pubTalk

I felt compelled to write this post after listening to an interview on NPR about Ximena Hartsock's confirmation hearing for director of Washington, D.C.'s parks and recreation department. Ms. Hartsock - a highly qualified individual - was not confirmed by the city council. Why? Well, during the confirmation hearing both her race and gender were called into question as affecting her ability to do the job. The fact that this kind of discussion was allowed to happen strikes at the heart of the struggle women face in gaining positions of leadership.

In the academic leadership literature, this is often referred to as the Leadership Problem, i.e. women's unequal status in leadership positions. I visited Catalyst and the Center for American Women and Politics for some statistics on this point:

• In management, women account for over one-third of MBA classes, but are only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs and hold only 15.7% of Fortune 500 Corporate Officer Positions


• In law, women are about half of new entrants into the field, but only 18.7% of law firm partners


• Over half of college graduates are women, but less than 25% are full professors and 20% are college presidents


• In the U.S. women are the majority of the electorate, but only hold 17 of 100 (17%) U.S. Senate seats and 73 of 435 (16.8%) U.S. House of Representatives seats

This problem isn't new and it doesn't seem to be going away. So why aren't we taking to the streets and shouting from the rooftops to change this?

I've recently been spending my evenings reading from the book, Women & Leadership (edited by Barbara Kellerman and Deborah L. Rhode), and it offers up some pretty interesting reasons as to why.

First, we focus too much on thinking that this is strictly about women making different choices than men. Women's choices are not made in a vacuum; they are not sheltered from broader cultural constraints. If we focus only on women's preferences, then we understate the subtle, often unconscious biases that both shape and limit women's leadership opportunities.

At the risk of sounding too much like I'm outlining my doctoral dissertation, I would like to provide the reasons Kellerman & Rhode give for the Leadership Problem:

1. There are gender biases in leadership opportunities. Gender stereotypes put a woman in a bind over appearing too feminine or not feminine enough.
2. Women are still seen as the primary caregivers of the young and old. While most men support gender equality in the home, there is still a lack in restructuring one's work to promote gender equality.
3. Inflexibility in workplace structures also affects an individual's ability to structure their lives to promote gender equality.
4. At a societal level, we value caretaking as an individual rather than a social responsibility.

If we continue to let this Leadership Problem persist, then we are compromising our nation's fundamental principles of equal opportunity and social justice. The payoffs to achieving women's equality in leadership positions are too high to ignore. Women have distinct perspectives to contribute - and I don't mean to say that there is a single "woman's point of view" or leadership style - au contraire - people bring to decision making roles their life experiences, not simply their gender. But to leave out the diversity of women's leadership is to leave out an enormous pool of talent.

So, if you've read this far, I thank you and I invite you to join me on my soapbox. I want to see the next generation - my daughter's generation - put this Leadership Problem to rest.