roles in the work place or don't hold feminist views, considering that they do have so much power and could be such great role models"
and
"The best managers, female or male, are those who admit that the corporate structure favors men and who recognize their responsibility to help others follow in their footsteps."
The best managers are the ones who help their subordinates succeed, yes. But I'm not sure how much that has to do with recognizing the corporate structure favoring men.
As a woman who hopes to become powerful someday, there are times when it will be my success vs. my feminism in the future. So far I've been able to choose my feminism (anti-classism, anti-sizism, anti-racism, etc), but corporate America may win. I don't know the limit of my morals - perhaps I'll be reciting rote stereotypes about women in 20 years.
I'm of the same mindset(I want to be powerful too), but I don't think choosing to do what it takes to be successful is anti-feminist, as a matter of fact I consider it feminism in practice.
The anti-classists, sizists, various minorities and marginalized groups are using one of the patriarchy's tricks - using women to achieve their goals. What do women, as women, get out of it? What do I get in return for allowing myself to be used?
I'm not going to fight the rich old men who rule the world so that some other group of people can abuse me...that would be insane.
Ah, of course--and fat, working class women of color are abusing themselves (and all those poor, poor white thin middle/upper class women!) for not wanting to be treated like crap because they're fat, working class, and non-white. It all makes sense now! Intersectionality is just a conspiracy to keep white, straight, cisgender, upper/middle class, skinny, currently non-disabled women down. Got it.
Acting as if the possibility of success and power will force you to helplessly abandon feminism is fucking grotesque. Compromising some principles to keep food in your stomach and a roof over your head? Okay, it happens, we all need to eat. Anticipating that you're going to throw women, people of color, fat people, working class people under the bus because you "hope to become powerful someday"? Disgusting. Abandoning feminism is a choice, not an inevitability. If you decide to sell your soul because you want power, that's your responsibility.
"disappointing when powerful women don't really care about gender roles in the work place or don't hold feminist views, considering that they do have so much power and could be such great role models"
and
"The best managers, female or male, are those who admit that the corporate structure favors men and who recognize their responsibility to help others follow in their footsteps."
The best managers are the ones who help their subordinates succeed, yes. But I'm not sure how much that has to do with recognizing the corporate structure favoring men.
As a woman who hopes to become powerful someday, there are times when it will be my success vs. my feminism in the future. So far I've been able to choose my feminism (anti-classism, anti-sizism, anti-racism, etc), but corporate America may win. I don't know the limit of my morals - perhaps I'll be reciting rote stereotypes about women in 20 years.
Hmmm. I didn't get the elitist inference either. This woman is a Senior VP in her company. She's not going to be taking the candidates for receptionist or even font-line sales to lunch, she's taking people like Directors or Junior VPs and *maybe* managers. I would be surprised if a candidate for such a high-level position hadn't ever been to a somewhat nice restaurant at least once. And really, you can treat a waitperson respectfully whether you're at Chez Panisse or at Denny's.
Also, the only thing I could see that might be misinterpreted in the "million requests" would be if the interviewer chose a restaurant and the interviewee had dietary restrictions/allergies that weren't addressed on the menu, but that's not the same as a "million requests". Really, the interviewer has an obligation to check that, IMHO. With the prevalence of allergies/restrictions and various levels of non-meat-eating these days, you'd be an idiot to take them to lunch at a steakhouse without asking.
Hideandsneak-call me a bit naive, but what industry do you work in that it's EVER ok to use profanity in a meeting?
IT Consulting
This situation happens frequently:
(Male) "Well shiii...*pause - glances at me*... mumble mumble. What the... heck... are you talking about other male person?!"
Sometimes they straight up say they are not going to curse in front of my ladyness.
I actually worked on one project where everyone but me spoke Hindi, so for conversations where they started getting heated they would switch over and "spare me"
"...Sometimes they straight up say they are not going to curse in front of my ladyness.
"I actually worked on one project where everyone but me spoke Hindi, so for conversations where they started getting heated they would switch over and 'spare me'"
Wow. Did you learn which of the Hindi words were curse words? ;)
From what I've seen and heard from people who deal with the higher-ups in big companies, the reason these people get their jobs is because someone even higher up likes them. Why do they like them? Because they have the same class status as them. The "receptionist and front-line sales" people usually have a better idea of what the job actually entails (since they actually do it!) but the person who gets the job is someone hired from outside the company that makes the higher-up feel comfortable rather than someone (even hired from outside) who actually knows how to do the job. Not only is it terrible from a diversity standpoint, which is how you and I might look at it, but it makes the business far less efficient than if employees were able to climb the ranks based on actual ability. How is that NOT problematic?
"From what I've seen and heard from people who deal with the higher-ups in big companies, the reason these people get their jobs is because someone even higher up likes them. Why do they like them? Because they have the same class status as them. Why do they like them? Because they have the same class status as them. The 'receptionist and front-line sales' people usually have a better idea of what the job actually entails (since they actually do it!) but the person who gets the job is someone hired from outside the company that makes the higher-up feel comfortable rather than someone (even hired from outside) who actually knows how to do the job...
"...Not only is it terrible from a diversity standpoint, which is how you and I might look at it, but it makes the business far less efficient than if employees were able to climb the ranks based on actual ability..."
In the cases when an employee does get to climb the ranks based on actual ability, doesn't she or he usually climb only one or two ranks at a time? Suppose someone who started off in a reception or front-line sales job got that opportunity. By the time she or he is a candidate for a director or junior VP job, she or he wouldn't have been a receptionist or front-line seller for years. Instead, by then her or his job would most likely be only one or two ranks down from director or junior VP (making her or him seem to have a "higher class status" to an outside observer like you or me or a co-worker at the same employer who's in a reception or front-line sales job at the same time this one's being considered for a director or junior VP job).
In my experience (and of course I'm not saying this is everywhere because I have no way of knowing), hiring happens laterally. So, for instance, a person from Company A is hired for the same or slightly better job at Company B.
We swear in our meetings sometimes and/or at our desks during regular work. No one has ever shown any concern over this. I'm pretty used to this type of environment, it's even done with clients sometimes (if they do it first and it's a casual setting). And myself and other women do it sometimes too, not just the men, though it is probably more common for a man to swear.
I'm a project manager for an IT consulting firm for the record.
"...And really, you can treat a waitperson respectfully whether you're at Chez Panisse or at Denny's..."
Yeah, isn't it usually the jerks who discriminate against people from lower-income families who claim that people from lower-income families are ruder, stupider, more violent, etc. than people from higher-income families?
I can remember my first time in a really fancy restaurant, it was really intimidating having waiters not just taking your order but laying you napkin out etc, I was petrified at times.
One thing though I took 'How are they going to give instructions to a waiter?' to mean 'are they going to act like assholes to the staff under them?' I'd certainly consider that telling of how they'd treat co-workers they felt were in lower positions in the workplace.
There is a difference between stereotyping groups and exploring the general differences between groups. Something that is "generally true" for the group is more likely to be true for a random individual, but may not be.
Either way, Carol Smith is thinking in terms of the women she works with daily, and herself. She is generalizing, yes, but I'm sure she knows the things she says don't apply to every women. Of course there are plenty of sociological reasons why such things would be generally true about women, that Carol Smith is not aware of.
I have to side with the anti-classicists. Even when you are hiring for high level executives there is no advantage inherent in having lived a rich lifestyle. Certainly such positions require a different set of personal and professional qualities than a regular employee, however these qualities are not necessarily tied to class. Getting to know potential high level employees over lunch is certainly a good idea, hiring someone because they're comfortable in the same sort of places you frequent (example: high class restaurants) is not.
"... she goes on to explain:...
"
"...These are all LEARNED traits that have very little to do with how good of a job someone will do in their position, and everything to do with their class and privilege background. Interacting in a restaurant setting is a social skill that is acquired through experience. Interacting in a restaurant setting is a social skill that is acquired through experience. And I may be mistaken, but I assume Ms. smith isn't referring to the local Applebee's when she talks about a restaurant setting. Call me simple, but fancy schmancy restaurants take some getting used to. Being comfortable and sociable in that type of atmosphere is certainly more an indication of how often you've been privileged enough to be exposed to expensive restaurants than your ability to work hard or meet a deadline, and it's simply classist to use this as an indicator of someone's ability to be good at a magazine position. And I'm sure Ms. Smith is not alone, as indicted by her success and high regard in the business world- people in power are consistently toying with other people's LIVELIHOOD using judgments based on their own classist, racist, shallow, silly BS whims- BS whims that just happen to be institutionalized, purposeful, and completely non-coincidental whims at all, but rather learned behavior used to keep power within familiar and similarly privileged circles of people..."
I thought the whole point of seeing how your interviewee gives instructions to a waiter is to see how she or he would give instructions to any of your other employees who would end up having to report to this person at work. If she or he treats the waiter like shit then she or he might likely treat your other employees like shit, and so it's a sign that you shouldn't hire this interviewee unless you want to increase the level of abuse, harassment, rudeness, etc. in your workplace.
Are you sure that wanting a waiter to be treated as a human being, instead of treated like shit, is a classist, racist, shallow, silly BS whim? If you were dining at a restaurant and saw another diner treating a waiter like shit, then would you be pissed off or would you cheer?